Sitting of 13 December 1922

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

  STANDING ORDER 22.—(Consents in case of Tramways Bill.)
  In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a Tramway, the promoters shall obtain the consent of the local authority of the district or districts through which it is proposed to construct such Tramway, and where in any district there is a road authority distinct from the local authority, the consent of such road authority shall also be necessary in any case where power is sought to break up any road, subject to the jurisdiction of such road authority. For the purposes of this Order, in England, the local and road authorities shall be the local and road authorities for the purposes of "The Tramways Act, 1870," except that in the case of a rural district in England the rural district council shall be deemed to be the local authority, and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the district councils and the county councils respectively. Provided that where it is proposed to lay down a continuous line of Tramway in two or more districts, and any local or road authority having jurisdiction in any such districts does not consent thereto, the consents of the local and road authority, or the local and road authorities having jurisdiction over Two-thirds of the length of such proposed line of Tramway, shall be deemed to be sufficient.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move to leave out the words
  "and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the district councils and the county councils respectively."
  The Amendments I have to propose look very formidable on the Paper, but in practice they are not. They are purely consequential changes which are necessary owing to the establishment of the Irish Free State. In the Standing Orders relating to Private Business there are numerous references to Ireland, and owing to the passing of the new Irish Constitution Bill those have to be altered. At the beginning of the next Session the Standing Orders, on account of other changes, will have to be re-printed, and, if these changes were put off till next
  2894
  Session, they would twice have to be reprinted, thereby entailing unnecessary trouble and expense. The alterations have been very carefully prepared by the authorities of the House and the Private Bill Office, and it would be a great, saving if they could be passed without further discussion. At the same time, I must mention that some doubt has arisen with regard to two of them—Standing Orders 141 and 190. It appears possible that a real change might be made, and not a mere consequential alteration, if those two Amendments were now passed, and a conceivable injustice or inconvenience might be entailed to promoters of Private Bills, and therefore those two I do not move.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not desire to oppose any of these alterations, provided they are made in consequence of the new Constitution for the two parts of Ireland, but I took the trouble to go through the Standing Orders yesterday, and I was a little afraid there were at least two of them which rather went beyond the mere alterations necessary on the passing of the Irish Constitution. I gather my right hon. Friend is prepared not to move those two Amendments, and also to give an assurance that those he proposes to move are limited to taking out of the Standing Orders all references to Ireland. If that is so, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. HOPE: These alterations have been most carefully scrutinised. In two cases it appeared arguable that there might be a substantive change. Otherwise, I do not think there is anything but what was necessary and consequential on the passing of the Irish Act.
  Amendment agreed to.

  STANDING ORDER 24.—(Deposit of Plans, Books of Reference, and Sections with Clerks of the Peace.)
  In cases of Bills of the Second Class, a Plan and also a Duplicate thereof, together with a Book of Reference thereto, and a Section and also a Duplicate thereof, as hereinafter described, and in cases of Bills of the First Class, under the powers of which any lands or houses may be taken or used compulsorily, and in the case of all Bills by which any charge is imposed upon any lands or houses, or any lands or houses are rendered liable to have a charge imposed upon

  2895
  them in respect of any improvement, a Plan and Duplicate thereof, together with a Book of Reference thereto, shall be deposited for public inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Peace for every County, Riding, co-Division in England or Ireland, in or through which the Work is proposed to be made, maintained, varied, extended or enlarged, or in which such lands or houses are situate, on or before the 30th day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill; and in ….
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "in England or Ireland."

  STANDING ORDER 26b.—(Deposit in case of Bill affecting banks, etc., of river.)
  In cases where any work proposed to be authorised is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, or copy of so much of the Plans and Sections as relates to the portion of the work by which the banks, foreshore, or river-bed may be affected, shall, on or before the 30th day of November immediately preceding the Application for the Bill, be deposited—

  (1) if the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office, Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin;

  (2) if there be a Board of Conservators constituted for the conservancy of the river, at the Office also of such Board;

  Amendments made: Leave out paragraph (1).
  In paragraph (2), leave out the word "also."

  STANDING ORDER 29.—(Deposit in certain cases with certain Local Authorities.)
  Where, under the powers of any Bill, any work is intended to be made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged, or any lands or houses may be taken or used compulsorily, or an improvement charge may be imposed, a copy of so much of the said Plans and Sections as relates to any of the areas hereinafter mentioned, together with a copy of so much of the Book of Reference as relates to such area, shall, on or before the 30th day of November, be deposited with the Officer respectively hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, in th case of—
  (e) Any urban or rural district in Ireland, with the Clerk of the District Council.
  Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (e).

  STANDING ORDER 33.—Deposit of Private Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments.)
  On or before the 21st day of December, a printed copy shall be deposited—
  (3) Of every Local Bill relating to Scotland or Ireland, at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland or the Irish Office, as the case may be.
  (12) Of every Bill affecting Crown property, at the Office of the Commissioners of Woods, and if the property is in England at the Office of the Commissioners of Works, or, if the property is in Ireland, at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;
  Amendments made: In paragraph (3), leave out the words "or Ireland."
  Leave out the words "or the Irish Office as the case may be."
  In paragraph (12), leave out the words
  "or, if the property is in Ireland, at the Office of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."

  STANDING ORDER 38.—(Deposit of statement relating to working-class houses.)
  Where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as denned for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves or may involve the taking in that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Private Bill Office, and at the Office of the Central Authority, on or before the 21st day of December, a statement giving the description and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited Plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited Plans (if any) as relates thereto.
  This Order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
  For the purposes of tins Order the expression "local area" means—

  (1) as respects London the Administrative County of London:

  (2) as respects England and Wales (outside London), any borough, or other urban district, and elsewhere than in a borough or other urban district, any parish and

  (3) as respects Ireland, any urban district;

  The expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling;
  The expression "working class" means mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers,

  2897
  persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week, and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them;
  The expression "central authority" means, as regards England and Wales, the Ministry of Health, and as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland;
  The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "Central Authority" ["at the office of the Central Authority"], and insert instead thereof the words "Ministry of Health."
  In paragraph (1), at the end, insert the word "and."
  Leave out paragraph (3).
  Leave out the words
  "The expression 'central authority' means, as regards England and Wales, the Ministry of Health, and as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland."

  STANDING ORDER 57.—(Percentage to be deposited.)
  In the case of a Railway Bill or Tramway Bill, authorising the construction of works by other than an existing Railway Company or Tramway Company, incorporated by Act of Parliament, possessed of a railway or tramway already opened for public traffic, and which has during the year last past paid Dividends on its ordinary Share Capital, and which does not propose to raise under the Bill a Capital greater than its existing authorised Capital, a sum not less than Five per cent. on the amount of the Estimate of Expense, or in the case of substituted works, on the amount by which the expense thereof will exceed the expense of the works to be abandoned, and in the case of all Bills other than Railway Bills and Tramway Bills, a sum not less than Four per cent, on the amount of such Estimate, or of such excess as aforesaid, shall, previously to the 15th day of January, be deposited with the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, if the work is intended to be done in England, or with the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, or with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, if the work is intended to be done in Ireland.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words
  "or with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, if the work is intended to be done in Ireland."

  STANDING ORDER 61.—(Notices and Deposits where Work altered while Bill is in Parliament.)
  Whenever during the progress through the House of Lords of any Bill of the Second Class originating in that House, any alteration has been made in any work authorised by such Bill, proof shall be given before the Examiners that a Plan and Section of such alteration, on the same scale and containing the same particulars as the original plan and Section, together with a Book of Reference thereto, has been deposited in the Private Bill Office, and with the Clerk of the Peace of every County, Riding or Division in England or Ireland, and in the office of the Sheriff Clerk in every County in Scotland in which such alteration is proposed to be made, and, when any County in Scotland is for Sheriff Court purposes divided into districts, then also in the office of the Principal Sheriff Clerk in and for each district in which such alteration is proposed to be made, and that a copy of such Plan and Section, so far as relates to any of the areas mentioned in Standing Order 29, together with a Book of Reference thereto, has been deposited with the officers respectively mentioned in that Order, as the case may be, Two weeks previously to the introduction of the Bill into this House; and that the intention to make such alteration has been published previously to the introduction of the Bill into this House once in the London Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, as the case may be, and for Two successive weeks in some one and the same newspaper of the County in which such alteration is situate; and that application in writing, as nearly as may be in the form set forth in the Appendix, marked (a), was made to the Owners or reputed Owners, Lessees or reputed Lessees, or in their absence from the United Kingdom, to their Agents respectively, and to the Occupiers of Lands through which any such alteration is intended to be made; and the consent of such Owners or reputed Owners, Lessees or reputed Lessees, and Occupiers, to the making of such alteration, shall be proved before the Examiner. Compliance with this Order shall not be necessary in the case of alterations made on Petition for Additional Provision in the House of Lords.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "or Ireland" ["Riding or Division in England or Ireland"].
  After the word "London" ["London, Edinburgh or Dublin Gazette"] insert the word "or."
  Leave out the words "or Dublin."

  STANDING ORDER 62.—(Meeting of proprietors originating in case of certain Bills in this House.)
  Every Bill originating in this House, promoted by a Company already constituted by Act of Parliament, shall be referred to the Examiners, who shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following Order:

  2899
  The Bill, as introduced, or proposed to be introduced, in this House, shall be submitted to the proprietors of such Company at a meeting held specially for that purpose.
  Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks in some one and the same newspaper published in London, Edinburgh or Dublin, as the case may be, and in some one and the same newspaper of the county or counties in which the principal office or offices of the Company is or are situate;
  Amendments made: After the word "London" ["London, Edinburgh or Dublin"], insert the word "or."
  Leave out the words "or Dublin."

  STANDING ORDER 64.—(Meeting of Proprietors in case of certain Bills originating in House of Lords.)
  In the case of every Bill brought from the House of Lords in which provisions have been inserted in that House, empowering the Promoters thereof, being a Company already constituted by Act of Parliament, to execute, undertake, or contribute towards any work other than that for which it was originally established, or to sell or lease their undertaking, or any part thereof, or to enter into any agreements with any other Company for the working, maintenance, management, or use of the Railway or works of either Company, or any part thereof, or to amalgamate their undertaking, or any part thereof, with any other undertaking, or to purchase any other undertaking, or part thereof, or any additional lands, or to abandon their undertaking, or any part thereof, or to dissolve the said Company, or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill have been materially altered in that House, or in which any such powers are conferred on any Company not being the Promoters of the Bill, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following Order:
  The Bill, as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House, shall be submitted to the proprietors of any such Company, at a meeting held specially for that purpose.
  Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks in some one and the same newspaper published in London, Edinburgh or Dublin, as the ease may be, and in ….
  Amendments made: After the word "London," insert the word "or."
  Leave out the words "or Dublin."

  STANDING OEDEE 66.—(Consent of proprietors of any company to sum authorised to be raised in aid of undertaking of another company.)
  When any Bill originating in this House either as introduced into Parliament, or as
  2900
  amended, or proposed to be amended, on petition for additional provision, contains a provision authorising any Company incorporated by Act of Parliament, or any class of holders of share or loan capital in any such Company, to subscribe or to alter the terms or conditions of any subscription towards, or to guarantee or to raise any money in aid of the undertaking of another Company (which Bill is not brought in by the Company so authorised, or of which such Company is not a joint promoter), proof shall be required before the Examiner within five weeks of the date on which the Petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner, if such provision is contained in the Bill as introduced into Parliament, that the Company or the class of holders of share or loan capital so authorised has consented to such subscription, alteration, guarantee, or raising of money, at a meeting of the proprietors of the Company, or of any such class of holders of share or loan capital, as the case may be, held specially for that purpose, in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as the meeting directed to be held under Standing Order 64; and in case such provision is contained in the Bill as introduced into Parliament, that the Notices for the Bill state the specific sum, if any, proposed to be subscribed, or guaranteed or raised, or the alteration of the terms or conditions of the subscription, as the case may be, or in case such provision shall In proposed to be inserted in the Bill on a petition for additional provision that Notices stating the specific sum, if any, proposed to be subscribed, or guaranteed or raised or the alteration of the terms or conditions of the subscription, as the case may be, and stating that the consent of the Company, or of such class of holders of share or loan capital, has been given as aforesaid, have been published once in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, as the case may be, and in the County Newspapers in which the Notices for the Bill were published, for two successive weeks during the six weeks immediately preceding the presentation of such Petition for additional provision; in any case in which such consent has been given, it shall not be necessary to submit the Bill, in respect of such provision a aforesaid, to the approval of a meeting to be held in accordance with Standing Order 64.
  Amendments made: After the word "London" insert the word "or."
  Leave out the words "or Dublin."

  STANDING OEDEE 67.—(Provision as to Railway Bills charging Payments on Local Hate in Ireland.)
  Ordered, "That the Standing Order be repealed."

  STANDING ORDER 154.—(Limiting Ascent of Roads where Level is altered.)
  Where the level of any road shall be altered in making any Railway, the ascent of any Turnpike Road, or of any Road in Ireland,
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "or of any road in Ireland."

  STANDING ORDER 158.—(Limit of time for completion of line.)
  In every Railway Bill, Tramway Bill, and Subway Bill, whereby the construction of any new line of Railway, Tramway, or Subway is authorised, or the time for completing any line already authorised is extended, promoted by an existing Railway Company, Tramway Company, or Subway Company, which is possessed of a Railway, Tramway, or Subway already opened for public traffic, and which has, during the year last past, paid dividends on its ordinary share capital, and which does not propose to raise under the Bill a capital greater than its existing authorised capital, there shall be inserted a Clause to the following effect, viz.:
  (A.) If the Company fail within the period limited by this Act to complete the Railway or Tramway authorised to be made by this Act, the Company shad be liable to a penalty of 50 l. a day for every day after the expiration of the period so limited until the said Railway, Tramway, or Subway is completed and opened for public traffic, or until the sum received in respect of such penalty shall amount, to five per cent, on the estimated cost of the works; and the said penalty may be applied for by any landowner or other person claiming to be compensated or interested in accordance with the provisions of the next following Section of this Act, and in the same manner as the penalty provided in the 3rd Section of the Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, known as "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854," and every sum of Money recovered by way of such penalty as aforesaid shall be paid under the warrant or order of such Court or Judge as is specified in the said 3rd Section of the Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, to an account opened or to be opened in the name and with the privity of the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court in England, or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court in Ireland (according as the Railway, Tramway, or Subway is situate in England, or Ireland), in the bank named in such order, and shall not be paid thereout except as hereinafter provided; but no penalty shall accrue in respect of any time during which it shall appear, by a certificate to be obtained from the Ministry of Transport, that the Company was prevented from completing or opening such line by unforeseen accident or circumstances beyond their control: Provided, That the want of sufficient funds shall not be held to be a circumstance beyond their control.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words
  "or the Accountant General of the Supreme Court in Ireland (according as the Railway, Tramway, or Subway is situate in England, or Ireland)."

  STANDING ORDER 158a.—(Deposit to be impounded as security for completion of the Line.)
  In every Railway Bill, Tramway Bill, or Subway Bill whereby the construction of any new line is authorised, or the time for completing any line already authorised is extended; if such Bill be promoted by an existing Railway Company, Tramway Company, or Subway Company which is not possessed of a Railway, Tramway, or Subway already opened for public traffic, or which has not during the year last past paid dividends on its ordinary share capital; or by an existing Railway Company, Tramway Company, or Subway Company, when the capital, to be raised under the Bill is greater than the existing authorised capital of the Company, or by persons not already incorporated,, a clause to the following effect shall be inserted, viz.:—
  (B.) Whereas, pursuant to the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament, and to "The Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846," a sum of £, being five per cent. upon the amount of the Estimate in respect of the Railway or Tramway, authorised by this Act, has been deposited with the Court, that is to say, the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of" the Supreme Court in England, or the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court in Ireland, as the case may be; [or Exchequer Bills, Stocks, or Funds to the amount of £, have been deposited or transferred pursuant to the said Act. as the ease may be].
  (C.) If the Company do not, previously to the expiration of the period limited by this Act for the completion of the Railway [Tramway or Subway] hereby authorised to be made (or the time for completion which is hereby extended) complete the said Railway [Tramway or Subway] and open it for public traffic [or, if a passenger Railway, for the public conveyance of passengers], then and in every such case the deposit fund, or so much thereof as shall not have been paid to the depositors, or any sum of money recovered by way of penalty as afore said, shall be applicable, and, after due notice in the "London Gazette" or "Dublin Gazette," as the case may require.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (b) leave out the words "or the Accountant-Genpral of the Supreme Court in Ireland."
  In paragraph (c) leave out the words "or Dublin Gazette, as the case may require."

  STANDING OEDEE 173.—(Bills relating to-Local Government in Ireland.)
  Ordered, "That the Standing Order be repealed."

  STANDING OBDEB 175a.—(Report of Attorney-General in case of Bill affecting any charity or educational foundation in England or Ireland.)
  Notice in writing of any Bill relating to England or Ireland, and containing provisons whereby any application of the property of any charity not authorised by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, shall be directed, or the patronage or the constitution of any charity, or the right of any charity to any property, shall be affected, or setting up or taking power to set up or to take over or interfere in the management of any school or other educational foundation or institution, or to levy any rate or raise money for any such purpose, shall be given to the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, as the case may be, and no such Bill shall be taken into consideration by the Committee on the Bill until the House has received a report from the Attorney-General on such Bill, and such report shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, but this Standing Order shall not apply to a Bill for confirming a Provisional Order.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "or Ireland."
  Leave out the words "or Ireland, as the case may be."

  STANDING OEDER 184.—(Provisions with respect to houses occupied by working class in Ireland.)
  Ordered, "That the Standing Order be repealed."

  STANDING ORDER 186.—(Clause for Qualification of Commissioners.)
  Ordered, "That the Standing Order be repealed."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  East Lothian (Western District) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Address for "Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in the Thirty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet the 4th day of February, 1919, and dissolved the 26th day of October, 1922, specifying the names of the county, city, university, or place for which each Member was returned (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 183, of Session 1919)."—[Sir William Bull.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GREECE AND TURKEY (PRISONERS).
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the number of Greek military prisoners in the hands of the Turks, and Turkish military prisoners in the hands of the Greeks; and if he has any information through neutral sources as to how these prisoners are being treated?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have no authentic information regarding the numbers of Greek and Turkish military prisoners, or regarding the Turkish treatment of Hellenic Greek prisoners of war. It is, however, understood that the Ottoman Greeks who served in the Greek army during the war and have fallen into Turkish hands are being treated as traitors by the Turkish authorities. Against this the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople have protested. The Netherlands Minister at Athens, who is in charge of Turkish prisoners in Greece, informed His Majesty's Minister at Athens in September that the Turkish prisoners of war were being well treated by the Greek authorities.

  GREECE.

    OTTOMAN CHRISTIAN REFUGEES.
    Mr. HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the recent revelations in the correspondence of M. Gounaris prove that the Near Eastern policy of the late Coalition Government was partly responsible for the Greek disaster in Asia Minor, the present Government will consider sympathetically the destitute condition of the Greek refugees and the possibility of relieving their distress?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot accept the implication of the hon. and gallant Member as in any way accurate. His Majesty's Government are already considering with the utmost sympathy the fate of the Ottoman Christian refugees from Asia Minor and Thrace, and are fully aware of

    2905
    their deplorable condition. They have promised a grant of £50,000 to the League of Nations for refugee relief on condition that other countries contribute a similar amount, and £16,000 of this has already been paid. They have also spent some £52,000 on the charter of vessels for the removal of the refugees to places of safety, and granted £10,000 worth of surplus medical stores to British relief societies. In view of the financial stringency at home, His Majesty's Government are unable for the present to incur any further expenditure on behalf of refugees, who are not British subjects, but they are giving all possible support and encouragement to the voluntary organisations which are endeavouring to cope with the problem.

    EX-MINISTERS (TRIAL).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of statements made that the trial of the ex-Greek ministers was a travesty of justice and that M. Gounaris in particular was sentenced and executed without being given an opportunity to speak in his own defence, His Majesty's Government will lay before the House Mr. Lindley's Report of these proceedings?
    Mr. McNEILL: The full report by His Majesty's Legation at Athens on the proceedings which led to the execution of M. Gounaris and his colleagues has only just been received, and it is not yet possible to say whether it is suitable for laying before the House. The matter will be duly considered.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: If the Prime Minister decides to lay papers in reference to the near Eastern crisis, will those reports be included in them?
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    CORRESPONDENCE.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCYasked the Prime Minister whether a few days before the disaster to the Greek army in August the Cabinet Secretariat was inquiring as to whether the Greek army could possibly hold out through the winter; and, if so, whether it is his intention in future to use the members of the Cabinet Secretariat as the medium for such important communications to foreign Governments?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I presume that my Noble Friend is referring to the statement signed by Monsieur Chrussachi, which appeared in the Press of 8th December. The suggestion referred to is, I am informed, devoid of all foundation. The Cabinet Secretariat was not connected in any way with these proceedings, expressed no views on them, and made no inquiries at the Greek Legation. As regards the last part of the question, I have every reason to believe that work of this kind never has been done by the Cabinet Secretariat.

  EGYPT.

    ATTACKS ON BRITISH OFFICIALS.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government has yet paid any compensation to Colonel Piggott, of the Army Pay Corps, or to Mr. Brown, of the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture, for the murderous attacks made upon them?
    Mr. McNEILL: The two cases are not strictly analogous. That of Colonel Piggott is being dealt with by the military authorities in Egypt, whereas that of Mr. Brown has been taken up by Lord Allenby with the Egyptian Government. So far as I am aware, no compensation has yet been paid in either case by the Egyptian Government.

    ASSASSINATIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received detailed information as to the assassination of Hassan Pasha Abdel Razek and Ismail Bey Zohdi: and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
    Mr. McNEILL: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    COASTGUARD.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the new Order in Council regarding the disposal of the old force

    2907
    coastguard is creating a feeling of unrest amongst the men concerned; and what steps he proposes to take to compensate the men for loss of prospects and discontinuance of service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Mon-sell): This matter is under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman use any influence with the Board of Trade to see that these displaced coastguard ratings are given preference for the new work in the Customs?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Yes.

    SEA POWER.
    Mr. BECKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the statements from the United States of America that they are going to build the most powerful Navy in the world by building smaller ships than those specified in the Washington Treaty; and what steps he intends to take to see that this country does not lose its sea supremacy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have seen a report in the Press on this subject. No restriction is placed on the contracting powers as to the number of war vessels they may build in conformity with Articles XI and XII of the Washington Treaty. As regards the latter part of the question, the hon. Member can rely upon the Admiralty to scrutinise carefully the actual building programmes of other Powers with a view to the safeguarding of our naval position.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In what formula is British sea supremacy now expressed?
    Mr. AMERY: Equality with any other Power.

    ARMAMENT CREWS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. SNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, during the War, most necessary and valuable service was rendered to the nation by the naval armament sea-going crews engaged in carrying ammunition in the North Sea, the Irish Channel, and the different naval bases; and, in view of the fact that this work was of a specially dangerous nature, will he consider the possibility of some remunerative recog-
    2908
    nition being granted to the crews thus engaged, inasmuch as they were the only Government employés at sea to whom no such recognition has been granted?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty, while fully appreciating the good services of the crews referred to, do not feel that there are adequate grounds for granting pecuniary recognition for those services, additional to the special war risk allowance which was paid during the War for service whether at sea or in harbour. I would further refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 8th June, 1921, to the hon. Member for Devonport.
    Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the crews who were engaged on this work have been granted the War medal?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: If they had continuous service of 28 days, they were granted the War medal.

    PRIZE MONEY AND CLASPS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is anticipated that the payment of prize money to those entitled will be completed; whether, when the payment has been completed, steps will be taken to resume the issue of clasps to those entitled to them; whether those entitled are allowed to provide clasps at their own expense should they so desire; and how can anyone ascertain what clasps they are entitled to?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Notices calling for the final batches of claims to prize money were issued on the 9th December, and the resultant applications are being dealt with as rapidly as possible. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the answer given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th July.

    NEW BATTLESHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what firms the principal contracts have been awarded in connection with the building of the two new capital ships; and what will be the total cost of the ships?
    Lieut.-Colonel STOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the

    2909
    contracts for the two battleships about to be constructed will be placed on the basis of the lowest tender, or whether other considerations will be taken into account; and, if so, will he state what the considerations are, so that shipbuilders on the Mersey may be given an equal chance with builders at other ports?
    Mr. AMERY: The two lowest tenders for the battleships have been accepted. One ship will be built on the Tyne by Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth and Company, the machinery being made by the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company. The other will be built by Cammell, Laird and Company, on the Mersey. As regards the total cost, I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, on the 7th December, to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).
    Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the money for the building of these two ships is obtained by means of a capital levy?

    FOREIGN SERVICE COMMISSIONS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's ships which commissioned for foreign service prior to the Admiralty Order extending commissions to three years will remain in commission for the revised period or pay off after two years?
    Mr. AMERY: It is not intended to apply the revised period in its entirety to ships commissioned before the date of the Order. It is necessary, however, in order to spread the recommissionings over the longer period, to lengthen existing commissions in proportion to the period unexpired. Thus the commission of a ship already well into the second year of her commission will be lengthened by much less than the one only recently commissioned.

    WARRANT WRITERS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the warrant writers who were recently withdrawn from capital ships have been replaced by a direct entry accountant officer in addition to a chief writer?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No, Sir.

    SUMMARY PUNISHMENT.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any Regulations exist whereby the summary punishment awarded to a Naval rating who appeals under the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 2, of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions can be suspended pending the result of the appeal?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no specific Regulation for the suspension of a punishment in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, but suspension is permitted at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty by Section 53 (1) of the Naval Discipline Act.
    Sir B. FALLE: Do the Board receive notice of punishment before it is carried out?
    Mr. AMERY: The Board receive notice at the earliest possible moment.

    H.M.S. "VICTORY."
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what sum has been raised up to date for the preservation of H.M.S. "Victory"; whether His Majesty's Government is assisting in this regard, and, if so, to what extent; and whether any time limit has been fixed as to the requisite sum being obtained?
    Mr. AMERY: So far as I am aware, no statement has yet been issued as to the progress of the "Save the 'Victory' Fund," which was only inaugurated a few weeks ago. I think it is premature, therefore, to raise points such as those dealt with in the question. I am glad to take this opportunity, however, of commending the fund to all Members who are interested in the Navy, and of begging them to do their utmost to support it.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of officers and others borne on the active list of the navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain to-day; and when the Washington Treaty is ratified by all the Powers concerned respectively?
    Mr. AMERY: As the answer is in tabular form, I propose, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the ships which form a subject-matter of this Treaty, and which belong to this country, have actually been broken up before the Treaty is ratified?
    Viscount CURZON: Are the figures relating to this country final figures, or will they be subject to any revision in the future?
    Mr. AMERY: I answered the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) a few days ago. In regard to the second supplementary, we are carrying out already the additional reductions consequent upon the Washington Treaty.
    The answer is as follows:
    (a) The present position, according to the latest information available is as follows:—

    Great Britain.*

    U.S.A.†

    Japan.

    Officers

    8,497

    10,700

    7,739

    Petty officers and men.

    93,410

    105,500

    67,714

    Total

    101,907

    116,200

    75,453

    * Including Marines, but excluding Coastguard and Royal Marine Police.

    †Includes Marines.

    (b) Presuming the Treaty is ratified by the early spring of 1923, the position will be:—
    Great Britain.—Excluding Coastguard and Marine Police, numbers will be reduced to approximately 98,500, including Marines, by 31st March, 1923. Of these, between 7,000 and 8,000 will be officers.
    United States of America.—No alteration in present numbers is anticipated.
    Japan.—The total personnel is to be reduced to about 69,000 in the New Year. Of these, between 6,000 and 7,000 will be officers.
    Mr. MORELasked the Prime Minister, seeing that no date is specified in the Treaty on the limitation of armaments signed at Washington in February last, on which the Treaty should be ratified, what is the view of His Majesty's Government as to the period within which such ratifications should take place in order to give effect to the Treaty; whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the view of the United States on this point; whether non-ratifiation by one of the signatory Powers will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as involving the abandonment of the Treaty; and if His Majesty's Government has been in consultation with the Government of the United States as to the views which that Government would adopt in the event of non-ratification by one of the signatory Powers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no definite limit of time in mind as representing the period within which the Washington Treaties must be ratified. Nor, so far as I am aware, have the United States Government. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government cannot regard without grave disappointment the continued delay in the ratification of the Treaties by two of the signatory Powers. I think it premature to take into consideration what the action of His Majesty's Government might be in a hypothetical situation which I sincerely trust will not arise.

  HOUSING.

    ASSISTED SCHEMES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, how many houses have still to be allocated to local authorities under the late Government's restricted assisted housing schemes under the Housing Act of 1919; and on what basis will they be distributed, and how soon?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): Except in so far as small adjustments on existing approvals may allow a few more houses to be allocated, there are no further houses to be allocated under the restricted housing scheme.
    Mr. THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Labour, informed himself, as Minister of Health, that there are over 18,000 building operatives out of work, and would it not be to the advantage of the Ministry of Labour that these men should be drawing wages instead of unemployment pay?
    21. The hon. Member further asked what were the proposals made by the late Minister of Health for enabling local authorities to make further provision of houses on completion of the late Government's programme under their assisted housing scheme of 1919?
    Sir M. BARLOW: No, Sir. The proposals in question, with others, are under the consideration of the Government.
    HON. MEMBERS: When will it be ready?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I hope at the earliest possible moment.
    Captain BENN: Will it be ready at once? Does "the earliest possible moment" mean next year?
    Sir M. BARLOW: It means precisely what it says.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he can state the number of houses allocated under the State-assisted housing scheme to local authorities in each town having a population of 200,000 and upwards?
    Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information the hon. Member desires.
    The following is the statement promised:

    London County Council

    9,105

    City of London

    316

    Metropolitan Borough Councils

    5,408

    14,829

    Birmingham

    3,234

    Bradford

    948

    Bristol

    1,191

    Cardiff

    1,169

    Kingston-on-Hull

    567

    Leeds

    3,330

    Leicester

    764

    Liverpool

    …

    …

    …

    5,784

    Manchester

    …

    …

    …

    3,900

    Newcastle-on-Tyne

    …

    …

    …

    1,101

    Nottingham

    …

    …

    …

    1,470

    Plymouth

    …

    …

    …

    740

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    …

    543

    Salford

    …

    …

    …

    614

    Sheffield

    …

    …

    …

    2,375

    Stoke-on-Trent

    …

    …

    …

    545

    West Ham

    …

    …

    …

    166

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    43,270

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether, having regard to the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Kerr v. Bride, he is aware that large numbers of English property owners will very shortly be placed in the same difficult position as that which now obtains in Scotland, and that in the early part of next year tenants affected by this decision will be faced with heavy outstanding arrears of rent; and whether he will by every practical means accelerate the deliberations of the Rent Restrictions Committee so that legislation may be introduced at the earliest possible day in the next Session of Parliament?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on Thursday, the 30th November, to a similar question by the, hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner).

    RATES AND TAXES.
    Mr. DARBISHIREasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he will, with a view to stimulate the building trade and to bring about the reconstruction of slum property, promote legislation which will relieve all buildings and improvements from rates and taxes for a period of 10 years?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given on the 4th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
    Mr. J. DAVISON: What financial assistance does the Government propose to allocate for this purpose1?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF STATISTICS.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, the total number of able-bodied persons in receipt of relief for the months of September and October in the years 1914 and 1922, and the amount of the same?
    Sir M. BARLOW: No figures based on the classification "able-bodied" and "not able-bodied" are now available for the periods specified. The statistics available show that the average number of persons (men, women, and children) in receipt of Poor Law relief in their own homes in England and Wales on account of unemployment was in September, 1922, 809,300 and in October, 1922, 838,600, and that the Poor Law relief given to them amounted to £182,000 per week in September and to £198,000 per week in October. No precisely comparable figures are available for the months of September, 1914, and October, 1914; but the number of persons in receipt of out-door relief on account of unemployment was then very small.
    Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of these tremendous figures, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his refusal to allow local authorities to proceed with work under the Unemployment Grants Committee?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I know of no such refusal.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers of boards of guardians visit the Unemployment Exchanges and claim money due in unemployment benefits to men who have received poor relief? Is that done with his approval?
    Sir M. BARLOW: There is an arrangement made whereby a liaison exists between the boards of guardians and the authorities who dispense unemployment benefit, and a very proper liaison, to see that money is not paid twice over.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is that done with the consent of the unemployed persons, who are entitled to independent poor relief?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Where it is a question of covenanted benefit, that is another matter, but a large amount of this benefit is being paid on the uncovenanted side.

    INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons employed in the constructive industries, that is to say, in those industries mainly engaged in the production of capital goods, e.g., building, metal, engineering and shipbuilding trades; the percentage unemployed in those industries on the latest date for which the figures are available; and also the corresponding figures for all other industries, that is to say, the industries engaged in the production of goods for immediate consumption and in distribution and transport?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Detailed information of this character, covering over 60 industries, is published monthly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," a copy of the latest issue of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

    APPEALS FROM UMPIRE (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of having Scottish appeal cases under the Unemployment Insurance Act for decision by the Umpire heard in Scotland instead of in London, in order to lessen the expense of such appeals to those claiming to have their cases decided by the Umpire?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The first appeal under the Unemployment Insurance Acts is to the Courts of Referees, which are local bodies, and questions of fact, which alone require any volume of evidence, are in practice determined by these Courts. The number of appeals from the Courts of Referees to the Umpire in Scottish cases is not large enough to justify the appointment of a separate Umpire for dealing with them. If a separate Umpire were appointed, there would obviously be a risk of conflicting decisions, and I am not aware that any serious inconvenience is caused by the existing arrangements.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Does not the fact that, individuals have to come from Scotland to London account for the small number of cases?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The Board of Referees is the local body to test the evidence of facts. They sit locally. That answers my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent case decided by the umpire it cost £50 to come from Leith to London and to bring witnesses?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I was not aware of that fact. I will look into it. On occasions the umpire has heard cases in the provinces.

    BENEFITS (GAP SYSTEM).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many men will come under the gap system in payment of unemployment insurance benefits during Christmas week; and whether something pan be done to avoid this hardship to the men and their families at this time of the year?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Member for Rochdale, in which it is explained that no "gap" period arises at Christmas.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain men who will come under the gap regulation, which Will end just before Christmas, so that they will spend that week without anything at all?
    Sir M. BARLOW: It has been my business to inquire into that very carefully, and I assure my hon. Friend that I think that that is not so. If he likes to consult me afterwards I will give my reasons.

    SHIPWRECKED SAILORS.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Labour whether sailors who have been shipwrecked and paid off in a foreign port are regarded as not qualified for unemployment benefit until they have been 14 days in the United Kingdom, although in many cases two months or more may have elapsed from the date on which the men last received any wages
    2918
    until they arrive at a home port; and, if so, whether he will take whatever steps are necessary to secure that these men shall be entitled to claim benefit on their arrival?
    Sir M. BARLOW: A claim to unemployment benefit cannot be made until the seaman reaches the United Kingdom, and under the Unemployment Insurance Acts a waiting period of six days—not 14 days as stated in the question—must then be served before benefit can become due. I will consider whether there is any power under the Acts to enable benefit to become payable from the date of arrival in the United Kingdom in the class of cases referred to.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shipwrecked sailors are not under pay while coming home and that sometimes two months may have elapsed since they received their last pay? Is he also aware of the fact that the shipowners of the country are in sympathy with this proposal, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould) to whom I spoke about it to-day?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am glad to hear of that co-operation, but I would remind the hon. Member that my powers in this and all other questions of administration with regard to unemployment insurance are limited by Statute. I promise that I will look into the matter sympathetically and see what I can do.

    SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour the total amount of unemployed insurance paid out in Sheffield from the commencement to the last week in November, 1922, and what proportion has been paid to women; and the average number of men and women, respectively, receiving payment during each period of four weeks since the commencement, and the average total amount of such payment to men and to women, respectively?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The total amount of unemployment benefit paid out in Sheffield from 8th November, 1920, to the end of November, 1922, otherwise than through Associations, is £2,075,314. A statement, showing the amount paid month by month, will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not possible, without very considerable labour, to ascertain the sums repaid in respect of

    2919
    Sheffield branches of associations having arrangements under Section 17, or to distinguish between payments made to men and women respectively.
    Following in the statement supplied:

    Calendar month.

    Amount of benefit paid.

    £

    November, 1920

    …

    …

    …

    4,659

    December, 1920

    …

    …

    …

    8,443

    January, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    10,830

    February, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    18,453

    March 1921

    …

    …

    …

    34,808

    April, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    85,303

    May, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    138,049

    June, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    147,046

    July, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    101,776

    August, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    66,524

    September, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    60,328

    October, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    41,806

    November, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    63,911

    December, 1921

    …

    …

    …

    126,860

    January, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    117,959

    February, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    115,508

    March, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    142,783

    April, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    93,407

    May, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    112,056

    June, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    84,137

    July, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    100,988

    August, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    116,279

    September, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    107,056

    October, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    82,897

    November, 1922

    …

    …

    …

    93,448

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    £2,075,314

    WOMEN (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Prime Minister what the Government proposes to do for the 22,937 women who are unemployed in Scotland; and is there any relief work likely to be provided?
    Captain BENNasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the number of unemployed women for whom work will be found by the Government schemes proposed; and whether he is aware that in Scotland alone there are at the present moment over 22,000 women out of work?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply. I cannot add anything to the
    2920
    answer given on the 11th December to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dundee.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night?

    WOMEN FISHWORKESS.
    Mr. FREDERICK MARTINasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to exempt seasonal women fish-workers from the Unemployment Insurance Acts, as it is impossible for them to receive any benefits thereunder?
    Sir M. BARLOW: As pointed out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on the 6th December, it is not correct to say that these fish-curers can never qualify for unemployment benefit. I would add that if they are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood upon some other person, or on some non-insurable employment, they may, on application, obtain certificates exempting them—but not their employers—from payment of unemployment insurance contributions. This provision would appear to meet any cases of hardship that might otherwise arise.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is it not a fact that it is practically impossible for these women workers to get any benefit from that scheme to which they are compelled to contribute, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that is fair?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member, as I have indicated in my answer.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that very few of these women have work for 20 weeks in any one year, and is it not on that account almost impossible for them to receive any benefit?

    WAGE EARNERS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated total of wage earners in Great Britain, including those for the moment unemployed, and, approximately, how many of these have never been involved in an industrial dispute; and which are the trades most free from such disputes?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I regret that there are no statistics showing the total number of wage earners in Great Britain at the present time. It is estimated, however, on the basis of such information as is available, that the total number of wage earners and small salary earners is in the neighbourhood of 16 millions. It is not possible to say how many of these have never been involved in an industrial dispute. With regard to the last part of the question, I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for January and November, 1922, in which he will find recorded such recent information as is available.

    VACCINATION.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether, in the case of an epidemic of small-pox, as at present, it is the policy of his Department to encourage the precaution of vaccination?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Yes, Sir.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: As representing the Ministry of Health, and to set a good example, has the right hon. Gentleman himself been subjected to vaccination?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the Ministry of Health taken any steps to consider the advisability of merging the system of vaccination into the general system of public health administration in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Labour whether the promises made by the late Ministry that preference be given to ex-service men, to the extent of 75 per cent, on unemployment schemes financed by the Unemployment Grants Committee, still obtains?
    Sir M. BARLOW: One of the conditions imposed by the Unemployment Grants Committee is that at least 75 per cent. of the labour employed on schemes assisted by them shall be ex-service men.
    2922
    The Committee have power to modify this condition, but only when this is clearly necessary in the circumstances of the particular case.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard seamen who served during the War on transport vessels under the Admiralty as coming within the category of ex-service men?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The definition has been under consideration, but I cannot charge my memory to say whether the definition as interpreted includes them. I will have it looked up if my hon. Friend desires it.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Are the 75 per cent. of ex-service men, when so employed, paid at the trade union rate of wages?
    Sir M. BARLOW: They are employed on the regular rules.

    KING'S ROLL OF HONOUR.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he will give the House the names of the local authorities who are not on the King's Roll?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not sure that the course suggested will further the object we have in view, and before coming to a decision I propose to await the advice of the King's Roll National Council, which, as the hon. Member is aware, is now being set up.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last 12 or 18 months I have received similar answers from the Minister of Labour, and has not the time arrived to know who the local authorities are?
    Mr. SULLIVAN: We should press for this because I am quite certain that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed in the supplementary question. I have already explained that I think it desirable that one more effort should be made in the direction of voluntary co-operation, to see what can be done.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if that final effort be not successful, the names will be published?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The action to be taken will depend largely on the recommendation of the King's Roll National Council.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Labour whether, in accordance with the recommendation made by the late Minister, steps are being taken to provide that upon all new works for which guarantees are given under the Trade Facilities Act arrangements are being made for the employment of at least 75 per cent. ex-service men?
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the large number of clerical workers now out of employment, he will take steps to bring to the notice of the corporations or companies receiving guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act, and the authorities administering the unemployment grants, the desirability of employing, so far as is possible, these unemployed workers in carrying out the extra clerical work involved in carrying out the sanctioned schemes?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am afraid it would not be practicable to attach conditions of this kind to guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether there is any limitation to the number of insured persons on a panel doctor's list; what is the average amount of remuneration received by doctors on the panel list; and whether, on the whole, insured persons are receiving the same consideration and attention as private patients?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The limit of the number of insured persons whom an insurance practitioner may have on his list is fixed for each area jointly by the Insurance Committee and the Medical Panel Committee. No practitioner working single-handed may have more than 3,000 persons on his list, and in a considerable number of areas a lower maximum of 2,500 or 2,000 has been fixed. Taking the country
    2924
    as a whole, the average number of insured persons per doctor is approximately 1,000 and the corresponding remuneration, including mileage payments, would be slightly less than £500 a year. Insurance practitioners are expected to give the same standard of treatment, within the scope of their terms of service, to insured persons as they would to private patients.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he will state the procedure which can be adopted by insured persons who receive medical attention from their own private doctor to obtain a return of that portion of their insurance contribution which is allocated for the purposes of treatment by panel doctors?
    Sir M. BARLOW: An insured person who desires to be treated by a practitioner not under agreement with an Insurance Committee may apply to the Insurance Committee for the area in which he resides for permission to make his own arrangements. If permission is granted a contribution will be made by the Committee towards the cost of the treatment so obtained. The Insurance Committee has full discretion in considering applications of this nature. There is no provision in the Acts for any reduction in the contribution payable by or in respect of an insured person on the ground that he does not take advantage of the arrangement made under these Acts to provide him with medical treatment.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (SURPLUS).
    Viscount EDNAMasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, the present total disposable surplus of approved societies; and what grants, if any, are being made from this surplus to those hospitals which have, at considerable pecuniary loss, undertaken the treatment of their members?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The total disposable surplus of approved societies and branches in England disclosed as the result of the first valuation was about £8,000,000, the major portion of which the members elected to take in the form of an increase of the ordinary cash benefits. Of the balance a sum of £950,596 has been allocated by certain societies for payments to hospitals and convalescent homes during the period from July, 1921, to July, 1926.

    ALIENS RESTKICTTON ACT.
    Mr. C0LLISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is considering the extension of the operations of the Clauses in the Aliens Restriction Act expiring on 23rd December, which excludes enemy aliens from this country without special permits?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As I explained on the 27th ultimo in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division (Sir H. Nield), I have full powers to exclude enemy aliens without further legislation.
    Mr. COLLISON: Is it not a fact that the increase in the number of residential aliens in this country during the past year may add to the burden of unemployment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that that is a fact, but I am trying to get the figures. The withdrawal of Clause 10 cannot make any difference so long as the powers which I have under the Order are properly administered.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that when this Order is withdrawn the number of ex-enemy aliens will not increase?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give an assurance of that kind because there may be ex-enemy aliens who want to come here for special purposes, schoolmasters and others, but I have assured my noble Friend again and again that I have ample powers to exclude not only ex-enemy aliens but all aliens, if he can show me cases in which they should be excluded.

    POOR LAW OFFICIALS, SOUTH SHIELDS.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that the guardians of the South Shields union are proposing to reduce the bonuses of the sub-officials to a point far below the Civil Service scale, to which scale the officials are bound to abide by contract with the guardians; and will he have inquiries made into this matter?
    Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend is sending to the hon. Member a copy of a letter written to the guardians in this matter. He understands that the guardians are not willing to refer the question to arbitration, and there is no further action which he can take.

    NURSES' REGISTRATION ACT, 1919.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that in the present first election by registered nurses in England and Wales, of their direct representatives on the General Nursing Council as provided for in the Nurses' Registration Act, 1919, the Chairman of the Council, Sir Wilmot Herringham, did not send any voting papers until 1st December, and then omitted to send them to 1,000 or more nurses, about one-tenth of the whole electorate, and that protests on this matter were made to the Chairman of the General Nursing Council on the 4th instant, pointing out that as voting papers could not be accepted after noon on the 8th instant, it would be a postal impossibility for hundreds of nurses throughout the country to receive and return them by that date; and whether he will declare the present election to be null and void and cause fresh voting papers to be sent to all registered nurses entitled by law to vote, allowing one month for the return of such papers, as was done in the nurses' election in Scotland?
    Sir M. BARLOW: As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for South-West St. Pancras on the 6th December. The Returning Officer has already given directions for the issue of new ballot papers, and my right hon. Friend has asked that a longer period should be given for the return of voting papers than the minimum provided by the rules. In view, however, of the fact that the term of office of the present Council comes to an end on the 23rd December it would not be practicable to allow so long a period as the hon. Member suggests without unduly delaying the completion of the new Council.

    GERMAN TERRITORY (OCCUPATION).
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Prime Minister whether, if in the period between the rising of Parliament and its reassembling in the new year there should be an occupation by France of the Ruhr Valley or a general widening of the present area of occupation in Germany, he will advise His Majesty immediately to call Parliament together in order to decide upon the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the statement which I made yesterday on this subject, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Aber-avon.

    CABINET (PRINTED PAPERS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister how many printed papers are, on the average, circulated to the Cabinet each week; whether any system of marking that will indicate the relative importance of such papers is used; and what steps are taken to ensure that all members of the Cabinet read such papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider taking some steps to ensure that important documents are read by Ministers? Has he considered the forming of a list of Ministers and each Minister being compelled to sign that he has read such and such a document, as is done in the Army and Navy every day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If it be done in the Army and Navy, the number of documents cannot be so large. I know of no means of discipline by which I, or any other Prime Minister, can compel Ministers to read any document.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the number of printed papers circulated every week? Are they 20 or 10 or any other number?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that this is the place for a question which is entirely confined to the Cabinet to be dealt with in this kind of way.

    SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the failure of the Government to provide adequate means for dealing with unemployment and the consequent hardship and privation arising therefrom, many Members are opposed to the proposed arrangements whereby the House will be prorogued for some weeks from Friday next: whether, under these circumstances, he will agree to the House continuing in Session until such time as some means has been found for relieving the distress; and will he consider giving the House an opportunity of discussing the advisability of making a financial grant of £10,000,000 in aid of districts most heavily stricken by unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very great indignation indeed against what is considered to be the callous indifference both of this House and of Ministers in dealing with the question of the unemployed?
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has in mind the assurances given by him to the country prior to the Election, that, the burden of unemployment would be cast upon trade and industry, and whether, in view of the impossibility of maintaining anything like a standard of decency or efficiency upon the present unemployment allowance, he will see his way to extend the Session so as to provide some increased benefit for the unemployed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As my right hon. Friend has put it, I do not recognise any of my speeches in his statement. But I would put it to him that we do mean to do our utmost for unemployment, and that the sitting of Parliament is not in itself an assistance in getting the work done.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what way, other than by the sitting of Parliament, it is possible to increase the benefit to which he made reference in his Election speeches?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot admit that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that I have ever made any

    2929
    such statement as he attributes to me. Perhaps I may explain. I did make a general reference to my belief that in the end the best system of dealing with unemployment would be a general system of unemployment insurance, borne largely by the industries.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the working classes in the Central Division of Glasgow believed that his return to this House would mean an immediate tackling of the unemployment question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes, and they were right.
    Mr. MAXTON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate the matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister has said in answer to A question by mc—[Interruption]—that the unemployed in the Central Division of Glasgow were right in believing that he was going to do something immediately for their benefit. I want to know what it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer, answer!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to insist, Mr. Speaker. I stand for business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I am not going to sit down. I want to ask a very plain question, and I want to do so in all deference to you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should know that he must not be on his feet at the same time as the Speaker.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I know that, but the issue is so serious.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must have regard for the authority of the Chair.
    Mr. J. JONES: Why do not hon. Members opposite respect us?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter cannot now be debated.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I do not want to debate the matter. All I want is—[Interruption.]
    Mr. J. JONES: You (pointing to the Government side) start howling, and we will howl back.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR rose again—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must respect the authority of the Chair.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: So I do. All I want to ask is whether this blackguardism—[Interruption].
    Mr. LANSBURY: You are a nice lot howling down men who come here to help the unemployed.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want constitutionalism and respectful attention to the serious issue of the unemployed. If the Government refuse to move, it is something that the people will not stand. There must be a facing of this business.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is seeking now to continue a debate.
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hogge.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask Question No. 49.
    Lieut-Colonel LANE-FOX rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer? Bonar Law!
    Mr. LANSBURY: We want to know from the Prime Minister what he has done for the unemployed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] You have done nothing, and you said you did something. [HON. MEMHKRS: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down. You have done nothing for the unemployed, and you know very Well that nothing is being done. [Interruption.] We do not care two-pence for you.
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Mr. Speaker, if you are in authority in this House, then it is your duty to call on that man there, who is Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow—and who pledged himself that he would see to the remedying of unemployment in this country. A question has been put to him, and he has evaded it. He is here this morning, and he is the chief and in charge. Let him face the issue, and tell us what he has done. He has done nothing to justify his existence except for his pronouncement about tranquillity and peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

    2931
    It is in his bed he ought to be. [Interruption.] It is no use to us; it is no use to the British Empire. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh, oh!"] He ought to resign, and let somebody who has got some intelligence and some energy and some initiative to lead the people—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "We must debate it now!"]
    An HON. MEMBER: There is not going to be much sleep for the cowards on those benches.
    Mr. MAXTON: Tell us what you are going to do. I do not want to make trouble in the House. I want to obey your ruling, Sir.
    Mr. MARCH: Are we not entitled to an answer as to what the Prime Minister has done?
    Mr. McENTEE: On a point, of Order. Arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister, I rose to ask a supplementary question, but sat down because you asked me to do so. You allowed two supplementary questions to be put after that. I think, Sir, you ought to allow me to put that supplementary question. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to go before an audience in Glasgow now, and tell them what he has told this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter which arises here.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We want an answer. The Prime Minister says he did something. What is it? [Interruption.]
    Mr. MARCH: Surely, Sir, the Prime Minister can give a reply. He says the people are right; cannot he tell us what is right?
    Mr. WEIR: Would it not be proper that the Prime Minister should answer the question? It would make for order?
    Mr. SPEAKER(who had remained standing): Hon. Members have said they intend to respect and obey the Chair—
    Mr. J. JONES: We want the Prime Minister to do the same.
    HON. MEMBERS: And respect the House and the country.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: And respect his promises.
    Mr. JONES: He got votes under false pretences.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I mast ask hon. Members to respect the Chair. The person in the Chair has been put there by the House itself, to carry out the orders of the House. I am quite sure that hon. Members will support the Chair.
    Mr. MAXTON: No. it is not fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I have no quarrel with Mr. Speaker. I have as much respect for Mr. Speaker as any Member, but on an appeal of this sort, I am not going to have it. We are not fighting you, Sir, but the Front Government Bench.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We are not going to be sent home, with you (the Prime Minister) telling the unemployed you have done something which you have not done.
    Mr. MARCH: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he did?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to answer what I understand to be the question, that is. What have we done? We have explained our proposals at great length; they have been debated at great length, and how can it possibly be expected that, in answer to a question, I could give a reply which hon. Members would accept, if they have not accepted it when explained in Debate?
    Mr. SHIN WELL: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the early hours of this morning the House was compelled to consider proposals relating to unemployment relief and cognate subjects, and that the Closure was applied at a time when hon. Members on this side were endeavouring to put forward constructive proposals which might have assisted the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I told the hon. Member this morning that ii is not open to hon. Members to criticise the action of the House.
    Mr. HARDIE: As a voter in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman in Glasgow, I wish to ask him if he has no memory regarding a speech made by him on the first night he arrived in Glasgow when, dealing with the unemployment

    2933
    question, in St. Andrew's Hall, he said the first business and the first duty of the nation on the industrial side was to deal with unemployment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have a perfect recollection of it, and I understand the complaint is that I have deceived people into voting for me. I would like to say, in reply to that, I have tried to deal with it. We have explained our policy over and over again in the House, and it is quite obvious—whether hon. Members consider that adequate or not—that they cannot get a more definite reply at a time of question and answer.

    MINERS' WAGES (STIRLINGSHIRE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether miners in the Stirling shire area are only receiving 20s. to 35s. for a five-day week, while unemployed men are receiving 40s. per week from the parish councils; and whether the Government, under such conditions, propose to take action of any kind in relation to the mining industry?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I have been asked to reply. If the hon. Member refers to adult miners he has been misinformed. The subsistence wage agreement now current in Scotland ensures, generally speaking, a minimum, not a maximum, of 7s. a shift. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question asked by the hon. Member for Peebles on Monday.

    CHILDREN (LEGITIMATION).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there has been no revision of the law in England regarding illegitimacy since 1873; that several countries, including Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, many States of America and Australia, and particularly Norway, have had in existence for some time laws of an ameliorative character regulating the treatment of the unmarried mother and her child; that the neglect and ill-treatment of an unmarried mother and her child tends to increase prostitution, poverty, crime, and disease; and whether, seeing that the number of ille-
    2934
    gitimate births shows no sign of decreasing and that the mortality amongst illegitimate is double that of legitimate-born children, he will undertake to introduce a Bill to amend the Bastardy Acts on the lines of the Norwegian laws?
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to provide for the legitimation of children born out of wedlock upon the subsequent marriage of their parents?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement on these subjects at present.

    FRANCHISE.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Article 14 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act provides that all citizens of the Free State, without distinction of sex, shall have the right to vote for the Free State Parliament at the age of 21; and, in view of the unanimous approval given to such Measure by this House, will the Government introduce a Bill next Session which will concede the same right to all men and women in Great Britain at the age of 21?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. LUNN: What justification is there for hesitating to concede the same civic rights to persons in Great Britain as those which have been conceded to persons in the Irish Free State?
    The PRIME MINISTER: What the suffrage arrangements should be is a question for the people of Great Britain, and does not depend on what is done elsewhere.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that there are a far greater number of women than men—[Interruption.]

    RUSSIA (BRITISH CAPITAL).
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister what is the present position of the agreement between Krupps and the Soviet Government for the exploitation of wheat areas in South-West Russia; whether

    2935
    British financiers are now being invited to subscribe a large part of the capital; and whether the Government will use its influence with British financiers in the interest of the development of resources in British lands overseas in preference to foreign lands?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that an agreement has been signed between the representatives of Krupps and the Russian Government, but that it has not yet been ratified. As regards the second part of the question, I believe that attempts have been made to raise in this country a part of the capital required. The last part of the question raises issues of policy which can hardly be dealt with completely in the form of question and answer.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. DUNNICOasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that there is considerable uneasiness in the minds of the public by reason of carelessness on the part of certain authorities whose duty it is to prevent the spread of small-pox; and that, in addition to the ease at Poplar workhouse where a man suffering from this disease was permitted to mingle freely with the other inmates for a fortnight, thereby infecting many other persons, that a well-known school was closed on account of an outbreak of smallpox, but that no steps were taken to trace the contacts or to notify the respective medical officers of the areas in which many of the boys resided; and whether he will take immediate action to safeguard the public against this carelessness and to assure them that the necessary steps to prevent the spread of this disease are being rigidly enforced?
    Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend is not aware that there has been any carelessness on the part of the authorities whose duty it is to prevent the spread of small-pox. The school referred to is presumably the school in London which was recently closed because one of the pupils had contracted smallpox at home. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that all requisite steps were
    2936
    taken by the authorities concerned to trace the contacts of this case and to notify the medical officers of the districts in which the contacts resided.
    Mr. DUNNICO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 82 boys attending this school resided at Ilford, and that no notification whatever was sent to the medical officer of that district, who had to discover these contacts for himself?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I believe there was some question about the letter despatched giving information as to contacts. It was in the post when the inquiry was made.
    Mr. DUNNICO: May I suggest that the inquiry was made some days after?

    ELECTORAL REGISTERS (CANVASS).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that in many cases the enumerators who are employed by registration officers to carry out the house-to-house canvass for the purposes of the registration of electors make their visitations days, and even a week or more, prior to the last day of the qualifying period; and will he cause this practice to cease as it is irregular, and leads to many electors who change residence during these few days or weeks being left off the registers or to being placed upon the wrong registers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that registration officers, in order to ensure the preparation and printing of the electors' lists in time for publication on the statutory date, often find it necessary to commence the house-to-house inquiry a few days before the end of the qualifying period. The risk of error would not, however, be obviated by commencing the inquiry on the last day of the qualifying period; and I am satisfied that in practice registration officers can and do take precautions against the consequences apprehended by the hon. Member.

    BRITISH AIRCRAFT IN GERMANY.
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air

    2937
    whether the German Government has intimated that it will refuse to allow British commercial air craft above a certain size to fly over the frontier; whether the aerodrome at Cologne will, in consequence of this decision, be closed to air liners carrying on the service between London and Cologne; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to tolerate such a situation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is that the German Government have made it a condition of according the right of British aircraft to fly to the occupied territory after 1st January, 1923, that German machines of equal flying capacity shall be allowed to fly over and land in occupied territory.
    As to the second and third parts of the question, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the urgency of the issues, and are considering them, in consultation with the Allied Governments, with a view to the protection of their interests.
    Captain BENN: Docs this involve the revision of the Air Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, it does not necessarily.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I think yesterday the Prime Minister rather indicated that, in the Debate to-morrow, he was to reply, and I should like to ask him whether he would not reconsider that decision—if I understood him aright to have come to that decision—in view of the importance, both to this country and to Europe, of the questions which must be decided before the House resumes, and whether, within whatever limitations he may feel to be imposed upon him, he could not indicate to us a little more than he has been able to do, either during the Election or since Parliament met, what lines the Government are to pursue in approaching the settlement of those questions; and the point is whether he could not see his way rather to open the Debate than to close it to-morrow.
The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member knows, I suppose there never has been a case where discussion on the Bill
2938
with which we are dealing to-day has been opened by a Minister. I would not, however, make a question of precedent interfere with me, if I thought it would be for the convenience of the House, and indeed I would try to meet the convenience of the Opposition in this case. However, I am sure that that would not be the case. If the conference, as it has been called, or the conversations, which have been taking place in London had been finished, the Government would have been under an obligation, a clear obligation, to come to the House, and explain exactly what had taken place. But they have not been finished, and I am really in the same position in regard to these conversations as I should be if they were to be resumed to-morrow in London. It is obvious, therefore, that if I attempted to make a speech at the opening, I would be compelled to confine it within such-narrow limits that I could not give the House as much information as I hope may be possible by the other arrangement. I think it quite likely that, in the course of the questions put to me in the Debate on particular points, I may be able to give much more in the way of the views of His Majesty's Government than would be the case if I adopted the other plan, and I can promise the hon. Member that I will give my reply, not at the end, but in plenty of time to enable it to be criticised afterwards. I will undertake to reply, in a word, before dinner.
Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Poincaré is making a statement at this moment in the French Chamber, and why are we treated to less information in this matter than the French Parliament? On Friday, I should have said.
The PRIME MINISTER: Then we shall have it before them.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements made in the French Chamber are, generally speaking, much fuller and more important than any given by the late Government or this Government, and is it not time that this was changed?
Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the general information of the House, if it will be possible to raise the general question of the working of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals on the Consolidated Fund

2939
(Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading, to-day? Perhaps I should add it is with reference to E. 1:
"Provision for payment of salaries of members of an additional Tribunal for Assessment of Pensions, and for an additional Tribunal for Entitlement Cases."
Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. I have kept a wide scope for the Debate to-day and to-morrow, so as to bring in the question of conditions in the mining area, and the question of reparations and Allied debts, as cognate to the unemployment question. I could not extend the discussion to cover the Debate which the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    MINING INDUSTRY (CONDITIONS AND WAGES).
    Mr. S. WALSH: The Consolidated Fund Bill set down for Second Reading this afternoon contains a sum of £1,070.000 for Unemployment grants and expenses, and it is because of this provision that we are raising this matter in connection with the mining industry as I think it is true to say that no industry suffers more from unemployment and its effects than the basic occupation of coal mining. This great industry gives direct employment to over 1,000,000 workers. It maintains a population dependent upon it of 5,000,000, and the conditions existing therein powerfully affect all the staple trades in the country. Now the economic conditions of such a large section of the population would be a matter of deep concern in any representative assembly, but most of all, I think, to a House of Commons fresh from contact with the constituencies. So the Bill before us this afternoon provides the only opportunity this' Session of submitting the conditions of our mining population to the consideration of the House. The real point that we desire to bring before the House is the position comparable with that occupied by the miners in 1914. I propose to submit data that are not disputed. A great deal of argument and a great deal of trouble have arisen over the actual facts, but out of all the hubbub there have emerged certain data which are accepted by everybody connected with that industry, by the Board of Trade itself as representing the Government, by the coal owners and by the miners.
    In 1914, the average wage of all the miners—the highly—paid officials, the administrative staffs, the people who were guaranteed the full working week, the people who were paid constant wages— every one of the highly—paid people, as well as the miserably underpaid people— was 6s. 5½d. a day. Incidentally, one remembers the picture, so to speak, of
    2994
    the grossly overpaid miner in 1913 and 1912. The actual figure over all in 1914 was 6s. 5½d. a day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does that include boys?"] It includes everybody, women as well. It includes those with £1,000 a year, as well as those with 2s. a day. The total wage paid to everybody engaged in and about the mines in 1914 was 6s. 5½d. a day. To-day the figure for the whole mining population of Great Britain is 9s. 1·16d. We will call it, if you please, 9s. 1¼d. The latest returns of the Board of Trade show that the increase in the cost of living has been 80 per cent, over that of 1914. Therefore, if wages had maintained the same ratio of advance as has the cost of living, the miners' wages over all should have been 11s. 7½d. per day, instead of which they are, as I have just stated, 9s. 1½d.
    There is thus a clear loss, comparing the present conditions with those of pre-War, of practically 2s. 6d. per day, or, to make the matter a little more simple, if we try to take back the existing wages paid to the miner to the pre-War position, he is to-day receiving 5s. 0¼., compared with 6s. 5¼d. before the War. Those would be the comparable figures. Multiply that by the average number of days worked a week, which, taken over all, may be said to be 5¼ days, as the pits are working well if throughout the whole year they work 21 or 22 days in a calendar month— very well, indeed. We need not allow anything for sickness or for the mischances that occur in the mines. We need make no allowance at all. If a man is working 21 or 22 days in the calendar month, he is really putting in a splendid working average and the pit itself is putting in a splendid working average. Therefore, taking the figures at the best, and multiplying 5¼ by five, we get a wage over all, including the thousands and tens of thousands of highly-paid officials, including the thousands engaged upon the permanent staff with constant wages, including the men engaged at the collieries in the shops and at the engines, who are paid a standing week's wages-putting all in, we get an average which, in 1914, would have been 26s. 3d. per week. While our memories are very short, there is not an hon. Member who does not know that eight years ago, before the outbreak of the War, a wage of 26s. 3d. was hopelessly insufficient to maintain a single man, never mind those with families. This is data that is not disputed.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I agree.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALSH: I thank the Prime Minister for that admission. The House will see, therefore, that, as the cost of living has increased by 80 per cent., the position of the miners is exactly as I have stated it. It may be asked: How have these conditions, deplorable as they are, been brought about? The mining industry is the basis of all the staple industries of the country. It is an integral part of the industrial life of this nation. It has made contributions to the economic progress of the nation in the past, and it is making great contributions to the economic progress of the nation even in the present. There have been in the past, I will not say fabulous, but handsome profits made, and the miners' wages in the past have been described as very great and, indeed, something very much higher than those received by people engaged in other industries. An arrangement was effected—I will not say an agreement, because it would be an abuse of the term—on the 30th June last year whereby a scheme came into operation, described by the late Prime Minister as "the greatest profit-sharing scheme ever applied to any industry." I would like the House to pay attention to those words. From that time, leaving out the first three months, which were known as the temporary period, there have been continuous reductions in practically every mining area in Great Britain. In Scotland a wage of 17s. 8d. per day in March, 1921, has been reduced to 9s. 2d., a reduction of 8s. 6d. per day; in Northumberland a wage of 16s. 11d. has been reduced to 8s. 1d.; in Durham a wage of 16s. 9d. has been reduced to 8s. 9d.; in South Wales a wage of 18s. 9d. has been reduced to 9s. 6d.; in the Eastern area, or as it is probably better known, the Midland part of England, a wage of 17s. has been reduced to 9s. 6d.; and in Lancashire and Cheshire a wage of 15s. 6d. has been reduced to 8s. 4d. Taking the average throughout Great Britain, wages have been reduced from 16s. 11d. in March, 1921, to 9s. 1d. in November last.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Does that include all classes?
    Mr. WALSH: Including all classes, wages have been reduced from 16s. 11d. to 9s. 1d., and this is the greatest profit-sharing scheme ever applied to any industry. I am usually generous in my construction of people's motives and of the language which they use in this House, because one knows perfectly well that in the heat of debate many things are said which one afterwards regrets, but I cannot imagine that any statement was ever made with so little knowledge. Yet it was presented by the late Prime Minister, after consultation with people who seemed to know, or who at least professed to know, all the internal conditions in the mining industry, as the greatest profit-sharing scheme ever applied to any industry. Perhaps it would be well if I gave to the House the effect of the agreement, as described by Mr. Frank Hodges, in an interview which the Prime Minister was kind enough to give us a few days ago. This is what Mr. Hodges said:
    "The agreement has been in operation for practically 18 months. Three months ago we had every one of our districts down on the minimum wage below which they could not go. Under the agreement, there is a clause which provides that when the owners are unable to make their 17 per cent, standard profit upon the standard wages paid the deficiency shall be carried forward and shall accumulate to be made good some day out of some future surplus when the industry is better off. We have at this moment seven districts with accumulated deficiencies. We have in Lancashire a deficiency of nearly £170,000. We have in several districts deficiencies that could not be made up if the workmen gave up wages altogether for six weeks. In Kent, the deficiency is so tremendous that the miners owe to the mine-owners practically three months' wages, and in Lancashire, North Wales, South Staffordshire and Salop, Cumberland, the Forest of Dean, and Kent, no matter how the output improves during the next two or three months there can be no advance of wages even if there were prospects of trade improving. This is a situation unparalleled in the history of the trade."
    I would like to submit the actual figures, and here I would ask the House to consider the effect of this greatest profit-sharing scheme ever applied to any industry. The Cumberland miners owe over £200,000 to the owners. The actual figure is £200,976. In Cumberland they have a total working population at the mines of about 12,000, so that each man, woman and child is mortgaged in advance to the extent of nearly £17. Pawn-

    2997
    broking has taken a good many forms since it was instituted hundreds of years ago, but I never thought that the coal-owners would develop such a pawn-broking business as this. It is true that they do not put out three brass balls, but they have got the people in pawn far more effectively than any pawnbroker has ever held them. The right hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago, speaking to the deputation, said that all the facts were known; there was really no serious disagreement upon the facts themselves, and he did not see what an inquiry could do. He appealed to us in a most despairing tone: "What can I do?" He then went on to say that he himself thought there was a little hope, an appreciable hope one might say, now presenting itself, and that in two or three months the condition of things might have so improved as to do away with the necessity of an inquiry. I submit that in Cumberland, no matter how trade improves—unless it improves with such gigantic speed as to I be outside any possibility of present-day conception, which neither the domestic nor the foreign situation even faintly warrants—these people will be steeped in their misery for years to come. No possible improvement that is likely to be; realised can lift them out of the terrible position in which they find themselves. They are pledged years and years ahead. Whatever improvement comes in trade cannot get them out of their condition, which is not one whit better than that of I bond slaves to their employers. Take another case. The case of the miners in South Staffordshire and Shropshire. Broadly speaking, there are 4,000 of them. They owe to the employers over £95,000, or £24 a head for every man, woman, and child. It is really worse than that because the administrative charges do I not come into the Staffordshire wage. The payment of those engaged in administration, the payment of the managerial expenses, does not come into the standard wage at all. Therefore, it is the standard wages of the lowest-paid workpeople that are made responsible for this enormous deficit. Under these circumstances I ask the Prime Minister: whatever improvement in the trade is at all likely to be realised, how is it possible that you can build up any substantial improvement in the conditions of the people?
    2998
    Take Kent. It is not a very big area. They have broadly about 2,400 people engaged in the mines. They owe the employers nearly £63,000 or £26 per head. I will not go into any other figures. There are other figures not quite so formidable as these, but all of them embodying the same principle—all of them depriving the workers in these areas, in Lancashire, Staffordshire, Kent, Bristol, the Forest of Dean, in Cumberland, South Staffordshire, Salop—conditions which deprive the workers of the faintest ray of hope. In Lancashire this last month we have paid back £24,000. At a time when prices are certainly as high as they are ever likely to be, and when the output of the mines is as high also as it is ever likely to be, when the costs of production —at least so we are informed by the employers—have been brought down to the almost irreducible minimum, this has been done. I submit to the Prime Minister, and to the House, that the condition of things in an industry such as this, representing directly, as it does, from 13 per cent, to 14 per cent, of the population, and lying at the very basis of the industrial life of this country, demands the instant attention of the Government.
    The reductions effected in one year— and many of the areas, indeed most of them, have been on the minimum wage for getting well on to 12 months—the reduction in the wages bill of the miners will not be less than £2,000,000 per week, or well over £100,000,000 per year. One can quite imagine when you have conditions which, biking everybody with over a wage of 9s. as making five days a week working time, one can quite imagine, without playing on the emotional gamut, the misery and distress that that means in tens of thousands of the miners' homes It is perfectly true that we have at least 60,000 unemployed. We have three times that number under-employed. We have in many homes conditions where the people are receiving more actually under the unemployment benefit scale than they are getting for working in the mines and encountering all its risks and difficulties.
    It may be said, who is responsible for this? I say that the Government that came to an end in October last is directly responsible for the conditions of the mining industry at the present time. Without going too much into past history it will be remembered that the control by the Government of the mining industry,

    2999
    in so far as the wages of the workers and the profits of the employers are concerned, began in 1916; in the later months of 1916 in South Wales, and in the early months of 1917 in the rest of the mining fields. This was inevitable because of the grave peril that confronted the nation because of the submarines and a thousand and one things that need not be now specially described. It was inevitable, too, that a state of chaos would result in the industry. No Government is responsible for that. It is quite true that South Wales ships had to coal in the Mersey, that Liverpool ships were sent to South Wales, that Midlands coal was sent to them in the North, and that Lancashire coal was sent down to the Midlands and to South Wales. All this, I say, was inevitable because of the conditions of war which did not take into account at all the smooth running of these things. That is not the charge against the Government at all. No Government could have prevented the chaotic conditions that ensued. Admitting that— which I do quite freely—it was surely incumbent that the Government of the nation, having taken over the control of the industry, should have given a reasonable time to the industry before decontrol was effected. What was done? An Act of Parliament was passed in August, 1920. We on these benches said we would take no responsibility for that Act of Parliament. Whatever we said against that Bill was of no account. The Government, as they had the right to do, proceeded on their way. They placed in the very centre of that Act of Parliament a Section stating that control "shall continue"—let the imperative verb be noted, "shall continue"—until 31st August, 1921. But in a later Sub-section of that very same Section they took power to continue control until 31st March of this very year. It was quite clear that the intention in that Act of Parliament was that control should be continued until 31st August, 1921, and a later possibility was envisaged of continued control being necessary. They took the necessary power in this later Sub-section to continue till March of this year.
    In defiance of entreaties almost piteous in their terms, the Act of Parliament was rushed through this House within one week, revoking the provisions of the Mining Industry Act of 19S0, and prac-
    3000
    tically making these huge reductions inevitable. The Government paid no attention to the applications that were made by the mining industry as a whole. It was surely right that the Government that had taken over during the War the whole control in respect of wages and profits of that great industry, should have some regard to the conditions that had been created in the meantime. It was surely right that they should give some breathing time to the employers and workmen alike engaged in that industry, who were desirous of such time in the interests of the interests and of the nation. We appealed from these benches, and when we did so we were answered: "Oh, you are really trifling with the House; you are such excellent friends, miners and owners, that you will make it up within a week." It was said that both employers and workmen were such extremely good friends in this great industry that in a week "you will be going on just as smoothly as ever." We have told you that it is no pleasure to us, no satisfaction to say: "We told you so." No satisfaction is to be derived from that. The industry has passed through such a horrible time that sometimes it haunts one like a nightmare to know what the miners have gone through. When we draw attention to these matters, we do so with a deep sense of responsibility, for it was Governmental action in 1921, in suddenly decontrolling the industry and giving us no time to prepare for decontrol, in defiance of the actual time in the Bill—12 months in advance of the time for which they had taken power— that has brought the industry into its present lamentable condition.
    It is impossible for me, with the resources of language I possess, to describe the misery in the miners' homes. I cannot. Having no such power, I cannot place before this House anything like a recital of the actual facts. But, whilst saying that, I would say that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, as men of the world who know the value of money, and know what a pound will purchase, who in their own constituencies are brought week by week and year by year in contact with the working classes, and have knowledge of them, know somewhat of their households, and know for themselves that the facts are as I have stated. They are not disputed. What, then, must be the state

    3001
    of misery and degradation in thousands, indeed, in tens of thousands, of our miners' homes?
    It may be said: "What are you going to do about it; what remedies are you proposing?" That question is more rightly answered by those who are responsible for having brought the industry to its present condition. They that are whole need not a physician. It is we who are sick. It is we who are seeking for a physician to prescribe for us. We are suffering now. Thousands, tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of our people. They are suffering unmerited misery. Children are suffering by going short of food. Wives and mothers hardly know where to turn for the next meal. Thousands of them have had to appeal to the boards of guardians to eke out the wages they are receiving. This state of things exists in the mining industry. We have a state of things unequalled since before the Napoleonic wars. After the conclusion of those great campaigns the people had to have their wages eked out by the Poor Law. This is the richest nation even now. After all we have gone through we are still the richest per head of the population. It is, therefore, a matter of the gravest reproach that we should have tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands living in this unparalleled misery. We say it is the duty of the Government of this nation first of all to raise the wages of the miners so as to meet the cost of living. That is the only condition we ask. We say that this industry is national in its character. It cannot be conducted except upon national lines. We say that the men themselves possess no individual freedom. We say that private enterprise has been banished. We say that through a long course of years and in circumstances for which, not this Government but the whole capitalist system is responsible, that the people engaged in this industry have been reduced to a condition of helotry. They are bond-slaves in fact just as surely as were those for whom indentures were taken out in the old days, or those who lived in the days of Cedric the Saxon. They cannot go to work elsewhere. They cannot sell their labour freely. They refused to accept this arrangement—it never was an agreement—it was an arrangement forced upon them by the pressure of 400,000 soldiers and many thousands of sailors, and of the Emergency Act passed
    3002
    hurriedly through this House. Those were the conditions through which it was passed.
    The men have never been willing contracting parties to this arrangement. They repudiated it at the beginning. They have repudiated it ever since. See the consequences that have resulted. I say it is the duty of the Government in the case of a great industry like this, which is suffering so indescribably, to see that the people engaged in it are guaranteed conditions which will give them a wage equivalent to the cost of living. After that, inquiry can be made into the conditions that obtain. We know that between the actual selling price at the pithead and the price paid by the consumer there is a tremendous leakage. We know that the industry is burdened with many charges which in their incidence are very unfair, and that there are thousands of ways in which mines could be made to yield profit as a result of inquiry if one were undertaken by the Government. Just in the same way as the Prime Minister consented only a few days ago to an inquiry into another basic industry, an inquiry with which we all agree, just in that same way we hope that full and complete inquiry will be made into this industry, so that all the facts can be brought before this House, with the result that the overwhelming human right of the workers engaged in the industry to a living wage shall be conceded by every honest-thinking man.
    I apologise for having taken up so much time. I know that the Prime Minister, whose bonâ-fides everyone trusts, is aware that all the salient facts and data I have submitted are incontrovertible. They cannot be disputed. We have a great population, a great working population, well over a million men, women and children, with a dependent population of' practically five millions; we have cognate industries which represent three times those figures, dependent in a greater or lesser degree on the wellbeing of this great industry, the conditions of which are such as to be absolutely unparalleled in the history of the 19th or 20th century. In these circumstances, I am sure we shall not appeal in vain to the Prime Minister and his colleagues to take into their consideration the arguments I have urged, and to see that these people who are willing and efficient workers—we do not want it for unwilling and inefficient,

    3003
    workers—shall at least be guaranteed a minimum wage equivalent to the cost of living. That is a principle which cannot be denied, and if it he admitted here today we shall have done something to remove the scandal at present resting on the nation.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: My hon. Friend has painted a very gloomy picture of the present condition of the mining population, and to a very large extent, at the immediate moment, he is justified in the picture he has painted. But for my part I think that of all the industries in this country at the present time the most hopeful is the coal mining industry of England and Wales. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh"] Let us consider the position calmly, and compare it as it is now with its real position in those so-called happy times before the end of the Coal Control to which the hon. Member has referred. If we take March of last year, before the Coal Control ended, what was the condition of the coal industry then? It was this: that very large sums of money, amounting to some millions per month, were being taken out of the pocket of every other member of the community and paid over to the miners of the country to maintain for them a completely uneconomic wage. Hon. Members who protest against that know perfectly well that that was the case, and they know also that that was the reason, and the only reason, which induced the railway men and the transport workers to refuse to enter into a struggle along with the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Oh, yes; we have had this out in the House before now. The only reason why the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Workers would not go into the dispute between the miners and, not the mine owners, but the people of this country, was that they declined to go out on strike in order to compel themselves to contribute from their own wages to subsidising the wages of the miners. I do not blame the miners in the very least for endeavouring to carry out their somewhat humorous device, because the railway men did exactly the same thing in respect to the miners, and, what is more, they succeeded where the miners failed. Every miner at this present moment is paying over quite a considerable proportion of his weekly wage, small as it
    3004
    is, to maintain the "standard of living" wage of the railway workers of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not complaining of that,"] As the hon. Member says, the miner is not complaining, and that is in fact the great feature that gives cause for hope at the present time. Anybody would imagine from what has been said to-day that the miners of this country are seething with discontent and calling for the pity of their neighbours. I say they are doing no such thing, but they are courageously and patiently facing their troubles in a way which I do not think has been exceeded in the past history of this country.
    Mr. WALSH: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Let me explain myself. I suggest the bon. Member has hinted that the miners are asking their neighbours to take pity on them. He said that the Government must do some thing so as to secure a minimum living wage for them. How is that going to be done? It is only to he done in this way, that you must have the old coal control, which means taking money out of the pockets of every other worker in the community and paying it over to the miners to maintain for them a minimum wage. I say it is one of the most hopeful signs of the present day that a great body of men in this country, who might be expected, with good reason, to be impatient of the conditions under which they are suffering, have been so courageous and so patient during all these months. They are going to have their reward—there is no doubt about that—under this profit-sharing schema. What has happened? Up to the present time, practically without exception—the exceptions are very small indeed—this profit-sharing scheme has resulted in reduction after reduction of wages. I know something of profit-sharing. I have had practical experience of it in my own works. My men have been on a profits sharing scheme for a very much longer time than the miners. What is their position? During the autumn and winter of last year we were losing money week by week under that scheme, and at this time last year they were in debt to me for a considerable sum of money for

    3005
    wages which had been paid in excess of what the profits earned had been able to provide.
    Exactly the same situation as the hon. Member for Ince has said obtains in Cumberland and in Kent in the mining industry at the present moment. In both of those cases the miners are in debt to the owners to the extent of from £12 to £25 per head. The hon. Member spoke of bonds of slavery. He forgot to say that the £12 or the £25, as the case may may be, per head represented money advanced by the coalowner to the miner without interest, without security and with very little prospect of its every being paid back. That is what he ought to have brought out. Are we to blame the coal-owner for lending money to the extent of £12 or £25 per head to the men he employs without security and without interest? I think rather we should praise him for doing it. When this time last year I found that my men, under the profit-sharing scheme, were heavily indebted to me, I did not regard them as having been reduced by my action to the position of bond slaves. I rather congratulated myself that I was able to let them have that money for their use without charging them any interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member is very proud of himself."] The hon. Member who interrupts is grossly impertinent. To explain the present state of affairs in the mining industry, I am obliged to mention this profit-sharing scheme. During all that period when my men were getting into debt week by week, there was no falling off in output, there was, perhaps, even a greater effort than before, and the result is that the men are back again on a more prosperous basis than they were before the slump set in. My men simply did exactly what the miners are doing to-day. They watted during the hard times for better times. They knew perfectly well that under the profit-sharing scheme whatever the industry could pay would be paid to them in the long run. I believe it is this profit-sharing scheme (which I admit I opposed to a certain extent when it was before the House at the end of 1921) that makes the position of the coal-miner in this country at the present time an endurable rather than an intolerable position. The miner knows perfectly well he is getting all that it is possible for him to get, and no matter what privations he may suffer he knows he is being treated
    3006
    justly and is content to wait for better times. The hon. Member for Ince must be perfectly well aware that the output per man is going up distinctly, and to such an extent that even a drop of one hour in the working day underground is now practically made up for by the better output of the men. He knows further, that in order to increase the profits from the coalmining industry it is necessary that there should be an immediate and very heavy capital expenditure on the part of the coalowners. He knows that in many parts of Lancashire the men are very much hampered at the present time by the lack of tubs. He knows that tubs do not grow on gooseberry bushes, and that they have to be paid for; and not only tubs but machinery also is required. That is a matter which touches me closely. I happen to know something about it. I know that the coalowners all ever the Kingdom are most anxious to spend money on new-machinery, which will increase the profits of the coal industry and thus directly increase the wages of the miners. But they are not able to do so because their profit under this profit-sharing scheme was fixed at such a rate that it did not allow for a sufficient expansion of capital to meet the requirements of the pits. It is perfectly true that the coal-owner can keep up repairs and renewals because they are chargeable to the revenue account and do not come in under the profit-sharing scheme. But if he wishes to put in any new machinery, plant or tubs, capital expenditure is involved and it can only come out of the owner's pocket under this scheme.
    Mr. WALSH: Does the hon. Gentleman says that the provision of boxes and so on required for production in the mine is a charge on the capital account? My opinion is that these things are charged to revenue account.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Then the system of accounting is wrong. This ought not to be charged to revenue.
    Mr. WALSH: But it is.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: It is only done by special agreement.
    Mr. WALSH: Let me put the hon. Member right on this point. As a matter of fact the wagons provided, the boxes in the pit, and the thousand and one

    3007
    materials of that kind, all the impedimenta necessary to carry on the work of the mine is charged to revenue by the decision of the independent chairman, and not by any agreement.
    Mr. GOULD: Is the hon. Member not referring to replacements?
    Mr. WALSH: No.
    Mr. ROGERSON: Will the hon. Member tell us what the Income Tax authorities have to say about this?
    Mr. H0PKINSON: I know that the Income Tax authorities would not allow new tubs to be charged to the revenue account, but only repairs and renewals. If that is so, I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) is mistaken, and if they are being allowed to charge new tubs to revenue account they are going to get into very severe trouble. There are millions of pounds worth of new machinery wanted in the pits to-day, and there is not the money to buy the stuff, and there cannot be until the profits of the coal industry get greater, and the men's wages get greater, under the profit sharing scheme.
    I have, to the best of my ability, drawn a comparison between the state of the coal industry immediately before control was removed and its state now. I have endeavoured to show that the outlook of the miner at the present day is far more hopeful than it was towards the end of coal control. Under coal control he was gradually massing against himself the opposition of every other worker in the country. All the other workers were beginning to understand that they themselves were paying, week by week, to maintain an uneconomic wage for the miner. Besides this we were losing practically the whole of our export trade, and in every way disaster was confronting us before the end of the control.
    At the present moment there is every prospect for the miner of his benefitting very largely, though slowly, under the pre sent wages agreement and profit sharing scheme. I think the profit sharing scheme is one which might very well be given up at the end of six or 12 months, but it would be utter madness for the miners at this time, when they are just beginning to get something out of it after losing so much, to give up their scheme
    3008
    now. I am sure they will do no such thing. I protest to this House that the miners of this country are totally misrepresented by their leaders in this House, and anyone who thinks that the coal miners of England, Scotland, and Wales wish to be a millstone round the neck of every other industry is very much mistaken.
    Look at my own industry, the engineering trade. The district rate of wages in my district is only 56s., and that rate puts them very considerably below the pre-War standard of living. But even at that, the percentage of unemployment amounts to about 40 per cent, on wages far below what would give them the 1914 standard of living. I quite admit, and hon. Members opposite will agree, that the position of the Lancashire miner is exceptionally bad, but why is he in such an exceptionally bad position? I live on the main line between Lancashire and Yorkshire, and I have seen every month hundreds and hundreds of tons of slack coming from Yorkshire, and the Midlands, into Lancashire, and I have seen hundreds of tons of Lancashire slack turned out on sidings, because they wanted the wagons at the pit bank.
    It is owing to the heavy depression in the shipbuilding and the iron and steel industry that the Yorkshire and Midland slack, which used to be made into byproduct coke, cannot find a market, and it has to come over into Lancashire to be sold, and odd lots of it have been sold at 1s. a ton within the last few months. The only way that we in Lancashire can improve our selling price, and therefore the wages of the miners, is by getting that Yorkshire and Midland slack absorbed in its own district, and the only way to do that is to get a free sale for the coke, and to keep the blast furnaces and the open hearth steel furnaces going.
    What is standing in the way? At the present time heavy steel makers are quoting prices right down to 1914 steel prices, and yet before they can put a single ton of sections on board an average of from 25s. to 35s. has gone in paying railway charges on the raw material. There are many reasons for the depression of the steel trade and for the necessarily consequent depression of the coal trade, and many of them are such as we cannot remove. They are world reasons. We may protest against

    3009
    them until we are black in the face, but we can do nothing to remove them. But there is one important item which we can remove, and that is these excessive transport charges and the charges for putting goods on the ships at the docks. The reason for this is that the railwaymen are on a cost-of-living basis of wage, such as the hon. Member for I nee wants in the case of the miners, and, therefore, whatever happens to the miners the railway-man is going to maintain his standard of living.
    Who is going to pay for it? Why, the miner and the worker in every other industry. The railwayman, alone, is to have his wages maintained on a standard-of-living basis at the expense of the others. Do not think I am suggesting any blame to the railwaymen for this. They played exactly the same game as the Miners' Federation played, but they won while the Miners' Federation lost. They have used their victory with very great consideration to other workers, and they have submitted to a large number of reductions, though not so heavy as in the case of the miners, but which they need not have submitted to if they had cared to fight, because they had the whip hand.
    I think we are very much indebted to the railwaymen for the way they have agreed to these reductions. Further reductions will be necessary in the railway-men's wages, or else there will have to be a very much higher efficiency in their standard of work. So let us recognise that, although they have won the whip hand over the miners and other industries, they have used their power with very great consideration.
    Mr. MURNIN: I hope the House will overlook any mistakes which I may make, because this is the first time I have addressed this Assembly. I listened last night to the protests made from hon. Members opposite when the statement was made that it was the desire of employers all over the country to bring down the wages of the workmen to the 1914 standard. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has been more honest in his statement than his hon. Friends were in the early hours of this morning, for he has told us that the miners are a courageous and a gallant body of men. We did not need to hear that from the lips of the hon. Member for Mossley, because the world knows it. During the
    3010
    War the late Prime Minister and his colleagues boasted of the gallantry, the courage, and the tenacity of purpose of the miners, but when the War was over the same parties soon forgot their meed of praise, and they were able to bring the men who assisted in saving the nation to the verge of starvation, and that is the position to-day.
    I want to tell the hon. Member for Mossley that there is no dread of the miner attempting to get his wages improved at the expense of the railway worker. We have arrived at a stage now when we understand that if a reduction of wages takes place in any industry, it means that this will be used in order to get a similar reduction in other industries. That, however, is not the policy which the trade union movement is prepared to adopt. We are prepared to meet to the best of our ability any attack upon wages made by the capitalists of the country for the further increasing of their already largo profits. Everybody understands now that the railwaymen have not had a wage in excess of the cost of living, and it can be no satisfaction to the railway-man to know that his wages are comparatively better than those of the miners, simply because the miner is down and out. The miner is watching very carefully the trend of events, and he understands the situation in a more practical way than many hon. Members of this House. The miner has implicit faith in his leaders. The hon. Member for Mossley is under the impression that the miner and all other industrial workers would be very decent fellows if it was not for the influence that was brought to bear upon them by the agitator. That is his opinion.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: My opinion is that he is a very decent fellow as it is.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MURNIN: And so is every other industrial worker a decent fellow, but the people who have the power forget to treat them decently. That is the unfortunate position. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) dealt generally with the mining industry, and gave an outline of the position in various parts of the coalfields. I want to draw the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the situation in Scotland. I am under the impression, from the information I have been able to gather from all parts of the coalfields, that the

    3011
    miner in Scotland is about in the worst position of anyone in any part of the coalfields. We have 18s. 5d. as the minimum wage for the coal hewer. We have men working underground, 18, 19 and 20 years of age, for from 4s. to 4s. 6d. per day. We have thousands of fathers of families working underground for about 5s. 3d. to 6s. per day; and when I tell the House that we have thousands of surfacemen working now for 4s. 9½d. to 5s. 2d. a day, they can realise the position of the people working in the coal industry in Scotland at the present time.
    We feel that something should be done. We have the idea that one of the functions of the Government of this country is to see to it that there should be equality, equity, and fairplay between the parties, that the weak should be protected from any outrage by the strong. I think that that is the province of any Government, but, unfortunately for us, the employers are the strong party. They are able to impose on the industrial workers in the mine any conditions they care to, and the Government say they are unable to prevent them from doing so. That is not, to my mind, a proper attitude for the responsible members of a Government to adopt. It is the business of the Government to see to it that there should be equity and fairplay between all conditions of people in the State. That is the reason why the Labour party and the mining portion of the community are appealing to the Government. We are not squealing in the way that the hon. Member for Mossley suggested. We are taking our gruel without much complaint. We realise, as the hon. Member realises, that there is a bettor time in front of us, and, when it does arrive, I hope, and trust that the miner will learn by the lesson he has received. I am satisfied, from my knowledge of the miner, that he will make better use of his opportunities, when they do come, than he has hitherto done. The mining community, as I think is demonstrated by these benches, are beginning to think for themselves, and I believe that when they get that opportunity— and I hope it will not be long delayed— they will give further proof that they are awakening to a sense of their responsibility. The Government could do much. We had a Commission, and I want to point out to the Government that that
    3012
    Commission recommended that the mining royalties should be taken over and nationalised. Some of our Friends on the other side of the House may contend that of this million odd pounds, or the tax of 7½d. on every ton of coal raised in Great Britain for mining royalties, a portion goes to revenue in taxation: but if the Government wanted to adjust matters, they would nationalise that part of the industry. They would accept the recommendation of the Sankey Commission, and, if they wanted further taxation, there are many sources from which they could tax people without taxing an industry that is at such a low ebb at the present moment.
    Mr. WALSH: And, incidentally, carry out their own promise of 1919.
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Does the hon. Member suggest that the royalties should go to the trade or to the nation?
    Mr. MURNIN: The royalties should go to the State. They should be nationalised and handed over to the State; and, if that were done, the hon Member would agree that there could be a readjustment between the State and the employé. That is one way in which in improvement could be brought about, in this industry. We are more than anxious that hon. Members should give heed to this great question. The profit-sharing scheme was imposed upon the miners by starvation. Not 5 per cent, of the miners in Great Britain believed in the scheme, but they were starved into submitting. That scheme has not worked out in the interests of the workmen. No scheme can work out in the interests of the workmen in any industry that brings them to the position in which the miners are at the present moment. They are 40 per cent. below the cost of living: they are worse by 40 per cent, than they were in 1914 We have young women to-day working on the pit banks in Scotland for 12s. a week—12s. a week to feed and clothe and house themselves. We have families of six or seven in Scotland to-day, whose total income coming into the house only provides for two meals a day at 4d. a meal. There is nothing for clothing, nothing for house rent, nothing for coal or any other of the necessaries that go to make up the home comforts of any individual or any citizen of this State. That is the position in which we are, while hon.

    3013
    Members on the other side of the House who are captains of industry are, numbers of them, engaged in speculation, and exploiting the worker.
    It is no use hon. Members on the other side demurring to that statement. We are being exploited on each and every occasion, and hon. Members cannot deny it. What a sad reflection it is on their boasted development to tell us that there is no remedy for the unfortunate state of the people working in the mining industry in Great Britain. Have the brains of the captains of industry become so bankrupt that they cannot suggest something to improve the conditions of these people? They know themselves that they can do it, but the reason that they will not do it is that, in the present depressed conditions, they are quite comfortable, while we are suffering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. That is the reason. I believe they are a decent, respectable body of people until you bring them into their commercial concerns, and when they get there you might as well attempt to take blood from a stone as get fair play from them. What they want—and I have listened very patiently now for three weeks—is a new soul. The soul that they have at present is not fit for a dog, although they boast about their humanity and Christianity.
    The miners and the industrial workers generally have some little confidence in this House, and the representatives of the miners appeal to the Government and to hon. Members on the other benches to attempt to do something to take us out of this slough of despond. We cannot remain in it much longer. We know that in every part of the British coalfields there are large families whose little savings have gone to meet the requirements of the household. In hundreds of thousands of the miners' homes the furniture has been sold to keep body and soul together. Their little children are unable to be seen in the public streets because of the condition of their wearing apparel, and because of their pinched faces owing to the starvation they are undergoing at the present moment. The women-folk remain in the colliery villages because they have not sufficient decent clothing in which to go out into the town. That is the condition that prevails at the present moment in the mining villages in Great Britain. It prevails in many
    3014
    quarters of Scotland. The Scottish people, in particular, never carry their poverty on their sleeve if they can avoid it; they have sufficient independence at least to hold up their heads in face of great adversity, and they appeal for some attempt to do something. The Government can do it if they are in earnest.
    I want now to refer to one question that was raised by the hon. Member for Mossley. He said that prior to decontrol the nation and the other workers were subsidising the miners to give them their wage. Has the hon. Member any knowledge of the millions that the Government took out of the coal trade when it was taken over in the first two or three years? I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne) said in this House that the fabulous profits which the nation were able, during the first two or three years of control, to make from the coal trade belonged to the nation, and did not belong to the industry. Millions and millions of money went to relieve taxation, but, as I have attempted to point out, immediately the pinch came, and it was necessary to subsidise the coal industry with a few million pounds to tide it over the hour of adversity, in the hope that something better would arise, that was refused. It was forgotten that the Government had taken from the coal industry millions of pounds to subsidise the expenditure of this country in other directions. That is not statesmanship. People should always remember that, when an industry gives money to the State, the State should not be so niggardly as to refuse to assist it out of its difficulty. It is not creditable to the Government or to the nation as a whole, and I hope that, out of the discussion that will take place here this afternoon and evening, some solution of this great difficulty will be found. Our people cannot go on much longer. Their patience is just about exhausted. The leaders of the miners in Great Britain are anxious that there should be no trouble. Trouble might be disastrous at a period when there is just a hope of some little improvement in the coal industry. It might mean misery, not only to the miners, but also to the people engaged in all other industries, and, therefore, we are anxious that there should be no trouble. But we cannot carry on. We cannot still the uneasy disturbances that are springing up

    3015
    in the minds of the workers in the coal industry in every part of Great Britain if this goes on any longer. If you people are in earnest and you want to assist the Miners' Federation to preserve peace in the coal industry you will have to impress on the Government that it is their duty to see to it that they are going to give this serious consideration with the hope that they will bring about an improvement in that industry for the benefit of all.
    Mr. GOULD: I had hoped the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) would have gone rather more carefully and fully into the finances and conditions and wages of the mining industry. I was rather disappointed that in putting his case he depended more upon sentiment than upon fact. I was rather hopeful that he would have compared the condition of the mining industry with the condition of the other industries of the country and would have put before the House facts and figures which would prove that he had a right to claim the sentimental consideration and compassion of the country. To my mind, he failed lamentably to do so. He based his case and his argument upon statements which have been made and reiterated in the Press as the result of an interview with the Prime Minister. He re-hashed the conditions which arose out of the Debates which were held in the last House and reiterated many complaints and many arguments which were brought forward at various times during various discussions and Debates on the decontrol of the mining industry, but he offered us nothing at all which we could take and put into comparison with the other industries of the country in order to arrive at some definite conclusion as to the real reason for the miners bringing forward at this time a claim for specific consideration. I rather took him to blame the agreement for the cause of the present trouble. I am asking him if I am right in assuming that.
    Mr. WALSH: What I have said, I have said. The hon. Member seems to have paid very considerable attention to it. It is rather curious that he does not know what I said about the agreement.
    Mr. GOULD: I want to be perfectly correct. I took the hon. Member to say the agreement was responsible for the present condition of the mining industry. I think that is best answered by the "Labour Magazine," which I have received this morning. In an article written by Mr. Frank Hodges, referring to the agreement, he definitely and categorically states this:
    "The results have been calamitous and have been shared by workmen and colliery-owners alike. The colliery proprietors were left with the alternative of either cutting their prices, thus keeping the collieries going, or maintaining them at a point which would have strangled their hope of ever regaining their market. So far then we see nothing either implicit or explicit in the agreement which may be stated to be responsible for the terrible conditions in the exporting districts, although many people, including many miners, attribute the unfortunate wage losses to the agreement. I wish to assert as strongly as I can that Government responsibility in this matter is plain and unmistakable."
    I think, therefore, there can be no question in the minds of the House and the people of this country that the Agreement itself is not responsible, seeing that we have the authority of the secretary of the Miners' Federation for the repudiation of such a suggestion.
    I have no desire whatever to enter into contentious argument, but I think, when there has been so much propaganda and so many statements and mis-statements and so many figures bandied about, that it is difficult, especially as we are facing a possible Recess of two months, during which time many people will be making statements which cannot be challenged in the only place where they could be challenged, that we should have a plain statement as to the condition of the industry. The miners are well represented in this House;—far better and to a far greater extent than the coalowners—and I have not the slightest doubt that there is not a single case where the miners' representatives in the House may not be able to put up a special case of grievance. By no means does anyone seek to contend that there are not special grievances in the mining industry. There were cases of grievance before the War. There are special cases of grievance in every industry, and always will be, but there is no more special case of grievance and no more peculiarity in the mining industry than in any other industry. I fail to see why, because of the organisation the

    3017
    miners have, they should seek to bring forward their case and show the disadvantage they are suffering under without first of all making clear the actual position of the mining industry compared with other industries. What is the position of the industry? There are just 5,000 more men employed in it to-day than there were in 1914. It is the one industry where the rate of employment is above the rate of 1914, and yet the production of coal throughout the country is at the rate of 17,500 tons less per annum— 270,000,000, as against 287,500,000. In South Wales, the area of great contention, the number of men is 2,500 less than it was in 1913, and the production of coal is something like 3,750,000 tons less.
    The statement was made only last week by the Inspector of Mines at Swansea that there were 50,000 unemployed men in the mining industry in South Wales. That is a very serious statement coming from an individual who holds an official position and it is one which I think should be corrected without hesitation, because it is apt to lead to misapprehension, and it has certainly been used for propaganda purposes by certain members of the Miners' Federation. I do not accuse anyone on the other side of the House. What are the facts? There are 2,500 fewer in the industry in South Wales than there were in 1913. I had not time to get the figures of how many men are thrown out of employment as the result of the withdrawal of the safety men in 1921 and how many pits are dislocated, but I know there was an influx during the War of nearly 50,000 men from other industries into the mining industry, and those men may have been thrown out of employment owing to the return of the legitimate miners. There were in January, 1920, 271,000 men in the South Wales mining industry. Tom Richards, at a conference only a few weeks ago, estimated that the total number of men at present out of employment did not exceed the figure of 10,000. During the period when the men were producing a very small quantity of coal, at the rate of less than 220,000,000 tons per annum, when we knew in South Wales that we had to take inferior and inexperienced labour, we knew the pits were being worked, as has been admitted time and time again, not with regard to economy, not with any regard whatever to profit nor with regard to anything except the fact that they were under
    3018
    Government control, and over two years ago I remember well that the miners were endeavouring to the best of their ability to discredit private ownership and the coal-owners were doing their best to discredit control and no one cared about anything as long as they got money and wages and the Government paid. When decontrol took place those men had to go and we had to remove the redundant miners from the industry.
    Mr. WATSON: The coalowners did not have to go.
    Mr. GOULD: It is a very good thing for the country that they did not. We had to remove those men, and there are 40,000 to 50,000 men thrown out of employment in the industry. Anyone who knows the facts of the situation in South Wales will agree that that is not so. Here is a case of an industry employing 5,000 more men than it did in 1914, and it is complaining as to its position. Compare the position of the industry with cither agriculture, steel, shipbuilding, engineering, the cotton trade, where they are working half time, or a score of other trades— people who have not the opportunity of getting employment and who are asking us from day to day "Give us work, we do not want the dole." Here we are faced with an entirely different position. We are faced with a complaint that the men are not receiving a living wage and a wage which is in accord with the level of subsistence. The contention of the miners in regard to that is not correct, because we have to bear in mind that you cannot have the benefit of shorter hours and at the same time, under the conditions existing to-day, the same relative earning power of labour. I admit without argument that in 1920 the average wages in the industry were £4 5s. per week. What happened in that year? We had a coal strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"] Call it stoppage if you like. We had two stoppages before the end of 1920. We have got to come down to an economic basis. During the War we had maintained prices because we were under the necessity of paying anything at all for coal. We were not in a position to import our coal from any other place. Other countries who required our coal had to pay what we asked them for our surplus. I am not going to re-hash all the

    3019
    conditions and the subsidies which the Government gave with regard to home industries, but the fact remains that when the industry was put on an economic basis the level of wages came down, frankly, to a very low figure, a figure of 9s. Id. per day, and for South Wales 9s. 6d. It has been agreed that the present wage is only 43 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914. The average wage for 10 years prior to 1914 was 29s. 9¼d. per week. In October, 1922, according to figures I have had given me —and I think they are substantially correct—it was 50s. per week in South Wales. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) stated that the level of wages in 1914 was 5s. or 6s. per week above the subsistence level in 1913–1914. If that is the case the rate on which we are calculating wages at the present time is obviously impracticable. If we are talking about wages which are above the subsistence level before the War, obviously we must get right back to what was the subsistence level before the War. If I am correct in assuming that my hon. Friend made that statement, then I am correct in saying that the rate of wages paid to-day is not 43 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914, but actually 63 per cent., because 5s. or 6s. a week on 30s. is approximately 20 per cent. That brings us into a rather different position. That brings the level of wages up to something like 63 per cent. My hon. Friends will admit, and I am sure that there can be no contention about the matter, that the cost of living as far as the miner is concerned cannot be regarded in the same ratio as it is for other people. In the first place, especially in the North of England and Scotland, there is free housing. That is calculated, probably, to be worth at least 5s., 6s., or 7s. a week. Then there is cheap coal.
    An HON. MEMBER: Am I to understand from the hon. Member that in Scotland the miners have free houses?
    Mr. GOULD: I said cheap houses or free houses. [HON. MEMBEES: "You said free houses!"] Well, I will withdraw so far as Scotland is concerned and say that my remark applies to the North of England.
    Mr. CAIRNS: The miners in Northumberland do not get free houses.
    Mr. GOULD: In many cases.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Only in some.
    Mr. GOULD: In the majority.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: You are wrong.
    Mr. GOULD: Then miners are given cheap coal. Coal is supplied to the miners at 3s. 6d. a ton. This is the latest figure given in the Board of Trade Return. The cost of coal entering into the calculation of the cost of living is put down at five points. If we add to the 63 per cent, which has been agreed, these five points in respect of coal, we arrive at 68 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been agreed! "] It was admitted in all the discussions which have taken place between the various parties. Therefore, there can be no question about it. The actual position is that the rate of wages received by the miner is very much in excess of what the public presume it to be. First of all you have the admitted figure of 43 per cent, above the pre-War standard, and next the admission that the cost of living in 1914 was 5s. or 6s. a week above the subsistence level, which means another 20 per cent. Then you have the further five points in regard to coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "] Yes, you cannot get away from it. Where is the difference between the total figure at which we now arrive and the 80 points? There is only a difference of 12 points. How are the 12 points accounted for? They are accounted for by reduced output.
    Mr. G. BARKER: Oh!
    Mr. GOULD: Yes, and there we get back to the point. When Mr. Hodges was seeing the Prime Minister recently he quoted certain figures He stated that it was necessary to say in order to make a correct comparison with 1914–and I think the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) quoted the same figures this afternoon—that the difference per shift was 2s. 11½d. That figure needs correction. If it is gone into carefully the figure is 2s. 7½d., but if you take into consideration the subsistence allowance it is only 2s. 5d. That is the greatest that can be argued about it. Another question which has been brought forward at great length in the House and in the

    3021
    country is that of the subsistence wage. How can the miners' leaders protest against the subsistence wage? That is not a matter which is fixed by the coal owners. The coal owners have nothing to do with it. It is not fixed by any arbitrary body. The miners' leaders have the right to select any independent person and to go before that independent person and to fix the subsistence wage and the level of subsistence. Therefore, if they cannot accept it they must not blame the coal owners. In that case they are simply going behind the back of the independent person whom they have selected. Therefore, I do not think that there is any ground for their complaint in regard to the subsistence wage
    Mr. BARKER: Have you experienced the subsistence wage?
    Mr. GOULD: I have a great deal of experience of it. I have received far less than the minors are receiving to-day. I do not think that anything ever meets the situation so well as the giving of actual figures. Actual figures are the best illustration of the condition of any industry. Hon. Members seem to regard with some degree of suspicion my references to Scotland, but I will give figures from Scotland. I will take, not selected pits, but normal pits, neither good nor bad; there are better pits and there are worse pits. Let me take the earnings per week for four collieries: between 20s. and 30s. per week, 10 per cent.; between 30s. and 40s., 15·9 per cent.; between 40s. and 50s., 20 per cent.; between 50s. and 60s., 19·6 per cent.; between 60s. and 70s., 16·5 per cent.; between 70s. and 80s., 9·4 per cent.; over 80s., 8·7 per cent. The average throughout the country is 9s. Id. per day.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Where did you obtain those figures?
    Mr. GOULD: I received them from the Chairman of the Mining Association.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: You do not suggest that those figures were agreed to by us?
    Mr. GOULD: I do not. I put them forward for my side. I have the figures for the whole of Scotland. Now I will take Yorkshire. I will give figures relating to one- colliery in Yorkshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I cannot give the name, but I am prepared to give it to any hon. Member in confidence: 317 men
    3022
    receiving 35s. to 45s.; 544 men receiving from 45s. to 55s.; 618 receiving from 55s. to 65s., and 847 receiving over 65s. Similarly all through the Midlands. Here are the figures for the Midlands. Less than 25s., 62 men; less than 35s., but over 25s., 30 men; from 35s. to 45s., 165 men; from 45s. to 55s., 100 men; from 55s. to 65s., 28 men; over 65s., 388. I could add to these figures over and over again. I can assure the House that big wages are-being earned and can be earned when the men want them. I will tell the House what we are suffering from. Here is an extract from the "Daily Echo" of last Saturday. It is rather interesting. It gives particulars of a typical case of a man who was convicted for absenting himself from work. That is the position with which we are faced again and again. We have had it over and over again in South Wales. It is one of the things from which we are suffering very badly. The men claim that they are not getting the wages, but the wages are there, and they are obtainable, but it is a fact that the more wages that are given, the higher the wages, the greater is the degree of absenteeism. We are faced with the fact that absenteeism is increasing. We know that at least 50 per cent, of the absenteeism is avoidable. Absenteeism is costing the industry something in the neighbourhood of 2s. a week in wages in the case of individuals who are subjecting not only themselves, but others, to penalties by absenting themselves from their work. At the present time the average earnings of the men are 143 per cent, as compared with 100 per cent. in 1914.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Is that for Wales?
    Mr. GOULD: All over the country; and if you add to that the 10 per cent. that can be obtained by going back to the eight-hour day——f HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] It will have to be faced—
    Mr. BARKER: You will never get it.
    Mr. GOULD: It will have to be faced as soon as the miners' leaders can save their faces, and it will mean that you can get to 157 per cent. With that, and the reduction of costs which would naturally accrue, you would be able to obtain the 1913 standard, plus the 80 per cent, increase in the cost of living. The seven-hour day is the cause of the trouble. A

    3023
    great deal has been said in regard to cost. It is said that they are piled on by the coalowners in order to fleece the miners. What are the costs? Stores, timber, insurances of various kinds, local rates, workmen's compensation and additional workmen's compensation claims. [HON. MEMBERS: "Directors' fees, managers' fees!"] I was going to refer to that Directors' fees do not amount to more than one-tenth of a penny per ton of coal, so that you can disabuse your minds on that point.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Contributions to political bodies, which we can prove.
    Mr. GOULD: Now I come back to the question of additional costs. Take stores, timber, and rates and taxes. What are rates and taxes? You cannot get away from them. They are something which you impose upon yourselves, although they may to a certain extent be fixed upon you by the imperial taxes. To a great extent, the local authority—and in most mining areas you cannot get away from the fact that the Labour party is in control of the machinery of the local bodies —are responsible for the taxation locally. So far as local taxation is concerned, it has on an average increased from four to six times since 1913–14 You cannot expect to give subsidies and benefits to those who are unemployed and those who are engaged in the industry who are receiving less than a subsistence wage without paying for it, and it means that it has to be added to the charges in the particular areas. Those who get the benefit have to pay. It is the case of the dog chasing itself round. The greater the benefits you give the less you are going to have to distribute among the industry. The more you increase the charges, cither for costs or for compensation, the less chance there is for the mining industry, where you have participitation in the profits, of gaining any benefit.
    The hon. Member for Ince referred to the profit-sharing scheme as something that had been wicked. So far as I can see, it was the first step in any industry in that direction, but whether it will be continued or not depends to a very great extent upon hon. Members opposite. It is an endeavour to give the workers in the industry a share and participation in the profits. Three and a half million
    3024
    pounds have been paid out by the owners up to the present time to meet the deficiency under the Agreement. In other words, if the miners had owned the pits they would have received £3,500,000 less in wages than the industry made. That is the general position of the industry. It is useless to contend that the miners want a share in the profits, and yet complain about the loss, for the simple reason that what the miners want is to share the profits, but to dissociate themselves from the matter of loss. If there is any loss, it is to be wiped out. Where the loss is to come from nobody wants to know; all they want to know is that somebody is to pay the loss and that they are going to share the profits. How they are going to carry on on these principles I do not know.
    Compare the condition of the mining industry with other industries. You have 5,000 more men in the mining industry than before the War, at what I claim to be a rate of wages 74 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914. In the steel industry you have from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent, of the men unemployed, and the furnace men only get 60 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914 and the steel workers 54 per cent. In the shipbuilding there are 36·3 per cent, unemployed, and the wages of all trades are only 44 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914. In the engineering trade there are 22 per cent, unemployed, and wages only 47 per cent, above the subsistence level of 1914. The mining industry has got a far better position than any other industry in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not saying much! "] It may not be, but it might be worse, for they might be out of work. The position is that they want to be subsidised. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] They want bigger wages. They cannot get bigger wages if they do not increase the output and increase the markets, unless they increase the price. And if they increase the price of coal they will lose their markets and stop the revival of industry which is slowly, but steadily, taking place.
    Why are there so many thousands of men walking idle along the streets of Sheffield or Stockton-on-Tees, around the Clyde district, or through Newcastle? Works costing hundreds of thousands of pounds have been idle for many months

    3025
    at a time. The real reason why those works are not going is that coal is too dear. Do hon. Members realise that coal is required to make steel, that we cannot compete at present with Germany, America, or Belgium, and that we have to compete with them in order to get business? And I say this sincerely, without wishing in any way to talk platitudes, that we have come now to a position in industry in which we are making great sacrifices to get trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'we'?"] I am speaking as an employer of labour, and I am not ashamed of it either. We have come to a position where we realise that if we are to reduce the burden of taxation, so as to make recovery possible for us, we have to take business at a very serious loss, in order to relieve the State of the burden of paying doles and gratuities to local authorities. We have got to take on ourselves some of that burden, because we realise that if we see a prospect of peace to-day, and can reabsorb those men into industry and establish our markets, creating confidence, we shall be able by and by to get better prices and to make a profit which will enable us to pay better wages. The idea of a subsidy has been mooted and has been refused, and rightly so, because it would be nothing but a contribution from those in a less fortunate position to those who are already working full time, who are working at better wages and in better conditions. It really means that if you grant such a subsidy, the unfortunate steel worker, the short-time worker in the textile trade, the man in the engineering trade, and the man in the shipbuilding trade would be contributing, and he would have far more than £25 per head per annum to contribute. He would have around his neck, as they have in the mining villages in South Wales, a loss for which he and his family would be liable for generations to come.
    If we allow ourselves in any circumstances to be led into a position in which we are going to force up the price of coal at the present moment unnaturally or quickly, the revival of trade now taking place will, just as surely as I am standing here, come to a finish just as suddenly as it started. The moment you have any big jump in coal, because it is the basis of all our industries there is going to be a jump in the price of every commodity produced by the industries which are
    3026
    creating the revival. It is hoped by the 1st January to increase the number of blast furnaces working up to 220, but the moment we talk of increasing the cost of coal down goes the number of blast furnaces. The miners may be able to get their subsidy, but it will be at the expense of every other trade and industry in the country. That is a condition which the country cannot face. This is a time for plain speaking. We have had all this sob stuff, and it is time we made it clear to the country that while our sympathy lies with the miners, our sympathy also lies with those unfortunate people. [HON. MEMBERS: "More sob stuff"]—in the agricultural industry, the steel industry, the shipbuilding trade, the textile trades and the pottery trades who have not been asking us for subsidies but for work, and if there is going to be any real sympathy the country is prepared to give it to them and not to those who have work and are asking for something additional.
    What the House forgets is this, that in the cycle of high wages which were given from 1915 to 1921–[HON. MEMBERS: "High profits"]—high profits which the State took with the result that we are suffering to-day. An hon. Member said that the subsidy was only given to the mining industry because the Government took the surplus profits. But that applies to every single industry in the country, because every industry paid its due to the State in excess profits during the War. But what hon. Members forget is, that we have tampered with the fundamental laws of economics, with our subsidies and our interference with the regulation and control of trade, and by trying to divert it from its normal channels into channels organised by us. That cannot be done and we are paying the price to-day. Hon. Members opposite say that we do not appreciate their point of view We have been silent. We are not going to be silent very much longer. What we want to do— [Interruption.]
    Mr. BARKER: The hon. Member is a shipowner and knows nothing about mining at all.
    Mr. GOULD: We have been for some years interfering with the question of high wages by interfering with the laws of economics. Railwaymen are getting more wages for shorter time. Miners are

    3027
    working shorter hours and are getting wages substantially higher than before the War. If the miner wants bigger wages he has got to work for them the same as I have got to work for them. I believe that the sympathy of the House and of the country will go out to those people who really deserve it. I cannot agree to any form of subsidy in any circumstances for the Miners' Federation or the mining industry, for this reason, that I would rather give a subsidy, if there should be need for a subsidy, to those who cannot help themselves, and who have got no employment, but are asking us daily and hourly to give them work.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) both referred to the agreement in the British coalfields as an innovation and as the first profit-sharing scheme in industry. In that statement both hon. Members showed complete ignorance of the ordinary methods of adjusting wages in every industry. All industries have their wages determined in a certain ratio of profits between the owner and the workers employed therein. The so-called profit-sharing scheme in the coalfields at the present time is a misnomer, because for the last 12 months no profits have been available for sharing. This is the amusing device described by the hon. Member for Mossley to fool the people employed in the mining industry, and the people not employed in it. This is the incentive by which the workers in that industry carry all the loss save a very small proportion of loss carried by some owners in some of the districts.
    6.0 P.M.
    The industry in the part of the country to which I belong was, in 1914, at the height of its prosperity, and wages were determined by the selling price of large coal, about which the hon. Member for Central Cardiff knows something, at the seaports on the Bristol Channel. That was a crude method of apportioning to workers and employers their respective share in the production of coal. At that time the condition of life for the mining workers were tolerable. There was a much higher standard than exists to-day. When war broke out the cost of coal went up, and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff was very largely responsible for that increase in price. But because wages
    3028
    in the South Wales coalfield were determined by an agreement made in 1910 the mine workers got no advantage from the increased price of coal until 1915, when the old agreement terminated. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff and his colleagues in the shipping and coal exporting business sent up the price of coal with no justification. Mine workers experienced, in common with other workers, the effects of the increase in the cost of living, and they made efforts to raise the standard of wages. After five or six years of endeavour to follow the increased cost of living, there came the slump of 1920. Early in 1921 there was serious unemployment in the coal export trade, and we found the employers and the workmen at that time endeavouring to set on foot a national wages board, which would determine wages nationally in accordance with the capacity of the industry to pay. But before the owners and the workmen had framed that agreement, the Government decontrolled the industry. The owners, acting in collusion with the Government, I believe, issued an ultimatum to the workmen, who were driven out of the pits on 31st March because they refused to accept the 1914 standard of wages as a standard wage for the period of the new agreement which it was sought to impose upon them.
    I ask any fair-minded man whether he would have been prepared to accept the 1914 standard of wages, with the cost of living 130 to 140 per cent, higher than in 1914. The miners refused the terms. After 13 weeks' stoppage, terms were imposed upon them, and those terms mean that the minimum wages in the coal field are not 43 per cent, higher than the wages of 1014, but 20 per cent, above those of 1914. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff knew that. The 43 per cent, represents the additional wages cost to the industry, partly due to the Seven Hours Act. The cost of living to-day is 80 per cent, above the pre-War level, and last year on an average it was 105 per cent, above the pre-War level. These are very hard times for the men and women and children in the coalfields, and it is not good enough for the hon. Member for Central Cardiff to come here and make the comments which he has made to-day. The miners are well represented in this House, because of the poor conditions in the

    3029
    mining industry. That is why there are over 40 miners' Members of Parliament. In the last few years one of the problems in international affairs has been that the standard of currency has been changed from a gold basis to a system without any basis at all. One of the political phenomena of Wales is that the Gould basis is the lowest basis of politics in that country. I ask the hon. Member for Central Cardiff whether he believes that he would stand any chance of being returned to Parliament by a mining constituency.
    The minors feel that they have been badly dealt with by the last Government and would be badly dealt with by the kind of Government which represents the political interests of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Central Cardiff. The late Prime Minister, in his election campaign, referred to the politics of Mayfair and Manchester. We have, too, the politics of Cardiff and of the fihondda Valley. The politics of the Rhondda Valley are the politics of the miners who have been so badly treated by the Government and by capitalist interests in this country. There are cases of grievance in the mining district. Has the hon. Member for Central Cardiff found that out only lately 3 As there are grievances, is it not necessary that there should be attempts made to remedy those grievances? If the hon. Member is in sympathy with the miners, why does he decry the organisation which seeks to better their condition? It has been said that the rate of production is lower to-day than it was in 1914. We challenge that statement. We say that the men are working harder than ever. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff said that with 5,000 more men in the industry production has gone done by 17½ million as compared with 1914–from 287,000,000 to 270,000,000 tons. The reply to that has already been given by the hon. Member for Ince in his statement that 60,000 men are totally unemployed and an additional 100,000 men only partly employed. I have been in the mines nearly 30 years. I knew the mining industry when the hours were 9½ and 10, and I say, without hesitation, that the colliers working seven hours a day to-day produce more coal than did their fathers who worked 10 or 11 hours a day. Men have never worked in the coal mines as they work to-day. That is beyond question. The
    3030
    rate of production shows it. The individual production is better than it ever was
    I wish the hon. Member for Central Cardiff had had the experience that I have had. I wish that he had had to breathe as much coal dust as I have breathed. Then his sympathy would be of a more practical character. The hon. Member produced a set of figures showing that a percentage of the men in a particular group of collieries are receiving £4 or more per week. If he knew the mining industry as well as he might do, he would know that the percentage includes the officials; that is to say, the people who are well paid in order to see that others are not paid enough. The officials are on the wages sheet, and they generally get about twice as much as the average workman. The hon. Member also said that if the profit-sharing scheme had not been operative, the workmen in the coalfield would have received £3,500,000 less than they received last year. I think that that 'applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Does he not remember that during that period a profit of £9.000,000 has been declared, and that even in South Wales, badly as the coalfield has been affected, the considerable profit of £l,500,000 has been shown for the same period. There is no profit sharing. The agreement does not provide for profit sharing at all. It is simply a method of collecting the aggregate results of the industry—a pooling of accounts, if you like.
    At this time, when wages are so intolerably low and when several colliery firms are said to be finding it difficult to carry on, there are still in the South Wales coalfields some collieries which are making exceptionally good profits. The aggregate returns are being brought against the workmen's wages, and the workmen's general wage standard has. been reduced because the aggregate returns do not show more than a certain profit. When the standard wage of 1914 is being paid to the workmen the corresponding standard profit to the owners is equal to £4,000,000. This Agreement is responsible for a great deal of the hardship which the miner has had to suffer in the last two years. I dare say the Prime Minister will say: "What would you do? This industry is insolvent and cannot be made to pay good wages, because the proceeds of the industry do not

    3031
    permit it." I do not think we ought to miss the opportunity of saying that there is no special obligation on the miner and his family to maintain this industry in solvency. As it stands to-day the mine worker with an insufficient wage goes home, and his wife tells him that she will require more wages to meet the family needs. He replies that he cannot get any more. They go to the local grocer or other shopkeeper and tell him: "We have only £2 this week, but we require £2 10s. or £3 worth of goods. Will you let us have these extra goods in order that we may live V It is the mine worker and the local tradesmen who have financed this industry in the last 12 months. Private enterprise has failed to maintain a proper Standard of life for the working people, and although the working man himself cannot carry the burden, the local tradesman has shared that burden with him, and between them they have put into this industry not less than £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 to maintain it in solvency. Apart from the local tradesman there is someone else to' be considered. While some of the coalowners are at their wits' end to keep concerns going; while the miners are enduring what is practically famine in their homes, there is a class of people who take for each ton of coal extracted from the earth, an average royalty of not less than 8d. I think this Government and this House must say to the owners of land, "Here is an industry to which you have contributed nothing but upon which you have battened and fattened. It has now come upon its seven lean years and we must declare that you shall not in this time of hardship impose any longer upon it. The royalties alone would help the industry considerably. I support the demand for an inquiry. I am quite satisfied that the mind of the public is fair enough. I do not think it would be content to allow 1,000,000 men and their families to go on as they have been going for the last year. Their position is growing steadily worse. Two years ago they had their savings and they were free from debt; now they have exhausted their savings, and their condition grows more parlous day by day. I believe it is time a full inquiry was made and that a full inquiry would find that the first charge to be made upon the industry is that of providing a decent standard of living for the people engaged therein.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut. -Colonel Lane-Fox): The whole House, I am sure, will think with very great sympathy of the condition in which the coal industry finds itself at this moment, as described by many hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh), whose warm feeling we all know, has painted it in colours rather dark. I hope I shall be able to show that there can be a less drastic picture than that drawn by the hon. Member. He represents one of the worst parts of the country, where the conditions, perhaps, are the most difficult, and it is very natural he should take a very gloomy view of the situation. I think, however, he has made this picture rather too dark. I do want to say this at once. I am quite sure that the industry deserves all the help and support and sympathy which this House can give it. Whatever may have happened in the past, nobody can deny that since the troubles of 1921, masters and men in this industry have pulled together. They have, I believe, done their utmost to pull the industry round. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the expense of the miners! "] Cannot we discuss these matters without prejudice? Really it does not help argument to introduce matters of that kind. You cannot get over the fact that the output at the present time has nearly risen to the pre-War level, although with shorter hours. In spite of that, when the men find that, in spite of their great efforts, and in spite of the way in which they have worked, their wages show no great sign of rising, they naturally feel a sense of bitter disappointment, and wonder what their position is going to be in the future. The House should be willing to recognise that these men have been extremely patient. As. we know, they were patient during the great stoppage of 1921, and now, in a difficult position, when many of them are deeply in debt, they certainly deserve our sympathy. It is not much comfort to them, though it-is undoubtedly true, to point out that there are other industries which are distinctly in a worse position than they are. That is true, and the House has got to recognise it. This is not the only industry which has to suffer these difficulties. Mention has been made of the agricultural industry. The engineering industry, the tinplate industry, the shipyard industry, and a good many others could be

    3033
    mentioned in which the conditions are at least as bad as, and in some cases certainly worse than, in the coal industry. In addition to that, many of these industries have a very large proportion of unemployment which, at any rate, does not affect the coal industry. In the coal industry, though the wages have gone down so much, the rate of employment has remained steady and continuous.
    Sympathy alone is not going to help. I hoped that in some of the speeches made before I had the opportunity of addressing the House there would be some suggestion as to what could best be done to improve the position. It is correct, technically, to say, as the hon. Member for Ince says, that he is not responsible till he becomes Prime Minister and it is not his business to make suggestions. That I admit, but I think we are all most anxious to improve the position of the coal industry, and there are hon. Members on the other side who have unequalled authority and knowledge on the subject. Cannot they for once put away prejudice and hand over to us the benefit of their knowledge and help us to deal with this problem? There is a long evening before us, as I understand this Debate is going on for a considerable time, and I make the suggestion that hon. Members who speak after me, and who know the subject from A to Z, should assist us. Surely they are patriotic enough to make some suggestion and not to keep the secret entirely to themselves by which the industry really can be improved and some practical solution of the difficulty found. The hon. Member for nee in his temperate and very interesting speech spoke strongly of the hardship which would be inflicted on the coal industry and the men employed in it by the deficiency which was arising under the present agreement. Let me say, first of all, that it was very surprising to me to hear hon. Members talk of the agreement as they did. Nobody can deny that the hon. Member for Ince and the hon. Member who spoke last took the same line. The agreement was described as a "so-called profit sharing scheme," and I think it was described in other terms of great contempt. I have turned up the remarks of another great authority and a man of great influence, and I find he says:
    "Those who attribute the present low wages and employment to the miners'
    3034
    national agreement are guilty of false reasoning. There is nothing wrong with the fundamental principles of the agreement. They are better than any principles that have operated in any previous agreement."
    Those are the words of Mr. Prank Hodges, spoken on 15th July last, at the Northumberland miners' gala in Morpeth. He goes on to say:
    "My advice to the workmen in this coalfield is to carry on with this agreement until we get back to something like normal trade. Then, if we have to make fundamental changes, let us make them when we are on the crest of prosperity and not when we are down in the valley of despair."
    If I may suggest it, that is extremely good advice, and I am certain the hon. Member for Ince has every intention of following it. Ho has spoken of the deficiency, under this agreement, which may have to be paid. We shall come to. that matter in due time when things improve. I do not think, however, that the hon. Member put the matter quite fully. In the original arrangement, the-proportions as between masters and men were 83 per cent, for the men and 17 per cent, for the masters, but at a later stage an extra 20 per cent, was added to the standard wage, and no provision was made for anything extra for the masters from which to pay it. That has got to come out of the so-called profit of 17 per cent. In addition to that, it has been decided that no deficiency can be declared, which can be set against what the men are to receive until ascertainment in any period comes down below the original bed rock of standard. It has to pass through the whole of the 20 per cent, before it can really become chargeable against the men. The hon. Member did not mention that, but in dealing with these figures it is only fair to remember that the masters have had this extra charge to pay out of their share, with the result that nobody can pretend, who knows the facts of the case, that their profits have ever approached the figure of 17 per cent., which was originally fixed in the agreement.
    Mr. WALSH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. There never was any agreement, except upon the minimum wage, which is 20 per cent, over the standard wage. The standard wage carried with it the employers 17 per cent, of standard profit. The 20 per cent, has to be added to the

    3035
    standard wage as the minimum wage originally agreed upon, and there has been no variation in that agreement.
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I think it would have been fairer had the hon. Member pointed out that this addition has to come out of the masters share. I think the only suggestion of the hon. Member was that there should be an inquiry into the conditions of the industry. Is it worth while prosecuting that when we have at the present moment a National Board which commands the respect of the whole coal industry? Could any Government suggest a better body to investigate the conditions of the mining industry than that which already exists in the National Board? If the industry is not satisfied with the Board it is up to them to alter it. It was set up under the agreement which they themselves desired and the most brilliant of Prime Ministers could not have the imagination to invent a Board which would more competently carry out an inquiry into the particular points which it is desired to deal with. I cannot think that this suggestion has been very well thought out. We have all heard, at different periods of political controversy, inquiries being called for by people who did not know exactly what they wanted. I can only suggest that this is possibly one of those cases. At the same time I hope before the Debate concludes that we may have some more useful suggestion.
    There is another point that has been made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Murnin), who, I am afraid, is not in his place, but he said that the State had taken millions out of the coal trade. That is not the fact at all. The balance is against the State. The State has paid £41,000,000 to the industry. Although a considerable amount was collected from the industry, from those who made large profits, very large sums were paid in at various times and voted by this House to keep the various collieries going which were not making profits, and which were in a bad way. Therefore, although a considerable sum has been paid over to the State in the coal levy, the net balance remains against the State, which is owed something like £41,000,000, money which it has paid into the industry and which it has not got back. There is no question of the State
    3036
    having robbed the industry of very large sums. The facts are the other way.
    Mr. BATEY: Could the hon. and gallant Member not give us the figures? I asked a question the day before yesterday, and he answered that he could not give us the figures for the last year.
    Lieut-Colonel LANE-FOX: For the Agreement Act, which operated from the 1st December, 1916, to the 31st March, 1919, Estimates were passed by this House of £8,900,000; for the Emergency Acts of 1920 and 1921, £19,000,000; the Sankey Wage of 1919, £6,350,000; and, finally, there is the Coal-mining Industry Sub vention, £7,100,000, making a total of £41.350,000 voted by this House, and that is the net result of the business.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Was the £41,000,000 paid under the Coal Emergency Act or by the State, apart from any collections from the industry?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I thought I had made that clear. About £60,000,000 was collected and about £100,000,000 was paid, and the balance is about £41,000,000 against the State. What we want to know is how the industry can be assisted, what is the cause of its troubles, and what are the remedies.
    On many occasions it has been alleged that the reparation coal from Germany was the original cause of the trouble. I should like to point out that, whereas the first delivery of reparation coal began in September, 1919, the foreign demand for British coal remained steadily good till the latter part: of 1920. There was afterwards a very low output; demand fell off owing to the industrial depression abroad and depreciation of exchanges, and these were fatal to our export trade. But at the end of the great stoppage of 1921 our output began to increase, and there was a steady improvement, which has gone on till now in 1922, the exports to France are practically the same as they were in 1913, and the exports to Belgium are considerably higher than they were. Therefore, it is not true to say that at this moment the coal industry is suffering from the competition of German reparation coal. I would like to point out, also, one great advantage resulting from this reparation arrangement. Owing to the fact that the German exchange is so depreciated, it would be possible, if there was no control over German coal, for that

    3037
    coal to undersell us in every market in the world, and we know quite well that, before the War, that is the sort of operation they were constantly engaged in. But with the present depreciation in the exchange it would be specially easy for them to do it; indeed, it would be difficult for them not to do it. But the mere fact that the German coal is tied up under the reparation arrangement leaves the whole of the other markets open to us and must have an effect for the better rather than a worse effect on our foreign trade.
    The real cause of the trouble is, to my mind, the great slump in the world's trade, and if once things really begin to improve and the signs of improvement that we see now continue and increase, there, I think, lies the great hope for the recovery of the trade. There is, therefore, a chance that there will be a great improvement in the coal industry. What are we going to do to improve the position? Various suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that it might be possible to raise the selling price of coal. We all know that the great proportion of the coal produced in this country is produced for consumption in this country, and we also know that at this particular moment, with trade in the very shaky condition in which it is, it would be absolutely disastrous and fatal to the great masses of the people if anything were done to take away from them the benefit of as cheap coal as possible, and not only would it be disastrous to those people, but it would kill the demand for the coal itself, and therefore that remedy would be worse than the evil. It has been suggested, I believe by Mr. Frank Hodges, that in the case of public utility undertakings, gas and electricity companies, railway companies, Government undertakings, such as the Admiralty, and so on, it might be possible to sell them coal at a higher price than that charged to the ordinary consumer, but surely that is a suggestion which is perfectly impracticable. It would result, in all probability, in people coming along and manipulating the prices to their own advantage, if you had the same article selling in a free market at different prices.
    When you come to the export of coal, at the present moment the coal that we are exporting abroad is very dear for the foreigner to buy. Owing to his depreciated exchange, he finds it difficult
    3038
    enough to buy, and it would be a very dangerous experiment to try and raise the price against him. It might have the fatal effect of entirely, or at any rate largely, destroying the market. Therefore, I do not think there is much to be done in the way of raising the price.
    There remains the question of whether anything can be done to reduce the cost of production. Some have suggested that we might return to the system of longer hours. I am not going to argue that on its merits, for this reason, that it is no use arguing a thing that is not within the present range of possibilities. You could not possibly go back to longer hours except by agreement, and this is not an agreement with which you could expect the men to come at the present time. They see their output well up, and apparently no corresponding, at any rate no serious, rise in their wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are falling."] Wages are beginning to rise in certain districts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] They are rising in the Eastern Division and Northumberland and Durham, and we hope that rise will continue. I am not sure that Scotland has not just risen. The point is, that I do not think it is any use suggesting longer hours, for the simple reason that at this moment it is not practicable, and therefore I dismiss that suggestion
    As regards freights, railway rates, and so on, the constant suggestion is made that undoubtedly the industry is hardly hit in this respect and that in other costs of management, distribution, and so on, there might be considerable economies and better trade arrangements made. As regards distribution, there has been a Committee sitting on that question, which has not yet reported, and Mr. Frank Hodges is one of its members. I have no doubt we shall get some useful suggestions from that Committee, but surely these are matters in which the owners are as much interested as are the men —probably more BO—and this is a matter which might well be considered by the National Board and thrashed out by them. It is surely a mistake for any great industry to suggest that it wants Government help in the management of its own affairs. If, however, there is any chance of the Government being able to help to reduce the cost of management, or to help in any way to make the conditions easier, any practical suggestion would be received

    3039
    with a most sympathetic ear, but we must have some practical suggestion, and so far, I am sorry to say, the Debate has not yielded it.
    In my view, the best chance of improvement in the industry lies with the improvement in trade which we see beginning, with the increased demand that will certainly come for coal at home and abroad as that improvement in trade begins; therein lies the hope of better things. I hope very much that nothing will be done, even in the way of an inquiry, which might interfere and disturb things just at the moment when they may be beginning to improve. I hope very much, if possible, that the industry, out of its undoubted ability and brains on both sides, will produce a capacity of helping itself which would be better than anything that can be got from the Government- I am glad to say that nobody on the opposite side of the House has seriously advocated a subsidy, which, I am sure, would be regarded as a mistake in all quarters, and I very much hope that, with their own capacity, and with their own undoubted patriotism, which they have shown in trying to pull the industry round during this last year, they may yet succeed in steering it into a pleasanter, more cheerful, and more peaceful harbour.
    Mr. POTTS: I want to deal first with one or two paints which have been put by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who has been making certain statements, and the first point he made was on the question of output. In 1914, the year he quoted, the correct figure of employés in and about the mines was 1,124,301. In October just past it stood at 1,114,695, so that it is the other way about. He said, with reference to wages being 50s. per week on the average, that that applied to South Wales. I hold in my hand a document from the coalowners' own paper, namely, "The Colliery Guardian," and the heading of the statement referred to is:
    "The Mining Association has just issued a tabular statement (reproduced here) which shows the wage position in the mining districts before and after the War."
    The weekly wages are set out by the owners from 1900 down to October, 1922, and for October the figure of 50s. is given as the average earnings of all people employed in and about the mines. Those
    3040
    who have arrived at that figure have arrived at it as follows: Taking the Ministry of Labour figures for November, the time worked is given as 5·44 days. They take 5·44, and they multiply that by the 9s. per day, which gives them exactly the 50s., in their way of putting it. What they have done is to drop off the few points. The wages for October, when they come out, will be found to be an average of 9s. 3d. per day, which figure I have privately. The figure, therefore, which has been given is wrong, and the basis on which it is taken is wrong, and with the usual practice of the colliery-owners, the people, and, in particular, Members of this House, are left in a position in which they do not know exactly what the situation is. The time given in the document at 5·44 working days at the colliery is the time during which the pits are actually open for work and not the time which the men actually put in in the mines. The correct figure of actual working time is 4·9. On an average of six years, you will find that it does not vary from that figure one point in actual working time. The net result is that the owners show a wage just inside 4s. a week more than was actually earned in October. That is one point on which my hon. Friend opposite is wrong. He put it more than 50s., and applied it to Wales, whereas it applies to the whole of the Unied Kingdom, and not to Wales alone.
    I hope we shall deal with this matter in a friendly way on both sides, and discuss it in a friendly spirit. If we cannot argue this case on its merits and enlighten each other, we have not as much intelligence as we ought to have; but if we have intelligence, we ought to use it. Therefore, I hope we shall not get angry, as we did last night. Let us endeavour to keep our heads and remain friendly. We on these benches are appealing to Members opposite and below the Gangway for some consideration' for the mining industry. We honestly believe we are entitled to it. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) must admit, I think, that even if miners have 50s. a week, it is not a wage that will sustain a family at a time like this, seeing that the cost of living in October stood 40 per cent, higher than our wages in that month. Taking Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, South Wales, the Eastern area and Lancashire, which are all the important mining districts, the average of

    3041
    all these places in March, 1921, was 18s. 9·17d. per day. In November, 1922, the average wage was 8s. 10½d., so that the wages had fallen from March, 1921, to November, 1922, by 9s. 10·67d., or a fall in percentage of 111 during that period. The cost of living in March, 1921, Stood at 161 points increase. It stands now at 80. Deducting 80 from 151 leaves 71, and taking the difference between 71 and the 111 per cent, in the fall of wages, it leaves exactly 40 per cent, that we stand behind in wages as against the increased cost of living at this moment. You can take it another way by putting the increased cost of living on to the wage they had, and you still get the same result as that which I have given. Roughly the wage bill has fallen £150,000,000 per annum from what it was before the lock-out.
    Let us come to the output. In the year 1913 the output of the mines of the United Kingdom was 287.000,000 tons. If we take the four weeks of November, the output was at the rate for the whole year of 282,252,100 tons, showing that, for all practical purposes, if November could be maintained for the year we should be up even to the 1913 position, when the output stood at the highest figure we ever had—not the highest for the individual employed, but, so far as output is concerned, the highest figure ever attained in our mining industry, and we are approaching that figure. I stated before the Royal Commission that, given time, even although the hours were reduced, our industry would be able to get back to the same output with a six-hour day as we were then producing under our eight-hour system, which meant nine as a matter of fact. We are approaching the position which we had in 1913, and what I said at that inquiry I repeat now, that in due course of time the mining industry of this country will produce in six hours as much as it did in eight hours in 1913. So that, looking at the figures from that point of view, there is nothing in the argument to justify an increase in the time worked at our collieries in the future. We are against any increase. Instead of increasing the working time of the miners, we are expecting, and intend in due time, a further reduction in the hours of working our mines.
    7.0 P.M.
    There is a point which I want to clear up, as it has been raised two or three times since I have been here. The
    3042
    miners' lock-out has been deemed to be by some on the other side of the House as a strike. I hold in my hand a draft copy of what was submitted by the coal-owners on one side, and ourselves on the other, and from that document I can produce evidence to show that it was a lock-out, and not a strike. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff and some other hon. Members spoke about high wages. When the hon. Member tries to make this House believe that profits in the mining industry are not high, he is simply leading or attempting to lead the country to believe something that is not the actual fact. Inasmuch as the hon. Member has drifted into that—I did not want to say a single word about it—and as the matter has been discussed from that particular point of view, I intend on the other side to give the profits of the industry right up to date, in order to satisfy the House. I will give the figures for 12 years. Hon. Members can take them as being absolutely accurate, because they conic from returns produced by the Government itself. Those returns-are made up in two years, and from 1903–1904 to 1914–1915 the actual profits in the mining industry amounted to £230,734,638. Coming to 1913–here I want the attention of the House, because this is very important indeed—the profit was £13,000,000, or Is. per ton, which, at that time, taken on the average estimated capital of the industry by Dr. Stamp, at the Royal Commission's inquiry, and based on a statement of the capitalisation of the mining industry at that date, works out at 10 per cent. In 1914 the coalowners' profits were £15,000,000, or Is. 4½d. a ton, and 13·75 per cent, on their invested capital. In 1915 the profits rose to £21,500.000, or Is. 8d. per ton, and 16·6 per cent. In 1916 they rose to £37,800,000, equal to 2s. ½d. per ton, or 29·16 per cent. In 1919 the total profits were £27,750,000, equal to 2s. 2½d. a ton, or 22·08 per cent. 1918 showed the crowning figure. The Royal Commission estimated the profits, and that estimate turned out to be correct. The total rose to £39,000,000, or 3s. 6½d. a ton, or 35·41 per cent, on the estimated capitalisation by Dr. Stamp himself.
    I want to take a clear year under the agreement. When we went back to work last year—1921–in the first clear year's working of the mines we produced just

    3043
    215,000,000 tons. The proceeds were £219,937,531, so the average selling price was 20s. 4·67d. Let us see how the figures work out in the whole of the industry. The cost of timber, stores and materials, spread over the entire year, was £29,521,081, or 13·42 per cent. Rents and royalties were £5,690,433, or 2·59 per cent, of the total proceeds. Other costs, which have been talked about in the House, took £31,784,032, or 14·45 per cent. The owners' standard profit due under the agreement —they did not get it, and I will come to that "afterwards—was £15,733,680, or 7·15 per cent. The amount due to them under the agreement, the surplus profit, was £7,208,317, or 3·28 per cent., making a total, under the agreement, of 10·43 per cent., if it had been paid, of the whole proceeds of the industry. The standard wages were £92,551,132, or 42·08 per cent. The surplus was £37,179,803, or 16·91 per cent. Somerset did not make a complete return, but the total money was £269,053, or ·12 of a penny, bringing back the figures to the 100 per cent.
    I may say, because there has been some misunderstanding about it in the country, that a subsidy was paid by the Government to the amount of £7,068,649, in addition to the actual wages shown in the 12 months. Therefore, the wages, as shown in the document certified by the accountants, amounted to £143,601,838, which sum ought to include the amount of subsidy given by the Government to aid districts over their difficulty. The eoalowners' profit was not that figure. Their trading profit was £9,084,688. What this House and the country should have regard to is the fact that, if the industry had been in the position to have carried out the Agreement, and if the owners had received profits in accordance with that Agreement, their profits, which were 1s. per ton in 1913, would have been 1s. 10d. per ton on the year's working. Some of the owners' profits had to go into wages, arising out of the Agreement, because, as the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) has said, the standard wages are there and the owners get the 17 per cent. Owing to the 20 per cent, minimum being in existence, however, if a particular district cannot meet this 20 per cent, with the money allotted to it under the Agreement, it has to come out of the owners' profits. That is why we are in debt in many districts, because
    3044
    money has had to he paid in wages to secure the amount which is the minimum under the Agreement.
    Under the Agreement, even if it could be carried out, the miner will not have a living position, and still cannot live. That Agreement would not give a wage that would maintain a man and his family. Whilst it would not provide sufficient to maintain the man, it would increase the owners' profits from 1s. per ton in 1913 to 1s. 10d. per ton under it. The Agreement is like that because we were defeated and had to accept the inevitable at the time it was made. We then said, through the Executive, that the profit which the employers were demanding—17 per cent, on the standard and 17 per cent, on any surplus that might arise—was too high. A year's working demonstrates that it is too high. The owners are not getting it at the moment, because the position of the trade will not allow them to do so. There is the position, and for that reason I say that the miners at this moment are drifting into such a condition that something must be done. We are meeting here at a very crucial time, which fact ought to be noted by hon. Members on the other side. I want the House to reason the matter out, to consider where we are, and where we are likely to be. The miners of the nation are in such a condition that they have pressed us, as an Executive, to call a National Conference to discuss the situation, and that will take place a few days from now.
    The miners are awaiting a decision by the House to do something in their interests. If that is not done, I fear the wrorst will happen. We know that the miners cannot live at present. In my own county, I was for many years—I have just resigned—the treasurer of the great organisation called the Yorkshire Miners' Association. I have been paying out money for some considerable time in that organisation. I know exactly the position of Yorkshire, and Yorkshire has been in one of the most favourable positions as compared with some of the districts—in conjunction with the Eastern area, of course. In Yorkshire we have men by the thousand who cannot live; they are working at many collieries on short time. Wages are not as high as some people imagine. I know of people with large families—I can prove it if necessary—who are working five days a

    3045
    week, and who are receiving maintenance from the workhouse, because they cannot maintain their families. Our people are in such a deplorable condition that they cannot go on any longer. What they are saying to us, even in Yorkshire, which is in a better position than Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, and some other places, is that they might just as well be fighting on the surface of the earth as working and starving. People are going to the collieries, at this particular moment, taking dry bread with them. They cannot help themselves, and that is true.
    Hon. Members on the other side ought to take heed of our warnings. I am not exaggerating in any way. What I am saying to the House is that I want them to reason out the justice of the case, and to recognise that we have reached a point when the industry itself cannot maintain the people in it. It is time for the Government to step in and see that something is done for them. I say that for this reason. We in this House have a duty; that is why we are sent here. We are in exactly the position which the guardians occupy locally in a district. We have to care for the people. Our first consideration ought to be the feeding and clothing of the people. Hon. Members can talk as they like about the first consideration, but in what does the strength of a nation consist? It lies in the vitality and vigour of its people. If the vigour of the people goes down, if you let them sink into a certain condition, what will happen? If we wish to depend upon our manhood and upon our nation, as we had to depend a few years ago, let us put them in such a position that they will feel their manhood and their self-respect, which they are not doing to-day.
    We are sent here in the expectation that, we shall care for and provide for these people. In my own division we have thousands of men out of work at this particular time- I have in my possession now votes of censure from the guardians-—they are nearly all Conservatives, except five Labour men—votes of censure upon this House and the Government. What for? Because the people are starving. We are here as representatives of the people, and the people require consideration. The Minister has asked us what we can suggest. It has been suggested that some of our colleagues on
    3046
    this side and he and his colleagues should hold an inquiry into the mining industry. That suggestion has been ignored. I put it again now. But if an inquiry cannot take place, then let a Committee of this House inquire into and find out the rights and wrongs on both sides. We are either right or wrong. Hon. Members on the opposite side may think we are wrong. We say we are right. The only way to find out where the truth lies is either by Royal Commission or by a Committee of this House being chosen jointly from both sides to find out the actual facts. That is what we ask for. I hope this House will move in that direction, and so on, let us hope, towards a remedy for the evils and troubles of the mining industry.
    Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I respectfully solicit the indulgence of the House which I understand is usually extended to Members who try to address the House for the first time. In doing so I would like to take the opportunity of corroborating the statements made to-day by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh), particularly his references to Cumberland. I have known that county for the last 15 years. I know practically everything of its social life. It may not probably be known to the Members of the House that the coal mines in Whitehaven run four or five miles under the sea, so that it is impossible to conduct the mining industry in that town with the same safeguards as are expected to be provided under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts. The fact remains that in the event of any catastrophe occurring the men are penned in like rats. The unfortunate and disastrous result is that Whitehaven is now known from one part of the kingdom to the other as the centre of disaster in connection with the mining industry. Yet despite the fact that these poor men have to take their lives in their hands day after day, as my right hon. Friend said, no matter what happens to them, whatever extraordinary and other changes may take place in the development and prosperity of coal mining, they, at any rate, for at least three months after a change find it impossible to derive one single farthing of benefit, either directly or indirectly. These men are housed in a horrible state. They are clothed in a horrible state. They are fed in a horrible state. This is a consequence

    3047
    of the contemptible wages which they receive.
    I happen to be a member of the board of guardians at Whitehaven. So low were the wages of the miners and so insistent was their claim for Poor Law relief, that the clerk to the guardians was instructed to interview the coalowners, and ascertain if it was not possible to avoid relief being provided for these men by a wage in return for their work that would provide them and their dependants, not with the luxuries of life, but with the common necessities of life. I am not quite sure that they succeeded in their mission. The Secretary for Mines, in what, I am sure we all agree, was a very temperate speech and very distinct in character, sympathy, and accuracy to the speech delivered by that plaster of Paris imitation of Adam Smith who represents the Mossley Division (Mr. A. Hopkinson) or another hon. Member who spoke—the Secretary for Mines, with very great justice I think, asked us what it was we wanted to inquire into. May I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a moment or two one or two of the things which I think would bear investigation?
    Perhaps hon. Members have forgotten a good deal of the information which was given to them at the time of the Sankey Commission. It may be that they are not anxious to have their information brought up-to-date. Le us, however, look at the coal industry, not exactly from the standpoint of the coal owner or coal miner. As a matter of fact I happen to be neither. I am one of the poor consumers. Let us look at the matter from the consumers' standpoint Let us understand what is his position. The coal owner tells you that he is working his mine at a loss. The coal miner, who takes his life in his hands in order to get the coal from the bowels of the earth, he certainly is living at a loss. The consumer is paying at least 150 per cent, more for his coal now than he was in 1913. The house in which I live when at home is built on a coal mine. Yet the price of coal to-day works out at a strange figure. Would it not be a valuable inquiry to ascertain how this comes about? Who is telling lies? Is the coal owner working his mine at a profit? That might be a matter for inquiry. Is the miner getting a living wage in return for his work? That might be a matter for in-
    3048
    quiry. And the consumer, who, after all, is worthy of consideration in this matter, is he getting what might be termed fair treatment from both the others? May I put another matter to hon. Members? Those of us who are concerned, either directly or directly in the mining industry, do not exactly swallow the statements that are very often made in regard to the losses of the mine owners. We regard these statements with very great suspicion. I suggest, in respect to some of these loans and some of these losses, the huge amounts of money which the miners are said to owe to the coalowners are likely to be on the Kathleen Mavourneen system," The may be for years, and it may be for ever."
    There is another point. Let me give an illustration that came under my personal observation only a week or two ago. There is one colliery in West Cumberland where they have an exceptional seam of coal. It is not a good industrial coal, but it is a good household coal. The manager of the colliery, with the consent of his directors, was prepared to sell that coal, and did sell it, at from 3d. to 5d. per bag less than the price fixed by the Coalowners' Association of Cumberland. What happened I He w as a member of that association, and they told him that if he did not desist selling coal at less than the price which they had fixed, they not merely would expel him from their association—he did not care about that— but they would actually deprive him of any services from the rescue station to which he would be entitled as a member of the association in the event of any accident taking place in his colliery.
    We have heard from the hon. Member for Mossley, not once, but many times—it is the food on which hi? folly feeds—that trade union tyranny is a very awful thing. I can imagine no sort of tyranny more cruel, more inhuman than that an association of men will say to one of their number: "If you do not put up the price of your coal to that fixed by us as a standard in the event of an explosion taking place in your mine, or a heavy fall of coal or stone, not one single piece of apparatus shall be taken out of the rescue station to save the lives of the men involved." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this also is a question that is very well worth inquiry. There is another point for inquiry—a point which is really full of interest. I am sorry the Secretary for

    3049
    Mines is not now here. I have here a copy of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule 3 of that Act of Parliament says:
    "A sufficient supply of wholesome food and pure water shall be provided daily for every horse which is in the stable or whilst at work."
    Is this not a very caustic commentary upon the industrial conditions of this country? We in times when we were promised a land fit for heroes to live in, yet we have to come to the House of Commons and ask the House of Commons to give to the men who drive these pit ponies and hew the material these pit ponies draw that sufficient amount of proper food and clear water that the country, by Act of Parliament, said—and said quite properly—should be given to the ponies. We have got extraordinarily low in the conception of human life when we have got to do that. But the men to-day are not getting the nourishment that you are bound by law —and rightly bound—to provide for the pit ponies. They have to be properly fed, and rightly so. Surely a similar state of things should apply to the men! If your organisation is so lacking, and your capitalist system so rotten, that it cannot be made to find work for men, then the men ought to be maintained. That is what I would suggest to the Secretary for Mines. He may reply that the Government can do very little in these matters, or that they can do nothing. We are told the very same thing by the employers when we go to see them. They tell you when we say: "Look at the cost of food," that they realise it. But they add, "We did not increase the cost of food, and we cannot reduce it." Very well, if the employers cannot do so the Government can.
    I have been estimating, and I trust with some degree of accuracy, that out of 20s. of groceries bought by the working classes, 7s. 5d. goes in direct or indirect taxation. Is it not practically a swindle when you give to your unemployed man £1 at the Employment Exchange and take 7s. 5d. from him in taxes at the first grocery shop he enters in order to buy food. The Government can reduce that taxation on food, and I suggest with great respect to the Secretary for Mines that if he can persuade the Government to reduce taxation on food by 4s. in the £ that is equivalent to an increase of
    3050
    4s. in the £ in wages. Can that be done? I know there are on both sides of the House advocates of a free breakfast table. All I have seen of the free breakfast table is that the Government have kept it very bare, and sometimes the table itself has been taken away for the rates. These are matters which can be inquired into, and ought to be inquired into.
    I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to another branch of the mining industry in West Cumberland, namely, the iron ore mining industry. I do not know whether hon. Members have heard of that industry, but the Government found it very useful indeed during the War, when our mines were placarded with notices announcing that iron ore was the first line of our national defence. It seems very strange that as soon as the War had been won the Government were the first people to tear up the agreement made with the men with regard to control, and they threw this industry back upon its obsolete methods and old machinery with the result that many of these mines have been closed down and the men now out of employment number thousands.
    Many of these men were teetotallers and thrifty, and lived a religious life, and what has happened to them? Owing to being out of work for nearly two years their savings have gone and they have been practically reduced to the standard of the drunkard and the neer-do-well who had not saved a penny piece. This has been to them a tax upon thrift. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that various other industries were now subsidising the enormous wages being paid to the railway workers of this country, but I never heard a more monstrous statement in my life. In the iron ore industry to-day we have hundreds of married men working in the mines who do not go homo at the weekend with more than 27s. after working six days. In the same district the standard of outdoor relief laid down by the Whitehaven Board of Guardians is 37s. 6d., and yet many of these men, after doing six days' honest work, receive no more money than 27s. a week. Hence it is clear that the mere provision of work which does not provide a living for those who do it is neither a thing to pray for nor one to bless when it comes, and the sooner my hon. Friends on this side of the House realise that fact the better. We need not

    3051
    always be going down on our bended knees asking for work if it does not bring sufficient to supply the workers with the reasonable necessaries of life. When men have to work without getting a decent living there is no incentive to work. We all know what enormous profits have been made out of labour in the past. We realise that the proportion of wealth distributed between those who produce it and those who direct production is very inequitable.
    Finally, I wish to make a strong appeal to the Government in regard to another matter. We were told last night that two new battleships had been ordered and that they will cost something between £10,000,000 and £12,000,000. Personally I think it would have been possible to have spent that money on something better than battleships, but if the nation is so well off, if your Exchequer is so exuberant that it can afford to indulge in costly fireworks of that character, then I suggest that they ought to be English fireworks. I think there ought to be some stipulation that the ship-plates and steel used in the manufacture of those ships ought to be made from British ore. In that way you would certainly find a very large amount of work for the people of this country. I am not suggesting, in making a plea of that character, that you should adopt any scheme directly or indirectly tending towards Tariff Eeform. That is not the remedy. I realise that owing to the working conditions under which iron ore is produced in Spain an absolutely unfair competition with British ore is set up, and if you are placing the order for these ships so that they may alleviate unemployment in this country then in West Cumberland we should have an equivalent to what is being done in other parts by using British iron ore, because our miners at least can do this work with the same skill and ability that British workmen always have shown.
    Mr. RAINE: As I am addressing the House for the first time I shall not take up very much of its time. If I were to do so I should probably repeat many of the arguments that have been brought forward, and I do not want to do that. I preface my remarks by saying that I have practically lived in the centre of the Durham coalfield all my life. I have been engaged in the coal trade for 35 years
    3052
    and I need hardly say that my sympathy is with the miners. There are certain facts which ought to be looked in the face. I do not quarrel with the statement made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), but I should like to criticise one thing which he said, because I think it is a great pity that we do not always get a clear statement of the various difficulties we have to encounter in connection with the coal trade. The man in the street does not understand the situation as to wages or anything else. Other speakers have referred to similar questions, and I think we can safely say that the reason for a lot of this misunderstanding is loose speaking.
    The hon. Member who represents one of the Yorkshire Divisions stated that the output of coal was now practically up to the 1913 standard, but if the hon. Member reflects he will see that he is wrong by about 15,000,000 tons, because he has not taken into account the fact that there are certain holidays which the miners enjoy. If you take the present output the figure for the full year is 270,000,000 tons instead of 287,000,000 tons, which was the figure in 1913. It is a well-known fact that if you take the pre-War level there would be certain extra profits to be distributed in accordance with the Agreement, and that has to be taken into account.
    Referring again to the picture painted by the hon. Member for Ince, which was in very gloomy colours, I think he only painted part of the picture and the other side ought to be stated. There is the very serious question of absenteeism. A case has been referred to which occurred in the town I represent, but the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) did not mention the evidence that was given in that case. In the course of the evidence it came out that absenteeism reached 13 per cent, in the middle of the week, and 20 per cent, towards the end of the week, as against an average for the County of Durham of nine per cent. The average percentage of absenteeism for the whole country is 7½ per cent, in regard to which it is generally stated that about half of that is avoidable. I think hon. Members on the Labour Benches might very well devote their attention to questions of this kind, and let the people who will not attend their work regularly know that they are not going to put up with it.
    Mr. RITSON: In the case which the hon. Member has mentioned, is it not a fact that the owners of the mine have refused to have an absentee committee at all?
    Mr. RAINE: I was not referring to Wearmouth. I am giving the information as it was officially given to me. The case was tried at Sunderland and the colliery it is true was out of my own constituency. My next point is the question of unemployment which has been dealt with very fully, and consequently I will only say that it is a very unfortunate fact that we cannot have exact, information given to us. The man outside desires to understand this question and he wants to have full information about it. He wants to know on which side his sympathy should go. In 1913 the number of men employed in the mines was, according to the hon. Member for Cardiff, about 5,000 more than before the War On the other hand, we have been told there are now practically 10,000 less employed, but according to a return issued by the Mines Department for the quarter ending the 30th June—I admit the figures alter from time to time—the total is now 1,025,000. Whatever be the facte, I say we want to know the truth. We do not want loose statements. We want authoritative statements, and it would be better for all parties if we had them, as it would enable a just, correct and sympathetic view to be taken of the whole situation.
    Mr. WALSH: That is the case for an inquiry.
    Mr. RAINE: Those who know anything about the coal trade will agree that we want the true facts. There is only one other point I desire to refer to. The hon. Member for Ince dropped a remark as to the difference between the pit price and the price to the consumer. I am not going to weary the House with figures, but I may say this that, taking Derbyshire coal, which is probably the coal mostly sold in London for household purposes, railway carriage and wagon hire absorbs 11s. 10d. per ton to-day as against 7s. 4d. in 1913. The cost of handling the coal at the depot, putting it into the carts and delivering it at the consumers' house is 6s. 9d. per ton as against 2s. 10½d. in 1913. I have no hesitation in saying that the increased cost of the delivery of coal from the pit mouth to the consumer
    3054
    has practically all been due to the increase of wages. We are most anxious to see this question settled, because we do not want to have any disruption such as that threatened by the other side. We can see a little improvement in trade coming, and we do not wish it to disappear. Hon. Members opposite might very well take into account this question of absenteeism in connection with unemployment and consider how far they can improve matters from their side.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: May I ask the indulgence of the House, as this is the first attempt I have made to address it. The last speaker has dealt with the question of absenteeism in one of the Durham collieries. That colliery is Ryhope. I may inform the House that that is one of the hottest pits in the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not quite sure whether the ventilation in that pit is good or bad, but I am certain that there you have a degree of heat ranging from 85 to 90. Therefore I may put it to the House that if there is any absenteeism in the colliery there is very good ground for it. As a matter of fact the men who work on the coal face in that colliery have to work in an almost naked condition. If hon. Members were at the coal face they would think the men working there were not ordinary civilised beings, but were beings who had lost part, of their culture and civilisation. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) also dealt with the question of the price of coal to the domestic consumer. I think he might well have ranged himself on our side for the purpose of demanding an inquiry into these things. Out of every £100 received from the sale of coal not more than £60 on the average goes into the miners' pocket in wages, and there is therefore quite a decent margin for inquiry. We ask in the consumers' interest that there should be that inquiry.
    I am glad we are having this Debate this evening. I am pleased we are discussing this matter on the Floor of this House, because I believe it will be for the advantage of the nation if we can draw the attention of our people to the wisdom of discussing these questions on the Floor of the House rather than relying upon strikes or other methods. It was a wise decision to debate the matter this evening here because, if we want the workers of this country to rely upon Parliamentary effort, if we want them to rely

    3055
    upon Constitutional action, we must show them we are in earnest when we debate these matters in the House. It is no use, either by clever Parliamentary effort or by speeches ingeniously delivered, attempting to deceive the people. We are asking our people to rely upon Parliamentary effort and Constitutional action, and hon. Members on the other side must convince the workers of the country that they really intend to consider these questions in a just and fair spirit. Then the people will rely upon Constitutional Parliamentary action. My hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Cardiff (Mr. Gould) when speaking attempted to make out a case that the miners of this country were not in receipt of a very low wage. I thought there was common ground between us. Mr. Hodges, when putting his case before the Premier, a few days ago, declared that the conditions in the mining industry were appalling, and the Prime Minister said, "yes, I agree; but perhaps the word is too harsh. "The conditions are horribly bad, and I thought we were all agreed that they were very bad indeed. We are told that the miners have not more than 40 per cent, on their pre-War wages. I believe that is not seriously disputed. We have an average wage for all workers in the industry of 9s. per day. That, again, is not seriously disputed, and if we were to be put on our pre-War footing the rate of wages to-day would have to be not less than 11s. 7½d. per day. These are the conditions that obtain.
    8.0 P.M.
    We may be asked what is our remedy. My reply is that we are not the people who are expected to evolve schemes for remedying the present condition of things. We are not in power. You are in power and it is your duty to evolve schemes for the betterment of the industry. You yourselves are the upholders and supporters of and believers in private enterprise. Here are the results. You must deal with those results. If we were to make suggestions they would be suggestions which have been made from time to time to the House and which have been rejected. May I remind the House that a Commission was appointed to inquire into the industry, and, reporting upon the evidence given, declared that the present system of ownership working in the coal industry stood con-
    3056
    demned and that some other system must be substituted for it There is a suggestion, if you care to accept it. The responsibility lies on the Government of placing remedies and suggestions before the country. We on these benches say that, so far as the miners are concerned, they are giving of their best to the State. They are at the present moment producing almost as much coal per person employed as they did in 1914, and they are doing that in spite of the reduced hours. We say that, having given of their best to the State, having expended their energies and done all they could to make the industry successful from the standpoint of production, they are entitled to have a living wage out of the industry. Whatever system or method you have to deal with the situation, we say that the first charge upon this industry must be a decent existence for the people who produce the coal, and it is for the Government to see that that is provided. I do not know by what means at the moment it may be done. We suggest there ought to be an inquiry which will go to the root of the whole question. There should be an investigation into every department in order that we may put this industry in a position which will benefit not only the miner, but also the people and the State. Let us have that inquiry into the whole industry. Let the industry be treated as a unit, and not in sections. Do not let colliery owners think only of their particular little pit, but let them think of the welfare of the nation as a whole. We, on this side of the House, try to look at the matter from the national and not merely from the miners' standpoint. We ask the coalowners and we ask this House to look at the matter from the national standpoint, and to treat the industry as a whole as one unit.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Like the previous speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House for this, my first effort in its Debates. I have listened with very great interest to the speeches made on both sides of the House on the condition of the coal industry at the present time. I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who made a speech which was typical of the individualism of the last century. I should like to remind hon. Members, who hold his view, that, had it not been for the low price at which coal was sold in

    3057
    the home market during the period of control, he and other engineers in this country would have been bankrupt by to-day. Then I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who knows so much about the coal industry, and is, probably, the greatest international expert in the world in regard to it. He said that if the miners worked harder, and, particularly, if they worked as hard as he has worked, they would get better results in wages. Certainly, the hon. Member has worked exceedingly hard since the War, and he has had his reward a thousandfold. He, of all men, is the last who should appeal to miners to work harder, because he should know, from his knowledge of the South "Wales coalfield, that the harder a miner works the poorer he gets to-day.
    I am satisfied that the Prime Minister is anxious, with us, to do something to improve the condition of the coal industry. He has certainly admitted, on behalf of the Government, that the coal industry of this country is in an appalling condition. That word is sufficiently strong for us, and we accept it. Those of us who are in the industry, and know the lives of the miners, know that that word is not too strong. As a Member from the South Wales coalfield, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a startling anomaly. The South Wales coalfield is admitted by all mining experts to be the richest coalfield in the world, producing the finest quality of coal, and admirably situated at the geographical and commercial centre of the coal markets of the world. It was admitted during the War that the miners of South Wales were as loyal as any body of men in this country to their country's call. We were told with pride that it was the Welsh smokeless steam coal which kept the Navies of the Allied Powers on the high seas and kept the Germans out of sight. I would remind the House that the miners of South Wales were so heavily recruited during the War period that a stop had to be put to it, in order to enable them to maintain the output for the Allied Navies. And yet this richest coalfield in the world, which has always in normal times, for generations past, produced the highest rates of profit for the capital invested, and the highest rates of wages of any coalfield in Great Britain—and, I may add, the highest rates of mining royalties
    3058
    to the landowners of any coalfield in Great Britain—this richest of our coalfields is to-day the poorest in Great Britain as regards economic and social conditions.
    Why is that? The House may not be aware that the South Wales coalfield is the largest exporting coalfield in the world. Two-thirds of the coal produced in South Wales is exported, and it goes to all parts of the world. Therefore, whenever the international trade situation becomes depressed, the South Wales coalfield feels the consequences sooner and more fully than any coalfield in Great Britain, with the result that, great as is the distress in the coalfields of Great Britain generally, I regret to say that in. South Wales it is even more than the average. In my opinion, the price of coal oxported from this country at the present time is too low. We are exporting coal to-day at least 5s. a ton cheaper than the price we could get for the quantity which is demanded at the now lower price, provided that the coalowners of Great Britain had the sense to unite their forces and control the industry upon a reasonable basis. It is not coal that is being burnt up at the present time; it is the lives of the mining community of Great Britain that are being burned out day by day by the appalling conditions that now prevail. I would remind the champions of private enterprise that the British coal industry is the basis of British commercial prosperity. It is coal grit and British grit together that have built up the great British nation to its great state of commercial prosperity for the past generation.
    There are four economic reasons why, in my opinion, the British coal industry has been so successful. The first is that we produce the best quality of coal in the world: the second is that the British coalfields are geographically situated in the best markets of the world; the third is that those markets have been long established with their valuable connections at home and abroad: and the fourth, and not by any means the least, is that the British miners, with all their faults, are the best miners in the world. Because we have had these four great advantages we have been able to hold our own up to now in the markets of the world, and I would ask the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the Government policy, to try to realise what William Ewart Gladstone realised in this House many years ago,

    3059
    namely, that the coal industry, after all, is, from the nature of our commercial connections throughout the world, the basic industry of our whole structure. Private enterprise in the coal industry stands condemned as the result of an impartial inquiry by the Sankey Commission. That Commission proved, what many of us knew before, that for the last 200 years, during the period of the development of this industry, we have actually wasted, underground and in other ways, nearly half as much coal as has been sold in the markets of the world. We have wasted in that period 4 billion tons of coal, which, at £2 per ton, is equivalent to our present National Debt of £8,000,000,000. We have paid in that period to the landowners, merely for the right of extracting the coal from the earth, over £400,000,000.
    There are ample resources of coal left, in spite of the extortion of the Royalty owners; but the great point, in my opinion, and the one which we want the Prime Minister, as the exponent of the economics of the long run, to take into account, is that in the long run it is upon the proper and efficient development of the coal industry of Great Britain that the future, as well as the past, prosperity of our country rests. While there is plenty of coal left in this country to work for hundreds of years to come, it is not the quantity that is left that matters, but how long we can continue to produce that coal at a cost of production which will enable us to meet the competition of other coal-producing countries in the coal markets of the world. Private enterprise has failed, and cannot possibly succeed, because of the wasteful methods which have been followed. Finally, I want to point out that a late and honoured Member of this House, one of the most distinguished men of our country, made what is, in my opinion, a remarkable prediction as far back as 74 years ago, when dealing with this very question from these benches. John Stuart Mill, in 1848, made this prediction with regard to the future relations of capital and labour:
    "The form of association, however, which, if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief and workpeople without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working
    3060
    under managers elected and removable by themselves."
    That, I submit to the Prime Minister and to the Government, is the ultimate solution of the proper working of the coal industry in this country. While, however, that is our ultimate policy, which we shall see to it shall be realised in the near future, in the meantime we are faced with the appalling facts of the social condition and poverty of our people; and, while we will press in this House, Session by Session, till we get the power, through the electorate or through pressure on the Government of the day, to carry out that ultimate policy, in the meantime we respectfully suggest that the conditions are so acute and so alarming, and the discontent is growing so rapidly among the miners of Great Britain, that it is in the national interest, that it is a matter of public policy, that the Prime Minister should make arrangements as soon as possible, with the mine owners and with the mine workers through the Federation, to devise at once means of raising the standard of life of the miners of this country to the level of the cost of living; and that the financial adjustment necessary to cover the cost should be placed, not as a subsidy upon the taxpayers of the country, but upon the coal industry over a long period of years, in such a way that the industry itself, out of its future earnings when trade recovers, shall pay for it. Our proposal is not a subsidy, but an advance over a period of years, just as a loan is granted to a local authority to carry out local government work. That appears to mo to be a suggestion worthy of serious consideration. I trust that, as the result of this Debate to-day, the Government will realise that the miners expect from them something more than the palliatives offered through unemployment schemes, something more than the degradation of having now to go to the guardians for Poor Law relief. We say that the time has come when the British coal industry should be re-organised upon a national basis and run in the national interest, and that the first charge upon the industry should be a living wage to the coalminers.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I crave the indulgence of the House for my first effort here. Might I, at the outset, express my amazement at the empty benches we are gazing upon and speaking to on this very

    3061
    important question. We have heard expressions of sympathy many times during the past few weeks, but when we are slowly but surely reaching what should be a finale, we find that the Members of the Government not only insult the Opposition by leaving the Chamber, but incidentally they make up their minds that they are not going to be persuaded that twice two are five nor that twice two are four. They realise the futility of attempting to avoid the very sensible arguments which are submitted from time to time, and, as the line of least resistance they leave the Chamber so that we may have the pleasure of talking to empty benches. This is not the time for criticising the causes leading to the present state of the mining industry. Immediate assistance is needed by the miners. The Prime Minister and, I believe, his confederates have already agreed that the position of the mine workers is deplorable indeed, and if it is true that the miners as a whole are not less than 40 per cent, below the cost of living, and realising that their wages in the days before the War were none too large, at least we ought to be agreed not only that immediate assistance shall be forthcoming, but that all steps that can be taken should be taken to place the industry on a much better foundation than it is at the moment. Hope, which appears to be the only thing we are likely to get from the opposite side, will neither feed the empty stomachs of the miners nor will it clothe or provide boots for their wives and children. Six shillings and fivepence halfpenny per day pre-War as against 9s. to-day leaves us in a position when we not only cannot maintain the poor standard that we enjoyed before 1914, but are considerably worse off.
    When the Prime Minister and hon. Members opposite tell us that there is no possibility of securing subsidies towards the miners' wages, one wonders whether they have ever attempted to examine the question from the opposite side or not, for, after all, if the mining industry is the very basis of all other industries, and the men who win the coal, making it possible for all other industries to go along, are not receiving a living wage, is it not fair to say that if the nation is unable to subsidise any one particular industry, surely any one particular industry is quite unable to subsidise the nation as a whole, for that is what it amounts to in effect.
    3062
    If industry, after having been worked on the most efficient and the most economical lines, finds it impossible to produce a very necessary article for the wellbeing of the nation, and provide the workers therein with a decent standard of life, surely there is some room for investigation. We have not only got the geological and geographical advantages, and the capabilities of the men who win the coal, but we have the organising power, if it were only applied to the winning of coal on the most economical and most efficient lines, and yet we find that, notwithstanding the various periods of success and depression that we have passed through, at this very moment, we are unable to provide the men who produce the coal and make it possible for all the wheels of industry to revolve with sufficient to enable them to continue maintaining a decent standard of life. No industry can hope to go on for a very long period if the people working in it are not receiving wages which will enable them to buy a plentiful supply of pure food, for physical deterioration is bound to set in, we shall have inefficiency, and we shall find that the men in future are not going to be as capable of producing coal as they have been in the past.
    While the suggestion of subsidies is turned down by the Prime Minister and many other hon. Members opposite, I would remind them that even this morning at a very early hour we were handing over £340,000 to a private enterprise. Moreover, is it not true that we are actually providing a large sum in interest, £1,000,000 per day, for no services rendered by the recipients of that colossal sum of money? We can subsidise the permanent unemployed in the shape of interest, and we ought to be able as a nation to provide all that the miners are seeking this evening to enable them to continue winning the coal which will regain our industrial prosperity as a nation. One need not remind the House of the very arduous and dangerous task that the miner performs. The fact that some 1,200 miners are sent to their doom every year ought at least to cause some little thought, in the direction of those people who are in that perpetual industrial war. 120,000 of our members who work in the mine are injured to such an extent that they are compelled to play for more than seven days in every year. Consequently, the very arduous nature of the occupation, and the dangers to which

    3063
    these men are subjected day by day, warrant the Government in giving them more than the sympathy and hopefulness which has been expressed to-day. Moreover, although the War only commenced in August, 1914, by March, 1916, no fewer than 282,000 miners had enlisted, whilst before the War actually terminated some 400,000 of them had joined the ranks. Either this indicates an extraordinarily high degree of patriotism amongst the miners, or else it indicates that the occupation they follow is not giving them the wages we are led to believe from time to time by many newspapers, or otherwise they would have remained at home and at work.
    There is another thing which may, perhaps, be said of some miners. If one takes the Yorkshire miners and I know this is typical of the miners of the whole country. They have a sense of honour, which has not been expressed from the opposite side many times during the past three weeks. In a period of some 11 months they have paid no less than £102,000 to private traders who guaranteed them credit during the great lock-out of 1921. They have paid back £127,000 to the co-operative societies, they have paid back £100,000 which was borrowed, and not less than £200,000 for out of work pay and assistance to their comrades generally. So that there is some sense of honour amongst the miners which one would like to see practised by Members of the opposite side when industrial workers find themselves in difficulties, as the miners are at present. Since the miners have not only shown in practice their honour to the nation as well as to their friends in need, it seems to me that the nation ought to rise as one man and see to it that not only shall wages be sufficient in future to enable them to buy a decent supply of pure wholesome food, as is demanded for the pit pony, but that they shall be able to maintain a standard of decency similar to what they enjoyed during the past few years.
    While we are appealing for what we conceive to be right for the miners, we are not disregarding the unfortunate people in other trades, neither are we disregarding the profits that have been taken from the industry during the past few years by the coalowners. During the four years of the War £160,000.000 were taken away in profits, and if we assume
    3064
    that only a very small portion of that sum has been set aside for these days of depression, there is no wonder that the mineowners stand idly by and leave the miners' representatives to put forth this appeal to-night. When one refers to the Eastern area, comprising four or five counties, we find that to-day, notwithstanding the poor wages that the workpeople are receiving, for every ton of coal extracted from those counties during October of this year 1s. 9½d. per ton profit was taken away by the colliery companies. Therefore, the companies are not doing so badly as some people would have us believe. Whilst they are making fair sums of profit, other colliery companies where geological conditions are not quite so good are not so prosperous. When we seek assistance we are not seeking a subsidy that will enhance the profits of the various colliery companies, but we seek to obtain for the workpeople that which will enable them to continue to produce coal in times of depression, so that we can take hold of the oncoming trade and greet it with open arms and do for the nation that which it has failed to do for itself during the past few years.
    As an ex-mine worker, and one closely connected with the practical side of the miner's life, I am convinced that not only have we the seams of coal, but we have the men capable of producing so that we may sell in the international market in competition with the nations of Europe. With the same science applied in the methods of production and distribution that was applied during the War, I am convinced that, not only could we compete successfully, but that we could see to it that every mine worker in the country has a fair and decent standard of life. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who is connected with the shipping industry, has spoken to-day. I would remind him that when the nation desired to economise in the expenditure of mechanical energy, and when they wanted to utilise every organisation to the highest point of efficiency, they found that amongst other things, they had to take over the ships of the country, but not before the ship owners had netted £350,000,000 profit in 31 months. When people like the hon. Member give lectures to this side of the House as t6 what the mine worker should do, one wonders whether they are representing their

    3065
    constituencies or the particular shipping firms to which they belong.
    There are costs other than wages that have to be considered. We are often told that while wages have bounded up other things have also gone up. We find on investigation that while wages are 40 per cent, over the 1914 wages, other costs are approximating to 135 per cent. increase. We are told that, in such a way as to be led to believe that the colliery owners are called upon to pay these various sums. National Insurance, the ninepence for fourpence business, Unemployment Insurance, the something for nothing, increased rates, due to extra unemployment relief which has had to be be paid, and even the welfare fund for the miners, and other costs, including the costs of the managerial department, are extracted from the returns of the coal sold before either wages or profits are encountered at all. These costs other than wages, even the cost of erecting stations where safety appliances are erected, are extracted from the proceeds of the mining industry. While that is so, if any particular firm or any number of firms close down, the miners who have worked at these collieries and have paid for the stations to be erected would not be the owners of one single brick embodied in these particular buildings.
    Consequently, we feel that having all the factors that would lead to industrial prosperity, taking the mining industry as the pivot, we have also the organising capacity, if we were only given the opportunity to apply that particular capacity. The Secretary for Mines has said that the Government do not want to enter into the controlling of industrial concerns. Neither do we, but we do want the Government to step in and to give those who stand here, and those they represent, who understand the industry, the opportunity of controlling the industry in the interests of the nation. We feel, and not without justification, that we are not taking our own practical knowledge of the mining industry as our guide, but we are prepared to accept the evidence of men who listened to the expert witnesses that were broght before the Coal Commission in 1919. They are the people alone able to determine as to whether or not the industry is efficient, and they have declared not for the continuance of private enterprise, with all its waste and inefficiency, but for the mining industry
    3066
    to be taken over as one particular unit. They know and they realise that one of two very important things have to be done, either the mines have to pay a decent living wage to the people who win the coal under private ownership, or the Government have no alternative but to take over the mines and immediately nationalise them. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, they are going to declare that one million miners and their families are to be driven to destruction. I do not think that that is going to take place. When Julius Csesar was alive, the furthest distance he could travel was 40 miles per day, and at the same time the distance that one could make one's voice heard was, perhaps, in the next field; but to-day we can travel 40 miles in two or three minutes, we can make our voices heard from one side of the world to the other, we can ride in the air or under the sea. If science has brought us to such a state in so many departments, surely that same science could be applied to producing the coal scientifically, distributing the same, giving the nation all that it needs in industrial efficiency, and, incidentally, giving the miners that to which they are entitled, namely, sufficient wages to enable them to live in decency and to give their wives and children that type of life to which they are entitled.
    Mr. BATEY: My remarks will be concerned with the Durham coalfields. Durham is a large coalfield. We have employed there at the present time 158,000 people. The last 18 months have been black months in which our people have suffered very much. During the recent Election wherever one went one was struck with the fact that the people in the colliery villages seemed to be sunk in poverty and have the mark of poverty upon them. We have suffered in the Durham coalfields in three ways. We have unemployment, low wages and underemployment. So far as under-employment is concerned, we have got over that trouble, but as regards unemployment we have some 10,000 men who are still unemployed. I believe that every one of those 10,000 men might be employed today in the Durham coalfields if only the Durham coal industry were properly organised. Experience has taught us that coalowners have been inclined to stop those collieries or parts of collieries which in their opinion were not profitable to

    3067
    them, and have been prepared to work the collieries and parts of collieries which were most profitable. We believe that no one or two men, because they claim to be employers of labour, should have the right to stop a colliery or part of a colliery and to throw the people dependant on that colliery out of employment and leave them to fare as best they can.
    People in colliery villages are in a different position from those engaged in towns, where a man working in a shipyard or a factory, if he loses his work, has the possibility of finding work somewhere else in the immediate neighbourhood, but in the colliery villages we have our men walled in, and if a pit or part of a pit closes there is no chance for those men who are disemployed to find work anywhere else. Those men are doomed to idleness. We believe that men have a moral claim for work when they have been walled together in a colliery village. There are thousands of them with their wives and families depending on them who have this moral claim for work, and no one or two employers ought to have the power to stop a colliery unless that colliery can no longer go on, but as long as coal can be worked from that colliery we believe that that colliery ought to be worked and those people provided with employment. Those are our grievances so far as unemployment is concerned. But we have an equal claim in regard to low wages.
    Reference has been made to the fact that wages in Durham have fallen from 16s. 6d. a shift in March, 1921, to 8s. 9d. Two years ago the wages in the Durham coalfields were 27s. 6d. per shift. To-day they have been cut down to 8s. 9d., which is a reduction of 11s. 9d. on that great class of labour. To take 11s. 9d. per shift off people whose wage is £6 or £7 a day would not matter so much, but to reduce the wage from 20s. 6d. to 8s. 9d. is something which cannot be justified. An hon. Member opposite referred to the question of subsistence wage, and on that we have an equal grievance, because we have a large class of labour who have simply got to exist upon a subsistence wage of 6s. 8½d. per shift, and a large number of these men cannot get more than five shifts per week. I am prepared to admit that many of them do get six shifts per week, but we have thousands of those men who cannot get more than five shifts per week,
    3068
    and those men have to exist on a total wage of 33s. 6d. per week. That is the gross wage, but when the necessary deductions are deducted from the gross wage, those men are compelled to exist upon a wage of less than 30s. per week.
    An hon. Member on the opposite side said that in Durham nice had free houses and free coal. I would remind him that this applies only to married men, and in the Durham coalfield miners to-day there who have either a colliery house or free coals are condemned at the same time to work for this extremely small wage, which is not sufficient to maintain these men as they ought to be maintained We believe that we could solve this question of unemployment in the, Durham coalfield if the industry were properly organised. We have taken out figures for the last two months, and we find that last month the Durham coalowners made a profit of 1s. 10½d. per ton, and that in the previous month they made a profit of 2s. 0½d. When at the Coal Commission Mr. Justice Sankey proposed that coalowners should be entitled to a profit of 1s. 2d. a ton, some of us thought that that was an exorbitant figure. If you go through the records of the coalowners' profits, which were given at the Commission, you will find that from 1874 down to the outbreak of war there was only one year in which the coalowners' profits reached the figure of 1s. 8d. a ton. For four or five years they averaged no more than 10d. per ton. We find to-day in the Durham coalfield that for the last 2 months the owners had a profit of 1s. 10½d. per ton and 2s. 0½d. per ton. While the owners had those profits the great body of miners were compelled to exist on a subsistence wage of 6s. 8½d. per day.
    We have been told from the other side that when we have grievances we ought to take them to the coalowners. We met the Durham coalwoners at the time when we found that they had a profit of 2s. 0½d. per ton. We pleaded with them to increase the subsistence wage of 6s. 8d. per day. The reply we had was that they absolutely refused to increase the wage. They said, "Before you came into the room this morning we spent a long time discussing the question whether we should not apply for a reduction of the subsistence wage." It is clear, therefore, that if the coal industry is to be left in the hands of private owners to do as they

    3069
    please, there will be no betterment of the conditions of the miner. The Secretary for Mines referred to-night to the statement made by Mr. Hodges that the present National Agreement was not to blame for the condition of the coal industry. I agree: with Mr. Hodges statement, but at the same time I do not agree with the National Agreement. I believe it will be necessary to amend that agreement before we can better the conditions of our men. It has been alleged from the other side of the House that what we are asking for is a subsidy. We are not asking for a subsidy. We do not want a subsidy for the coal industry. But we do want an inquiry into the conditions of the industry, with a view to seeing whether it is not possible, by re-organisation, to better the conditions of the miner. None the less we believe that there can be no peace in the colliery districts and no real betterment until the industry is nationalised. Until the Government is prepared to face the question of nationalisation, it is not possible under private enterprise to better the conditions of our men.
    Mr. CHARLETON: T should not have sought permission to intervene in the Debate, not being a miner, but for the fact that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinsou) made a most unwarranted attack upon the railwaymen, and sought to show that all the troubles of the miners were due to railwaymen and railway rates. By his speech the hon. Member showed, in the first place, that he knew nothing about railway work. I have spent 35 years of my life on a railway, and seven weeks ago I was driving an express passenger train on the railway. The hon. Member said that the railway-men and men in other industries must work harder and produce more. Had the hon. Member known anything about railway work, he would have known how foolish it was to make such a statement. If in my ordinary business I have to prepare my engine and take it to the terminus to work the Scottish express to Leeds, as I have done for 15 years; I cannot put off until to-morrow a job that I ought to do to-day. If I did not oil my engine properly I should probably get a hot bearing and have to account to experts for the failure. If I lose time the guard and the signalman are checking against me. They have clocks and watches given to them, but none is given to me. I have to account for every minute lost. My
    3070
    fireman has to keep my steam gauge up to the mark; otherwise I am responsible for losing time. The signalman cannot shirk his work, which has to be done as it comes along. It is the same with the shunter and the guard. If there is one individual who might take things quietly it is the goods porter, but he is paid by tonnage and bonus, and is therefore paid by results. But the hon. Member for Mossley obviously knows nothing about it.
    There is also the question of railway rates and their effect on industry. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) clearly showed just now that the railways were not making such inroads into coal charges as have been alleged. The railway freightage from the Derbyshire coalfields to London is 11s. 10d. a ton, including wagon hire, and the latter represents about 1s. 9d. a ton. It was pointed out that to take the coal from the wharf to the cellar a journey of a mile might be necessary. The distance from the centre of the Derbyshire coalfield to London is 128 miles. For that the charge is 11s. 10d. a tort. The cost of taking the coal from the wharf to the cellar is 6s. 9d. per ton, or somewhere about 60 per cent. of the amount charged by the railway company. The hon. Member for Mossley also said that we were paid an abnormal rate of wages and that we would have to submit to some reduction. The hon. Member does not seem to know that in our union we fought for 25 years to get machinery set up that would deal with wages and avoid industrial dispute. When we consider that the centenary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway takes place in two years' time, and that there have been only two national strikes in the century, it is obvious that railwaymen cannot be accused of having taken harsh measures in order to get their wages above the general level.
    How were wages fixed? By a long series of negotiations, in which I have had the honour to take part. For over two years we were negotiating with the late Government to get railway wages fixed, and, afterwards, when the machinery was set up, two most respected Members of this House, the hon. Member for Stratford (Sir T. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Manville), were on the Board and gave us our reward. That all means this: We set our case before this tribunal and it gave us our award. Therefore, I do not think that we can be

    3071
    charged with having got what we have by any methods of force or by overstating our case. Those two hon. Members were parties, and very prominent parties, to the award. One-third of the tribunal is made up of railway managers, one-third of our own people, and the remaining third of railway users, among whom were the two hon. Members mentioned. We have submitted to reductions. Than the railwaymen there was no more loyal body of workmen in the State when the Great War broke out. A settlement of wages and hours was long overdue. We had our programme in, but when the War broke out we withdrew it unconditionally. We said, "This is not the time. Let us get on with the job we have to do." It was not until prices went up to abnormal levels that, in order to keep ourselves alive, we asked for a bonus. We have got our agreement and the hon. Member evidently did not know that up to the present, since the Armistice, we have given up somewhere about £23,000,000 in wages per annum. Nothing at all has been heard about that. The railway managers are making a further demand upon us, but we have not been telling all about that because we believe we have the machinery to deal properly with the matter; we have our trust in the hon. Members I have already mentioned, and I believe an amicable settlement will be arrived at. I wish to refer generally to the effect of railway rates, as so much has been said about their effect on costs. I may refer to one article particularly, in which some of us are interested, though my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) is, perhaps, not so much interested in it, and that is beer. With the cost, perhaps, 75 per cent, above pre-War, the rate on beer from Burton to London is 23s. per ton, or one penny on six pints.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid the hon. Member is getting out of order. I thought he was going to give figures with regard to the railway rates on coal, and not on beer.
    Mr. CHARLETON: I merely wish to show the effect of rates, but perhaps I am too close to the border line of Order, and so I shall refrain. If we look through the whole of the railway charges it will be seen how little we pay in railway
    3072
    charges on the things we buy. Railway-men all agree that rates might be lowered, and the late Government also agreed with our solution. For about 25 years we, as railwaymen, have argued that the present system was wasteful and that a State system of railways would be far more economical. Incorporated in the railway rates in 1913 was a net income of £53,113,000. That has to be borne by the rates. On a national system of railways that net profit, as such, would be wiped out, and the users of the railways would get the benefit of it. Further than that, the Committee which sat during the War, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was a member, clearly showed that a- further saving of between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 could be made if the State, took over the railways and ran them as a unit. Our experience during the War proves that we could not have won the War unless the railways had been working as one unit. The setting free of wagons for the conveyance to docks of munitions of war for overseas was phenomenal, and was only possible because the railways were being worked as one unit. Mr. A. K. Butter-worth, in a memorandum to the Board of Trade, states:
    "At present much of the time and energy of the more highly-paid officers of a railway company is taken up with the work in which the trading community has no interest, and which is only rendered necessary in the interests of the shareholders whom they serve by the keen competition which exists between companies."
    If you wish to make new savings, if you wish to get an efficient- service of transport whereby many of the difficulties under which the miners are suffering might be made easier, it can be done by carrying out the promise that was made and by doing that for which we have been agitating for 25 years—by making the railways one unit and working them in the interest of the community, not as an interest-bearing proposition, but in the same way as you use sewers, roads, and the water supply, as the handmaid of industry. In that way you will remove many of the difficulties from which we suffer and many of the troubles with which we are now confronted will disappear.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I think I can claim from the House that special indulgence which has been granted to all Members

    3073
    who, so far, have made their first incursion into the Debates of this House. Perhaps I am entitled to even greater indulgence, due to the fact that I am coming in at what I suppose is the end of a Debate in connection with what, to me, is one of the most serious questions that will have to be discussed and finally settled by the House of Commons. Personally, I believe it is inside the House of Commons that the mining community will have their sufferings relieved. I believe it is by means of political action it will be done, but we are not going to get it from the hon. Members opposite. In the very near future we are going to occupy those benches, and it is then that we shall be able to carry out the reforms which are necessary. I have listened to three Debates in which the House has tried to deal with humanitarian principles. We had a Debate on unemployment and we heard of the sufferings of the unemployed. We on these benches agree that the sufferings of the unemployed are very great; in fact, no words of ours can adequately describe them. On the other hand, I make the claim that there is a section of the community in industry, who are employed and yet, being employed, are treated as badly as the unemployed. I have read in the Scriptures that the wages of sin is death. I have come to the conclusion that with the mining industry in the position it is in to-day, the wages of the miner are both starvation and death; starvation while working and the death which is meted out to him in connection with the industry.
    I heard hon. Members opposite plead for humanitarianism as applied to animals, which are to be transported from Canada to these shores. I hope humanitarianism will also be applied to the mining community within our sea-girt shores. I am not going to plead for sympathy from the other side of the House. I believe too much has been made from our own benches in connection with a sympathy which I do not believe will come from the other side. There are two kinds of sympathy. There is the sympathy which may be created by outside knowledge, or by seeing the sufferings of a part of humanity, and there is another sympathy which comes from a realisation that one has come through the sarnie trouble oneself. I can speak with a
    3074
    knowledge of the horrors which exist in connection with mines. We have heard of the financial aspect of the question. What about the tragedy of mining? Three times I have been carried home from the mine on a stretcher. I have known my kith and kin to be carried home, never to rise again from the beds in which they were laid. I have known what it is to go into a miner's home to break the news that the father who left home hale and hearty in the morning would never return to that home as its breadwinner. I have seen a miner's wife drop in a dead faint because of the knowledge that that breadwinner was not coming home again. Knowing these things, I trust hon. Members opposite will recognise that if, at times, we demonstrate in a manner which is rather out of order, in connection with things on which we feel so bitterly, we do so only because of our knowledge of this suffering. If humanitarian ideals are applied to animals surely it is not too much in a Christian country to ask that the leaders of industry should extend to common humanity that which some of them have pleaded for in connection with animals.
    I want further to point out that certain suggestions have been made from the Government Benches, and it has actually been suggested that the Scottish miners have received an increase of wages. The Secretary for Mines actually made that statement, and technically it is correct. We have received an increase of wages, of 2½d. per week—for a family of five one halfpenny a week of an increase, for the purpose of dealing with the tragedy of mining life. Surely it was not suggested seriously that we had received an increase under circumstances such as those. It has also been suggested that if production were increased to what it was in 1913, we would be in a better position as an industry to meet the demands of the mining community. Would we? I ask the Secretary for Mines if he is prepared seriously to make that claim on behalf of the Government. There are thousands of miners unemployed at the present time, and there are thousands of miners only partially employed, and I have a vivid recollection of once taking part in a very serious struggle in a coal mine because I was fighting for increased production, and the answer that I got on pay day was "3d. per ton roduction to Mr. Westwood." That was the reward,

    3075
    so far as the miner was concerned, of his endeavour to increase production, and even although 17½ million tons per year were increased in this country, so far as the miners are concerned, it would mean possibly reduced prices and reduced wages. I am never going to be an advocate of increased production so long as increased production means increased profits for the Members who sit on the benches opposite and reduced wages for the miners that I am here to plead for, and always will plead for.
    We have been asked for serious contributions to the Debate for the purpose of helping on the mining industry. It has been suggested that, so far as the miners are concerned, they will have to grin and bear it and that they can only accept what is in the industry. What is the Government going to do in connection with the promise made by Members on the Treasury Bench in connection with royalties? Are you going to abolish the stupid system of allowing men to have the right to draw royalties for that which they never put into the bowels of the earth? Are you going to allow from £6,000,000 to £9,000,000 a year to go in royalties to your dukes and your lords, whilst miners are dying in the bowels of the earth, and dying when they come to the surface also because of the starvation wages that you are prepared to continue paying to them? What are you going to do in connection with royalties? What are you going to do in connection with the efficient running of the mines? We are here to make the charge that the mines are not efficiently run at the present time. You do not take advantage of the knowledge of those engaged in the industry. With all due deference, if it were a question of an examination tomorrow morning as between the knowledge, the scientific knowledge, that I have got of mining and that of the Secretary for Mines, I am prepared to say that I should win easily, and there are hundreds in the mines in exactly the same position who are prepared to give all their scientific and technical knowledge to enable us to run the mining industry in a scientific manner, for the use of the people instead of the exploitation of the miners engaged in the industry.
    Might I seriously suggest that all the arguments that have been used against
    3076
    control are arguments (hat are unsound? This Government has followed the procedure laid down by the late Government. I am not saying this in any offensive manner, as I believe, so far as sympathy is concerned, we shall get real sympathy from the present Secretary for Mines, but so far as actual knowledge is concerned, exactly the same principle is being applied as was applied in connection with the control of mines. The late Government appointed three Coal Controllers, not one of whom had any knowledge of mines. The late Government appointed the last Coal Controller, who was rejected by the people of Glasgow, and who was appointed because, he was a man physically fit for the position. That was the argument used from the benches opposite, that he was a man who was strong physically, not that he was a man who had a knowledge of the industry. I suggest that, so far as the Government is concerned, the right way to run this industry and to deal with the Department is to have someone at the head of the Department who has actual knowledge of mining, so that his knowledge can be brought to bear in connection with the questions that have to be discussed in regard to this great industry.
    Something must be done. I have here a letter which was sent to me during the last fortnight, a letter that, more adequately than I can do, outlines the tragedy of mining life. Here is a case of an individual, working every day in the week, with a net income of less than £2 per week for the purpose of keeping eight— two adults and six children—alive. The result is that whilst some of the hon. Members opposite say they are going to have nothing whatever to do with subsidies, we have got to subsidise the mining industry locally, although you refuse to do so nationally. We have to provide boots and clothing for the children. Only three weeks ago I was 'phoned up, when I went home for the week-end, with an appeal for boots and clothes for five children, three of whom had not been at school from the 5th September, and two of whom had not been at school from the 2nd October. Neither boots nor clothes could be bought for those children, and the parent was working every day. We had to subsidise that industry locally, because we had a Labour representation that said: "If you will not subsidise nationally, we will subsidise locally, for

    3077
    we are not going to allow children to be starving and to go without boots and clothes." You have to meet it either one way or the other, and I suggest that this suffering can only be relieved when once we make up our minds as a nation, and when the Government opposite accept the recommendations made by a Commission that was set up by themselves. The Prime Minister pointed out, in reply to a question, that, so far as the statement made by himself was concerned, that they would apply in letter and spirit the findings of the Sankey Commission, that applied to wages and hours. We on this side make the claim now that neither in wages nor in hours have the late Government or the present Government applied in letter or in spirit the principles which they said they would apply.
    I plead that the Government will agree to an inquiry in connection with the running of the industry and the charges m connection with the industry. I plead for that inquiry in the interest of common humanity, because of the fact that the miners to-day are in the most tragic position possible. One out of every seven is more or less injured during the year; one every throe or four minutes meets with an injury more or less severe. If you could picture a procession reaching from York to Darlington, and back again from Darlington to York, every yard in that procession there would be a man or boy who had been more or lese injured in the mines of this country last year, and every 100 yards there would be a man or boy who had been killed in the mines of this country last year. That is the physical tragedy in connection with mining, and therefore I plead with hon. Members opposite to agree to the demand for an inquiry in connection with this industry, so that we will be in a position to give to the industry a little more of the decencies of life than they have had the opportunity of enjoying during the last 18 months.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I think the House, whatever views may be held in it, will join me in welcoming the speech to which we have just listened. It is a very striking speech, and a very typical speech. It is a speech which shows how the injured workmen feel. It is not a question primarily of money; it is not a question primarily of material possession; it relates to those qualities which we sometimes call soul, and which
    3078
    at other time we call spirit. It is that peculiar and curious quality of humanity, the humanity of the father, the humanity of the husband, the humanity of the son, in respect of the family which has always suffered when adversity overtakes a trade, and involves thousands of people in unemployment. If hon. Members opposite would just remember what struck me, at any rate, as the very charming apology—it almost amounted to—which my hon. Friend made for certain outbursts in this House, explaining it by the simple fact that the heart was full, that passions were strong, and the feeling that if they held their tongues the very stones would cry out. The better we understand each other on that ground, the better, I think, it will be for our country. We have listened to a Debate which has swayed hither and thither, now on one side and then on the other. There have been statements made and statements contradicted. There has been an appeal to our humanity and an appeal to our business sense. I think everybody who has spoken, I think everybody who would speak, even if every. Member in the House had an opportunity of speaking, would confess to one thing, and it is this, that we are all baffled by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There has been no speech from either side of the House which I would consider as completely satisfactory, and when I make that statement, I make it in the full knowledge that what I am going to say myself is going to be worthy of a similar characterisation.
    We have got the coal trade, which is one of our undoubted key industries, going through a crisis the like of which, I think, it has never gone through before. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) went back to Napoleonic days. I do not know whether he is right or wrong. The conditions, of course, were abominable then. Other conditions were quite unequal, almost incomparable, but, so far as the present is concerned, there is not a man or woman in this House but will admit that, owing to a series of causes created by certain industrial evolutions, the state of the coal trade is deplorably bad, that the prospect is not at all bright, and that it deserves the very best intelligences of our country to be devoted to the hammering out of some practical solution. I know how very difficult it is to make a

    3079
    beginning in these long series of evolutionary processes, saying, for instance, that the War started in 1914, and so on, but, for purposes of survey, we have got to try to fix a point from which the disaster started. The miners' representatives fix that point at a time when the lae Government started its decontrol revolution. It was sudden. It was the breaking of a bargain. It was done by sheer physical force in this House—the physical force of counting heads in the Lobby. There was no justification for it at all, except the financial justification of saving the taxpayer at a time when the agreement, under which the taxpayer had paid, was drafted by the Government, was signed, sealed and delivered by the Government, and was only broken in order to convenience the Government. As I say, the miners fix the point of the beginning of these recent disasters there. One hon. Member, who addressed the House, referred to a statement made by Mr. Frank Hodges. He did not quote it all, but I will supply the omission. He said that, in Mr. Hodges' opinion, it was not the agreement which was responsible for the debacle. I am not aware of anybody who says the agreement was responsible for the debacle. I do not know any miner who says that the agreement was satisfactory, or could be carried on under abnormal conditions, but I do not know any miner who said that it was because of the agreement that the debacle had overtaken the trade. What Mr. Hodges said was this:
    "I want to assert, as strongly as I can, that the Government responsibility in this matter is plain and unmistakable, and most of the misery now experienced can be brought home to the Government, which, after having used a great industry to its maximum advantage during the period of the War, abandoned it to its fate at a moment when it could not help itself, except through the unimaginable suffering of its people, the effects of which will last for generations to come."
    That is the miners' case. That fixes the period when the trouble began so far as the miners' view is concerned. What do they do to-day? I think the House must give them credit for modesty. They have not asked for subsidies. They have asked for an inquiry, and they have asked for an inquiry, I think, partly, at any rate, because the Prime Minister himself asked them to ask for an inquiry. He received
    3080
    a deputation from the Miners' Federation on Saturday, 2nd December. This is his final word:
    "I myself am convinced that an inquiry would upset things when there is a chance of improvement at this moment. That is my opinion. If, after the House meets again you still wish to press definitely upon me to have an inquiry, I will consider it, but I think at present it is not advisable."
    Hence this Debate. Surely every hon. Member who has listened to the Debate must have been impressed with the necessity for an inquiry. We have had the most bewildering contradictions by experts; experts on that side, experts on this side. We have had figures that have been contradicted, we have had statements made that have been characterised as being false. What can I, a poor layman, one who wishes to do my duty to the country through my membership of the House of Commons, do I am not a miner, neither by my muscle nor by the power of my pocket. I am neither the servant of a mineowner nor a mineowner myself. But I feel as an elected person; I feel as a Member of this House; I feel as a Member of the Opposition in this House, that it is my duty to see that the facts of the mining industry are understood. I also feel it my duty to say that this key industry must surely be the subject of certain fundamental propositions regarding its health which surely can be agreed upon by both sides. Surely there are great propositions, regarding economic working, regarding capital, regarding expenditure, regarding control, regarding marketing, and regarding a score of details that arise, centred round the operations of the coal pit. Surely there must be—I decline to believe there is not —a possibility of both capitalist and workmen agreeing upon certain fundamental propositions regarding this which will promote economy and efficiency.
    This Debate has shown a sharp division. There is one side and there is the other; no common meeting ground; no possibility of agreement. And not only there, but when you come to the Agreement. A very interesting speech was made by an hon. Member from the Front Bench below the Gangway. He was piling up a very impressive' argument and, as I listened to him, his sentences came out just like bricks laid by a skilled bricklayer. I saw a great erection of antagonistic argument being created, almost in front of my very

    3081
    eyes. Unfortunately, the whole of this argument of his was based upon the assumption that certain costs were costs of production. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince who interrupted him, upset the whole of his foundation, and all this beautiful argument, that was becoming so formidable in my amateur eyes, came tumbling down like a load of bricks. Surely we can agree about that. Is it true or is it not true that the Agreement is so drafted that certain costs of production which, say, the Income Tax Authorities would insist upon treating as capital, can be treated as income? Is it true or is it not true that this distinction between costs of production, between income and capital, is of such a nature as to upset the equitable working of this Agreement as between master and men? We have had no reply to that. This House does not know what the facts are.
    Take another case. Another hon. Member who spoke from a seat further remote from the Front Bench told us a great deal about free houses, about free coal, and about other emoluments that were not included in wages. I find that Mr. Smith, the President of the Miners' Federation, talking from a knowledge which nobody can dispute when he is dealing with facts, in that interview to which I have already referred, said to the Prime Minister:
    "You have been given some figures about certain workmen and their percentages. You have to remember in the figures that Mr. Hodges has given you that, apart from cost of living, the workmen have to pay 150 per cent, more than in pre-War days for their explosives "—
    a very important element in wages. Then I come to the precise point which suggested this extract to me as I listened. Mr. Smith said:
    "The figures given you are before any deductions have been made. You have all these extra costs." And then,
    "The average colliery rents in areas I know are 11s. a week; I am talking about houses with two rooms up and three rooms down,"
    How can there be arrears if there are no rents made?
    "Then you talk about not having to pay for coal. We use a quality of coal that the ordinary consumer would not buy, a quality of coal far inferior, and we pay for it on an average of 3s, a week, which we are supposed to get free. These things cannot go on."
    An HON. MEMBER: No.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Again, the hon. Gentleman has only contributed to my argument that what has been said in this House to-day is the best proof of the necessity of an inquiry, if possible.
    There is another important point in regard to production in relation to working hours. Those of us who have been working at perhaps more or less abstract economics—not at all a bad exercise for a business man—know perfectly well that you can reduce hours without reducing production. We also know that there is a limit, but that can only be found by experiment, you cannot find it by abstract theorising. The miners' hours have been reduced to seven. We have had experience of the working of seven hours, of eight hours, of nine, ten and eleven hours. Why is not that experience made available for us in a proper way? Is it proof that the seven hours' experiment has given results which would justify hon. Members opposite saying that production must be limited on account of the reduction of the hours? I do not believe it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."] I am not going to say whether it is true or not. So far as the facts are concerned up to now, which up to now have been produced, they do not warrant my coming to that conclusion. Surely if the industry is important there is going to be no dispute on either side. My friends as workmen work under conditions so terribly dangerous, so uncomfortable, and altogether so objectionable, that if we can reduce their hours not only to seven, but to six or five, we will do it. How can you do it? You can only do it if, every time that you make an important experiment like this reduction from eight hours to seven, the whole matter is handed over to a Committee of men of knowledge, men of experience, men of capacity, to inquire what the actual results would be, so that we Members of the House of Commons should have that information in our hands in order to decide what legislation, if any, is necessary in order to stereotype the good experiments and save us from making bad mistakes.
    What better case can this House have than that for an inquiry? I do not treat this industry as a profit-making concern at all. I do not treat the industry as a method for making percentages for capital, nor as a method for employing two thousand men in it. I regard this in-

    3083
    dustry as an essential part of the life of this nation. I regard the industry as absolutely essential both for our domestic welfare and for our general international welfare. I am bound—hon. Members surely must agree with me in this contention—to say that if this nation is going to co-ordinate its industries and practice economy in life as well as in expenditure, then every one of these experiments should be carefully and scientifically inquired into. They should be taken out of the sort of battledore and shuttlecock game, in which first the employer gets up and tells you he is ruined and then the miner gets up and tells you he is ruined, and so they keep the ball flying across the net until someone gives it a scientific knock. So nothing has been solved at all of the problem, which is simply left till another opportunity occurs when there is a suggestion of dealing with the matter afresh. If this House is going to do its duty, in view of the facts disclosed here this afternoon and evening, it must see that a proper and scientific inquiry into the working of this industry is set on foot. There is one thing I think we might make up our minds about. It has been said that this industry is suffering along with other industries. That is quite true. You cannot have a flourishing mining industry with all the other industries depressed. You cannot have a flourishing British mining industry with the Continental markets destroyed. As a matter of fact, it is mere commonplace to say that. The cause is so simple that it is self-evident. But is it a legitimate deduction from that commonplace to say that when you do get good trade, good general trade, again you will have to solve difficulties, and so you may banish them now? I would warn hon. Members opposite if they are indulging in a thought of that kind.
    Let me give the House two very simple facts. In the week ending 18th November the coal production amounted to 5,376,000 tons, almost a pre-War production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite!"] I want to make my case as moderate as possible so that by avoiding exaggeration those who know intimately the ground along which I am travelling will have confidence that the conclusions I come to are sound. That is the production on a seven-hour shift. It was worse—or better—than that.
    3084
    It was the production upon an average week which was not a complete average week. What has happened? Practically nothing. There is a very slight tremor of 2½d. per week. How long is it going to be before that tremor becomes a real swing? It is this slowness, these delays, that break the hearts of men and destroy their confidence in the remedying of grievances by the ordinary operations of things.
    Let me take another case. In the eastern district at that time 20 cwts. per man per shift was turned out. That is a pre-War production. I was informed by my hon. Friend, when I asked if my information was correct, that not only in the Eastern district was that so, but it is practically the normal condition when work is permissible, and when a man is in a position to do his best and work his full time. The increase in wages was three points. What optimism hon. Members must have if they imagine that that sort of thing is going to bring peace to the coalfields, or the satisfaction to the miners that their lot is as good as it possibly can be made. Whilst all this is going on, whilst coal production is increasing, wages are not looking up, and the conditions of the miners are not improving. I assume that it was in view of those conditions that the hon. Member who spoke from one of the benches behind described the scenes that he saw in Sheffield. In spite of all that there are thousands of people unemployed. It is with no pride and with no satisfaction at all that I say that good trade is going to be no guarantee of peace in the coalfields. The unfortunate thing is this: that if hon. Members would take the history of Labour they will find that in no trade has there been a more callous disregard of the workpeople engaged on the part of the employers than in the trade of coal mining. This is a question of fact. I am not referring to disorganised sweating trades in the East End of London, where things were so bad as to be even worse than in the mining, but I am speaking of those employed masses of people collected in towns and villages whom we know perfectly well. Take the matter of housing. Do hon. Members remember the work of my namesake, Alexander Macdonald, who once sat in this House for a time as the first miners' representative, or of the late Mr. Thomas Burt, or the work of John Wilson,

    3085
    of Durham, or bake the history of the coalminers' trade unions in Scotland, in the North of England, and in the Midlands. Is there any hon. Member of this House that will dispute the statement I make that no organised trade, none of the large industries in the country have such a bad record from the point of the employers in their treatment of employés than have those of the coal mining industry? Therefore from that point of view an inquiry is desirable.
    If we have this in the coal trade, and apply the brains, not merely of the capitalist but also of the workmen, to solve the problems of the coal trade, now is the time to do it. I agree things are getting a little better, slowly it may be, but I think that the bow of the boat is just beginning to tip upwards. I agree that this could not have been introduced at a more opportune time, or that the House, with perhaps more advantage and more effectiveness, could look into the matter at a time when this change is coming, when the workman and the employer must see that the old game of "Pull devil, pull baker" is not worth the candle. Employers and employed must know perfectly well that a state of economic civil war is a state which has to be banished by both, or it is going to be damaging to the general interests of the whole community. He must not blame one side. The initiative comes sometimes one way and sometimes the other.
    The thing I want to impress—and the more experience I have had on both sides the more I believe it to be true—is, that while you have this rivalry and diversity of interest you will never be able to put your finger on the real cause, because it is inherent in the system. It has been suggested that an inquiry would be a bad thing for trade, but I do not see that at all. There are inquiries going on every day by important authorities in the trade. What is there in the coal trade which is going to be upset, disturbed, or damaged by this House, or this Government, appointing three, four, or five men of great ability and of accepted authority and knowledge, men held in respect by both employers and employed, to consider carefully and scientifically the whole mechanism of this key industry? Will employers object to that?
    Mr. GOULD: Yes.
    Mr. MacDONALD: What is the matter with that? Are they afraid of it?
    Mr. GOULD: No.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Then what is the matter with it?
    Mr. GOULD: It is unnecessary.
    Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member objects to an inquiry as to how wealth has been made in South Wales during the War, and he says such an inquiry is unnecessary. Sonic hon. Members opposite do not want this inquiry, but that is all the more reason why this House should want it. Is a majority of this House going to tell mc that they are going to refuse an inquiry when such a good case has been made out for it, because one hon. Member opposite is afraid of it and says that it is not necessary? How can a legitimate trade, with nothing to hide, with a case in which it believes and a record of which it is not ashamed, with a position which it is prepared to defend, how can one side which can be defended in that way oppose an inquiry when the other side welcomes it with open arms?
    It has been suggested by a right hon. Gentleman opposite that the National Board should conduct the inquiry. The National Board cannot conduct such an inquiry, because it has been created for the specific purpose of keeping in operation the Agreement to which so much reference has been made to-day. It is a Board composed partly of employers and partly of the men, and it was created for at specific purpose only. My hon. Friends would never think of suggesting that the inquiry should be conducted by a body consisting of half of employers and half of the men. We want an impartial inquiry which will take employers and workmen as witnesses, and which will hear the ease as a judicial authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like Mr. Justice Sankey!"] The conclusions of the Sankcy Commission did not please hon. Members opposite, but that is not any reason why the name of a very reputable and upright judge should be sneered at by an hon. Member of this House.
    Mr. GOULD: I made no imputation against Mr. Justice Sankey.
    Mr. MacDONALD: It was not the hon. Gentleman, but an hon. Member sitting below him. We have in the Sankey

    3087
    Report a statement, signed by three impartial Commissioners, which says:
    "Again the coalowners, in their turn, should do everything in their power, by improved methods of coal-getting and underground travelling, to save labour and lengthen the actual time spent at the face."
    Has that been done?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: No.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am informed that that has not been done, and why not I What is the use of coming here this afternoon and weeping tears over the cost of production, and the difficulties of production, when this recommendation made in 1919 is still unfulfilled, and with this inefficiency still in existence? Perhaps that is the explanation of the objection of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) to a further inquiry. The Sankey Commission suggested economies in production, in transit, and in distribution. They said:
    "All these can undoubtedly be effected, though it is difficult to place any money value on them at the present moment."
    Have these things been done? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Have they contributed nothing to the present difficulties of the coal trade? Why do hon. Members opposite fear an inquiry? Here is another extract from the same Report:
    "Even upon the evidence already given, the present system of ownership working in the coal industry stands condemned and some other system must be substituted for it, either nationalisation or a method of unification by national purchase or by joint control."
    Has that been done? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Has any attempt been made to do it, and yet hon. Members opposite come here and blame the miners. They blame the hours, and the wages and conditions, and they have not a word to say with regard to proposals made by a Commission specifically appointed to inquire into this question and which investigated the whole subject. That is the way these recommendations have been treated. Hon. Members opposite are objecting to an inquiry, and they are trying to persuade the Prime Minister that if he grants such a request it will be very difficult to continue the industry in the beautifully inefficient way in which it is being conducted now. I did not intend to take up so much time as I have done, but one gets run away with by his subject on
    3088
    occasions. There were various other things I wanted to deal with. Let me point out that the interest of the coal indusry is the interest of the consumer. I can tell my hon. Friends round about me that, so far as I am concerned, I am not nearly such a good patron of their labour as I would be if I could get my coal cheaper, but when I am called upon to pay £4 5s. a ton for anthracite coal I understand it does not increase their wages at all. Were it to have that effect I would pay with better grace. It does not increase the wages of any section of the community, not even of the railway men. Why cannot we find out why it is that coal produced in South Wales cannot be sold for less than £4 5s. a ton, although it costs so much less to produce? These things ought to be inquired into. All I claim is this, that to-day's Debate, first of all, on the quality of the speeches, and, secondly, because of the contradictions and mis-statements that have been apparent on matters in dispute, has established in the most unassailable way our case for an inquiry. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to listen to those tame-hearted employers who have some reason for shirking inquiry, but to grant our demand in the interests of the country so as to co-ordinate our claim that both capital and labour shall be economically used, and the maximum of efficiency got out of both. It is on those grounds I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant our request.
    10.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member began with a remark which is obviously true, that no speech can be entirely satisfactory. I would congratulate him in one respect. When I filled his place as Leader of the Opposition, I always felt that my speech was moderately satisfactory if it excited the enthusiasm and won the whole-hearted support of those who sat behind me. The hon. Member's speech fulfilled those conditions. He referred, in a portion of it, to a deputation of miners' representatives which I received the other day. We spent a long time in discussing various aspects of the question. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he did not quite show the amount of logic which I would have expected from one of his nationality, when he said that the statement that I had recommended the miners to come to me some time next Session and, if they

    3089
    then asked for an inquiry, I would consider it, was the real reason for this Debate? The real question which interests those who are engaged in the industry is, I am sure, not that of an inquiry. To that I will refer later on. It is not an inquiry going to the root of the evil. It is a question as to the best methods of having better conditions in the industry. That is the point aimed at. There is really, I think, no division of opinion in any part of the House as to the very deplorable conditions of this industry. I said so to the deputation, and I think the reason must be obvious to every Member of the House. It is this. Over and over again, during the War and subsequently, we urged upon the miners the importance of output as a remedy for the evils from which they were suffering. I do not know that there is anything to be gained by going back on past history and considering the mistakes that have been made. One hon. Member stated that all this trouble dated from the time when the Government decontrolled the industry. It happens that that action was taken after I had left the Government, but there was a very great deal to be said in favour of the view which the Government then took.
    In introducing the Bill my right hon Friend who at the time occupied the position of President of the Board of Trade, made it perfectly plain that what was meant was to decontrol the industry at the moment when conditions became normal. Of course there will always be a difference of opinion as to what are normal conditions. I believe my right hon. Friend used more exact words than I have given, but the main point was that he said that control would cease when things became normal, and Lord Peel, who was speaking in the House of Lords at about the same time, declared that when export and home prices were brought together, then control would cease. Still, there is no object in going back on that. We have to look at facts as they are. In my view the reason why we are entitled to regard the condition of this trade as so bad is that the men have done precisely what everybody asked them to do. They have worked, undoubtedly, in such a way as to produce the best output. One hon. Member has declared that, with practically the same
    3090
    number of people employed, the same amount of coal is turned out with the seven-hour day as before the War was turned out with an eight-hour day. No one will deny that. Taking that into account, and taking into account also the belief—which I think is sound—that the only chance of prosperity for the coal industry is to get a big output at the lowest possible price, so as to enable the other trades which depend upon coal to nourish also, I do think that, when the miners have done so much, it is in the highest degree deplorable that we should have to admit that, taking their wages, even with the increased standard, and comparing them with the cost of living, they are something like 20 per cent, worse off than they were in the period immediately before the War.
    I say that quite frankly, but hon. Gentlemen opposite will not complain if I make a little qualification. The year which is quoted was, as everyone knows, an exceedingly good year in the coal trade. Although I have not looked into the figures, yet, knowing that that was a good year, I am sure I am right in saying that, if you take the average of five or 10 years before, you would not find, taking the cost of living and wages together at this moment, they were much worse than during the period to which I refer. I think that is right, but I am not making a point of it, for, whatever the reason, after they have worked so well, it is in the highest degree deplorable that they should be worse off than before the War. There is another qualification that we have to make. We know that the coal miners run great risks in addition to the ordinary hardships of their life, and I am sure that there is no one in this House, on whatever bench he may sit, who would not have liked to see a real and permanent improvement in the coal miners' standard of living. But we have to take this into account, and it is undoubtedly true, that, bad as is the position of the coal mining industry, it is not nearly so bad as that of many other trades at the present time. Take, for instance, two trades which greatly concern and interest some of the new recruits in the present Parliament who have come from the city which I also represent— [An HON. MEMBER: "Misrepresent!"]— or misrepresent—there will always be a difference of opinion about that.

    3091
    Take the shipbuilding and engineering trades. The wage increase is almost the same as in the case of the miners, and, therefore, the wage rate, as compared with the cost of living, is very much the same. The figure in the case of the miners, I think, is 43, as against 45 or some figure like that. Consider another factor, and it is a terrible one— unemployment. The coal mining trade is, I think, as free from unemployment as any industry in this country at the present moment. [Interruption.] I am talking of the trade as a whole. The unemployment in the trade as a whole is under 5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Those are the figures, and I am sure that anyone who has examined them will agree. In the shipbuilding trade the unemployment is something like 36 per cent. It is obvious that, however bad the coal trade may be—though this is no comfort to those engaged in the industry—it is not nearly so bad as many other trades in this country.
    We have to consider what can be done by way of remedy. I do not think it is much use my dealing with the different statements that have been made as to the cause of the bad trade. For example, it was pressed upon me, and I think it has been referred to in this Debate, that it was due to the reparation coal sent from Germany to France. I am sure it is obvious to anyone who has studied the question that that, at all events, is not a serious factor in the present situation. If coal from Germany goes to France, the coal trade is aware of it, and the gap which is left in one place is filled in another. As a matter of fact, we have been sending to Germany large quantities of coal during recent times. That, therefore, is not a factor. The hon. Member left out of account altogether the different remedies suggested by the miners who met me. I am going to try, quite fairly, to consider in what way they would help the position. The view taken by nearly every speaker to-day, and it was presented to me quite definitely at this conference, was this: "This is the position of our trade; it is up to you, the Government, to put it right" Does my hon. Friend really say that?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes; you made it wrong.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Very well, I will deal with that. It is up to us to put
    3092
    it right. How can any Government do that? Supposing, for example, that my hon. Friend, instead of having a very vigorous minority, had a majority in this House, how could he apply any of the remedies which were suggested to me? His speech showed that his idea is to upset our whole social and economic system. It is quite evident that, if that is to be done, it will not be a short process. If my hon. Friend were in my place, I presume that, as he would think it wise to make the road to the millenium a gradual one, and would not expect to get it the next day, he would begin by dealing with the situation as it is. Now what could he do? One of the suggestions made to me, and it has been put forward in this Debate, was to fix a minimum wage. But how is that going to help? It is perfectly true that, if you were dealing with an industry—if there were such an industry—which depends entirely on consumption at home, and where there is no competition, something of that kind might be done. I should be very glad if it were possible to have a minimum wage for every working man in this country at a reasonable level. But when you have to compete, not only with those who are in the same trade at home, but, as in the case with coal, in the markets of the whole world, is it not obvious that, if you put on a rate of wages which raises the price of coal to such a figure that it cannot compete, or cannot compete so well, the inevitable effect must be, not that you will be better off, but that pits will go out of use and the whole industry will cease? There is only one way in which that difficulty could be got over. It could be got over by giving a subsidy.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: A loan.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Or a loan, if you like. It comes to the same thing; but I think that if I were concerned privately in such a transaction, I should not be very fond of giving that loan, for I should be doubtful of ever getting it back again. But, putting it either way, if you are to get the same amount of coal, and yet not destroy your power of competing in the world market, while you raise wages beyond what the industry can pay, there is only one way, and that is that the State, out of the pockets of other taxpayers, should give an addition to the coal miners' wages.
    Mr. McENTEE: There is another way —eliminate the waste.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will deal with that later. It was raised by my hon. Friend, and I have not forgotten it. It is one of the methods which was recommended to me. You can only get out of an industry which has to compete what that industry produces. There is another way of dealing with miners' wages. They may assert that the proportion given to the owners is too big and that more is to be got for wages out of that fund. Let us look at that. My hon. Friend quoted the words of Mr. Hodges in regard to the Agreement. I have seen him often in connection with the mining trade. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying he wishes something far better than this Agreement, but when he says the cause of the present fall was not the Agreement, that, on the contrary, it was the best arrangement that has ever yet been evolved for dealing with this question, he said something that was obviously true.
    "There is nothing wrong with the fundamental principles of the agreement. They are better than any principles which have operated in any previous agreement."
    Let us see exactly what is possible in this connection. [Interruption.] I do not object to any interruption of that kind. I do not expect everyone to agree with me or even with Mr. Hodges. But this is a fact. If this agreement gives the masters under present conditions no more than the share which is necessary to make them keep the pits open, certainly nothing can be got in that direction. Consider what the position is. The agreement means that of the profits of the industry 17 per cent, is to go to the masters and 83 per cent, to the men. This is certain. There may have been times in the past when the coal masters made profits of which they ought to be ashamed, as the hon. Member put it, but under this agreement, though particular collieries—and this is inevitable as long as you have a district rate—may be making excessive profits, yet it is utterly impossible that the masters can be making even reasonable profits if the miners' wages are below the minimum.
    That is a fact in the agreement which anyone who has studied it will admit. It is obvious, though I agree with the hon. Member that when trade improves and it becomes possible to make much bigger
    3094
    profits, it is very likely that those who work in the mines will be disassatisfied with their share and will ask for more. But at this moment—I am sure I am saying what will be agreed to by everyone representing the mining industry or who has studied the present position—a great many mines are being kept open at a loss, and any attempt to diminish the proportion would have the immediate effect of reducing the number of mines kept open and giving less work to the miners. There is no doubt about that.
    Now we come to the third possible method, that is, to make an attempt to raise the price of coal so that better wages may be given to the men, by agreement I suppose. It is obvious to everyone that if such a thing can be done, and it were wise to do it, no doubt not even a Government of which the hon. Member was the head could possibly declare in the House of Commons that they were parties to something like a ring to keep up the price of any commodity, even of coal. That is not a matter that is practicable. Taking conditions as they are, as regards that particular method of giving relief, there is none that is open. Now I come to deal with what I consider the real remedy. It is the only remedy in my opinion, and if it does not work, though I am not a pessimist, and I do not believe we are going to disaster, I say, without the smallest hesitation, that unless in a reasonable time there is an improvement in the whole trade of this country, our population cannot be maintained in anything like decency and comfort on the present conditions. That is the remedy, and I think it is the only one. It is obvious that, if that be the remedy, as so much of our coal is employed in industries at home and as these industries have all to compete with world prices, unless we can keep them all on a level, unless we can get expansion of one trade as well as another, and not attempt to keep coal at a high price while other industries are not profitable, there is no hope.
    I am convinced, as much as any man can be about anything which is in the future, that unless some great disaster happens— I can only think of it in connection with something about foreign affairs—we are going to have better trade, and we are going to have it before very long. That is my firm conviction. We have proof of it even in the figures of the Board of

    3095
    Trade. In August, practically every district was down to the minimum, but at this moment—and will hon. Members realise what a big change it is— the majority of the men are above the minimum, and in the case of one of the most important of the districts, the eastern district, it is actually 14 points, and in another is 18 points above the minimum to-day. The fact that there has been that change over the whole area is itself the best proof of some improvement, but it goes much further than that. The coal trade depends for its buyers very largely on the iron and steel trades of this country. Like everyone else I have done my best, not by studying articles but by talking to men engaged in trade, to find out the position. It is a fact that there has been a considerable increase in the amount of pig-iron produced, and a considerable increase in the malleable iron and steel of all kinds. Everything in that direction does point to an improvement in trade.
    There is one answer to another point. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) said that even an improvement in trade will do the miners no good, because those who have been out of work have so fallen into arrears of debt that it will take them years before they can get right. I do not think that there are many people who understand this position. I am sure that my hon. Friend does. I have a suspicion that I do, after a great deal of trouble in studying it, but I am quite sure that I cannot put it in a way which the House will understand. I can, however, put this in a way that the House will understand. The hon. Member for Ince said, and I think the House generally understood that under the Agreement, the masters have to pay out of their own profits, whether they have made any or not, 20 per cent, above the standard, and that the whole of the 20 per cent, has got to be paid off before there can be an improvement in wages. That is not the case. That money comes entirely out of their pockets and they can never get a penny of it back.
    Mr. WALSH: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I never mentioned the 20 per cent. The 20 per cent, paid by the employers upon the standard wage to make the minimum does not come into the minimum.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I said that I was sure that my hon. Friend understood it, but that the House did not, and that the House thought that the 20 per cent, had to be paid back to the masters before there could be any advantage to the miners. I am sure that I was right in thinking that that was the view that was taken generally. My hon. Friend suggested that there can be no improvement in wages. Let us look at the facts. In August the whole trade was at the minimum. At this moment out of a total number of employés of over 1,000,000 only 180,000 are not at the minimum. That brings it down to something like from 12 to 15 per cent, of the total. All the others get 83 per cent, of the increased profits and benefit immediately by the change in the position. That makes a tremendous difference.
    It is very well known to everyone who has been engaged in any kind of business that once an improvement in trade begins it is apt to be pretty quick, and the real difference is this, that when the coalowner has to go to the offices of men who buy coal and urge them to buy things are going back, but when that is reversed, and the coal user has to come to the coal seller and ask him to sell, then we get the beginning of real improvement. It has come to that now, and unless something unforeseen happens, all the advice that I can give is to the effect that we have reason to hope for a real improvement. That is why I said I did not think that an inquiry would be useful now, and I am sure that I am right. My hon. Friend said—and now I am coming to one of those fiery passages which aroused the enthusiasm of his hon. Friends behind him—that the existing National Board could not deal with these things at all, because it is to deal with the agreement. There is the answer, unless you assume that you are going to alter the whole system, and have another inquiry, which deals not so much with coal mines as with the nationalisation of coal mines. And that is what my hon. Friend wants. [HON. MEMBERS: "What we all want!"] I put it to the hon. Member or any of those who are facing mc now, can you possibly believe that, at a time when trade is so bad and when there is the beginning of signs of improvement, you

    3097
    are going to get any advantage by suggesting that the whole system at this moment is going to be upset?
    The hon. Member, referring to a game which I like to play but never played very well—in which you knock a ball from one side to the other—gave an exact description—you could not have a better —of what happened before the Sankey Commission. Do you want all that over again at a time when trade is in the position in which it is to-day? Surely the only justification for that would be that you felt you were in a position to change the whole system and that it was worth doing soon. If you do not mean that surely it is madness again to raise expectations which will interfere with the working of the trade and do the very thing that you want to avoid, that is, to prevent an improvement in the conditions of the miner. Although the hon. Member showed that he had taken great trouble, as I did myself, to understand the trade, I do not think he understood it fully. The things to which he referred in the Sankey Report and in regard to which he asked "Have they been done?" are things which in my opinion the National Board can do to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think I am right about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are useless!"] They can do it. They can have an inquiry. That is the point I am making. It is in their power. Listen to what was said at the deputation:
    "Mr. HODGES: I have no doubt that many economies could have been effected in the internal working of the pits themselves if they had adopted some such proposal as ours.
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I ask you, do they allow you freely to make suggestions of that kind?
    Mr. HODGES: Oh, yes, they have not been able to impose any limit on our capacity to make suggestions."
    HON. MEMBERS: Read on!
    "The PRIME MINISTER: But they never really take into consideration the things you suggest."
    I am not debating the subject. If hon. Members had not interrupted, they would have seen that I was about to meet their point. I said to the deputation, "Well, these are considerations which seem to me to be of the same value to the masters as to the men. It ought to be the interest of both to get a Conference." I said also to them, "If you really believe
    3098
    that anything more could be done in that direction I would be quite willing to have the Department summon a joint meeting of representatives of the men and of the masters to go into it together and to see whether any proposals that are made would be properly considered. Has not that met the case? The hon. Gentleman spoke about distribution. Again I think he has forgotten one of the factors of the case. There is now sitting a Committee, of which Mr. Hodges is a member, which is going into the question of distribution.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Are you proposing to summon a meeting of the coalowners and the miners to consider the point that you have mentioned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member had been present at the deputation he would have known that I put it to them. They have always dealt with me most fairly. I put it to them whether they believed there was something practicable to be got out of it. They did not ask for it.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Was not the reply that it was quite impossible to make the suggestions, that they did think something would come out of them, but that the employers would not agree to adopt the suggestions which they made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That may be. I do not remember the exact phrase. Surely that does not alter the fact of what I said. If they think that something can be done in that way we are perfectly ready to use whatever influence the Government have in order to have proposals of that kind properly considered. More than that we cannot do. The hon. Member, as I say, forgot the Committee on Distribution. It is sitting now, and its Report will be out soon; I am sure it is not likely to be long. I do say to the House that the question of the rates in distribution is one which the Government might properly have inquired into. We have agreed to do it in the case of agriculture, and it is a subject which the Government are quite right to try to consider and deal with as best they can. We really come down to this. Of course, I cannot expect any of the enthusiasm of the reception which is given to my hon. Friend, but I do not think there are many of those who sit opposite who will disagree with me. We
    a
    3099
    have really come down to this—that none of the proposals which have been put before us to help the position at present are practicable, and an inquiry at the moment is more likely to do harm than good. If the conditions, contrary to my expectation, should continue bad for a much longer time than I hope, I do not promise at all to have an inquiry—very likely I will take the same view then as I do now—but what I do say is that it would be quite right to reconsider the position then.

    SCOTTISH MINISTEES.
    Mr. HOGGE: There is one point which I wish to raise now, which has no relation to the question of coal, but for the convenience of the Prime Minister I desire to put it straightaway. In this Parliament, Scotland is in the unfortunate position of not having any Minister to deal with Scottish affairs. In ordinary circumstances Scotland is represented in the Government by the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman, in forming his Government before the General Election, omitted to remark that his choice of Ministers would not coincide with the choice of the electorate of Scotland, and so he finds himself in this Parliament in the unfortunate position of not having in the House of Commons a single Scottish Minister who can reply to Scottish Members on Scottish questions. More than that, the Prime Minister has made what is to me a very unfortunate choice in electing to have the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Lords. It is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to deal with questions put to him from the 74 Members who represent Scotland. My right hon. Friend knows we are not only entitled to that at Question Time in the House, but we are also entitled to have the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in the House when we are discussing Scottish Estimates. This year the Secretary for Scotland will not be able to come further into the House of Commons than the Peers' Gallery, but he will not be entitled to take part in Scottish Debates, and unless my right hon. Friend finds seats for the three Ministers who are not here, the Scotsmen will have to rely upon him to deal with Scottish affairs.
    3100
    Further, any Bill which affects Scotland must go upstairs to a Standing Committee, and Scottish Members on both sides of the House are entitled to the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland and of the Scottish Secretary. There, again, the Scottish Secretary will not be able to attend the meetings of the Scottish Standing Committee, except at the table with the officials, but he will nor be able to take part in those discussions, and I want to ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do between now and the Recess. I presume he is looking around for seats to accommodate those Members. I remember referring to the matter jocularly to him in the Lobby, and he suggested that some of us might resign our seats in order that his Ministers might find room in the House of Commons, but there is a better plan than that. Take Mr. Kidd, who sat for Linlithgow, and was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health by the Prime Minister. The electors of Linlithgow preferred an hon. Gentleman who sits on the Opposition side of the House. Why not transfer the office to the choice of the electors of Linlithgow? It would be a very interesting experiment. After all, I think the Prime Minister recognises that he must make some kind of arrangement before we meet again in February, by which there shall be some responsible Minister in this House. The Minister of Health has not at present a seat in this House, and Sir Arthur Boscawen, who holds that office, has a very unhappy record in regard to his ability to keep any seat that is offered to him, and I do not know that the Prime Minister would not be well advised to make Lord Novar Minister of Health and make a fresh appointment to the Secretaryship for Scotland, because the Secretary for Scotland ought to be in this House. Therefore, the point I want answering by the Prime Minister is. What arrangement does he propose between now and February? If he is unable to find seats for those Ministers, will he find new Ministers before we moot in February?
    There is one other point in connection with this that I think we ought to raise at this moment. For long enough the Secretary for Scotland has been the one Member of the Cabinet who is not a Secretary of State. He has got more work than any other Cabinet Minister. He attends to 11 separate Departments. He

    3101
    has got a less salary than Ministers who do less work on that Bench. I put a question to the Prime Minister the other day in regard to the Committee that dealt with the question of salaries, and he will remember that the gist of that report was that certain Ministers of certain rank ought to have certain salaries. Is he also prepared to raise the status of the Secretary for Scotland and to make it comparable with the status of other Secretaries of State so that Scotland may be brought into line, with the other Departments of the Government?
    Major WARING: I wish to associate myself with all that has fallen from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I am happy indeed to find a subject on which he and I can agree. I hope, before the end of the Debate, there will be a Minister in this House who is solely in charge of Scottish business. May I say at once that no one on those Benches has the slightest complaint whatever againt the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. He is an old and a valued friend of most of us, and has always helped us, but ho has no responsibility. He is unable even to answer supplementary questions, although he may, and probably does, know the answer perfectly well, but he cannot give it because he has no responsibility. Under those circumstances, how can he possibly deal with all the multifarious matters which come daily before the majority of Scottish Members? The Secretary for Scotland is responsible, I believe, for something like 14 Departments. How can the First Commissioner of Works look after 14 Departments, and, in addition, attend to his own duties? But I have noticed that the questions addressed to the First Commissioner in his own capacity are very few. On the other hand, at every question time there are numbers addressed to him as representing the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend has suggested that a change in Ministers might be made. I agree with him. My suggestion is somewhat different. Why should not the First Commissioner of Works and the Noble Lord change places? Let the First Commissioner of Works become Secretary for Scotland, and the Noble Lord become First Commissioner of Works, and be responsible for answering Scottish questions whenever they may occur in another place. I make that
    3102
    suggestion in all friendliness to the Government, and as one who feels goodwill towards that Government. I do not want to see the Prime Minister put into the position of finding a Scottish seat for the Lord Advocate or the Ministers who have, unfortunately, not got seats in this House. Such a course might indeed be fraught with danger and attended with results which would cause us on these benches a very considerable pang. But, however that may be, I do hope that we shall hear of some satisfactory solution of this question, as otherwise it does seem to me that Scottish business and Scottish interests will be relegated further into the background than is usual in our present Parliamentary system.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I gave notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]. I can make myself heard as well as anyone, if the House will keep quiet.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not be too sensitive to a little interruption. The House will always listen better to a Member who speaks quietly than to one who shouts.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I was going to do that. I gave notice that I would raise this question to-night for two reasons. The first was because, when we wanted information in connection with the money paid out by the Parish Councils in Scotland, we have almost required to go across to the other side of the House and drag it out of the hon. Member who was to reply. The Government seem to have cultivated the fine art of trying to put one off or to give one no satisfaction. To-day, I asked a question about 23,000 women in Scotland, who are unemployed. It was quite a pertinent question, as I think the Prime Minister will agree. Instead of getting any reply, I was referred to something that was very indefinite and that came out upon some other day.
    We feel that Scottish business is being neglected. I have the usual amount of clannish feeling for the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure that, so far as in him lies, he will try to see that we get a fair share. Humanly speaking, however, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to do that, and we regard to be treated, in regard to these national questions, in a different way. I do not presume to suggest to the Prime Minister how he should run his Government. I think it is much

    3103
    better that he should do that part of the work himself, because if he took our suggestions it would to some extent disarm us. I would prefer that neither of these Gentlemen should be considered at all, but that the Prime Minister should make his own selection, and then, when the time comes, we shall be able to try to do our work. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to try and find some road out of that dilemma, and make some suitable arrangement whereby Scottish business will be attended to, as it is not the case at present.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am sure the House would not like to pass away from this subject until I have thanked the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) for the most interesting suggestion he offered to the Prime Minister. Should the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing myself to the honourable position which has been mentioned, I assure him that I have no time to undertake so onerous a task. I should like to say, however, that the Prime Minister must be very careful indeed about the selection of gentlemen for positions associated with the Scottish Office. Unless he is very careful, there will not be one safe seat left in Scotland from the Government point of view. If my information is correct, and I have reason to assume it is, it will be a very difficult task for the Government to find secure seats for those who at present occupy Government positions associated with the Scottish Office. We on these benches have a claim on the Prime Minister, who is a Scottish Member. With all his faults and limitations we cannot forget he is associated with Clydeside, and to that extent we take a certain pride in the association. At all events, our claim on the Prime Minister, our national claim, entitles us to some consideration at his hands. I submit that Scottish questions have been ignored in this House from the beginning of the Session. Of that there can be no doubt, because it is obvious that in replies to questions the information furnished has been very meagre and of a kind entirely beside the point of the question itself, and sometimes inaccurate. I do not want to exaggerate, but to be as moderate as I possibly can, and, under the circumstances to be fair.
    3104
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I assure hon. Members that I wish to be fair to an inexperienced Member of the Government who has been placed in a most unfortunate position because of the inconvenience to which the Government has been placed as the result of Scottish political opinion. I hope sincerely that, having regard to the importance of Scottish issues and to the fact that in bygone days, with which the Prime Minister is more familiar than I, Scottish questions did not receive the consideration which they were entitled to receive, the right hon. Gentleman will go into this question immediately and not to lavish too many favours on hon. Gentlemen who do not stem to be capable of securing favours from other people, from people from whom they ought to receive favours. Let him choose capable men from hon. Gentlemen opposite, men who will give satisfaction, and will answer questions to the satisfaction of hon. Members. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us the consideration we deserve.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am really very much obliged to the hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has confessed to a certain feeling of clannishness, which I am inclined to think does apply to Scotsmen. Whatever one may say about the Scot, he is always apt to turn upon anyone who attacks a fellow Scot. But I would venture to make this remark to the hon. Member for Northern Lanark (Mr. Sullivan). He is new to the House of Commons, and he complained that, in answer to questions, he was often referred to something that had been said before, which was not very plain. I have had that experience myself very often, as a Member of the House of Commons, but I do not think that would cease to exist if we had a dozen Secretaries for Scotland in this House instead of none. The difficulty about this matter is, as I said the other day, that we have too few Scotsmen in the Government, f HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"] That is an obvious drawback. But, so far as Scotland making itself heard is concerned, I think the effect of the absence of Scottish Members from this bench is likely to be more than made up for by the vigour and energy of those who sit in other parts of

    3105
    the House. I was touched by the speeches which were made by two hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Major Waring). I do not quite know what to make of them in this sense: that I felt that it was at least the beginning of that Liberal reunion of which we have heard. My difficulty was that at the moment I could not quite make up my mind whether I ought to rejoice at it or to lament at it —and I am not quite sure yet!
    As regards the point which was raised, I it is obviously a serious one, and the difficulty consists in the strange fact that Scotsmen who, all other people think, are so wise, seem to be curiously out of gear at this moment when it comes to political considerations. Of course I realise that we could not go on as we are. I will I tell the House exactly what the position is. As regards the Secretary for Scotland being in the other House, I do not really think that there is much ground for complaint on that score. The Secretary for Scotland has many other duties to deal with. I remember very well that, while I was still a Member of this House, a Liberal Secretary for Scotland was transferred to the other House, and still continued to carry on his functions there, so that, from the point of view of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, there is not much to complain about.
    What we intended to do from the first was this: I thought that the Session I would be shorter than it has turned out to be, and that the House of Commons would feel that it was not too much to ask that we should go on as we are until the end of this Session. The House knows that the absence of a Minister for a long period from the House has often
    3106
    happened before, but of course, as has been truly said, the Secretary for Scotland represents a great number of Departments. He has most important duties to perform; but it was always considered in my time, and long before, that there was no office that Scotsmen were so proud of as that of the Lord Advocate, and therefore there can be no ground of complaint when he is in this House.
    As regards the Under-Secretary, I think the hon. Member himself will feel that in the case of Mr. Kidd, of whom, though I have not had many opportunities of judging him, I formed a very good opinion as to his ability—I thought it would be extremely had to say at once that he must give up his office. I do not think the House will think it unreasonable that, on the chance of his obtaining another seat, he should continue, in that office until we meet again. If that does not happen we must make another selection. As regards the Lord Advocate, I am certain that by the time the House meets he will either have a seat in this House or arrangements will at least have been made for his immediately seeking a seat as soon as Parliament meets. The arrangement will be made before the House meets.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time; and committed to a Committee of the Whole Rouse for To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Adjourned Accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  RESERVE (GUNNER HARDY).
  RESERVE (GUNNER HARDY).
  ARMY AGENTS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  ARMY AGENTS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (AGE LIMIT).
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (AGE LIMIT).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  TROOPS IN SALONIKA, 1917–19.
  TROOPS IN SALONIKA, 1917–19.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, WOOLWICH.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, WOOLWICH.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  WAR GRAVES.
  WAR GRAVES.
INDIA.
  RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
  RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
  CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE COMMITTEE.
  CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE COMMITTEE.
  AKALI AGITATION (PROSECUTION).
  AKALI AGITATION (PROSECUTION).
IRELAND.
  BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  SOLICITORS.
  SOLICITORS.
  KENYA COLONS (INDIAN CONGRESS).
  KENYA COLONS (INDIAN CONGRESS).
  CIVIL SERVANTS, GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS, GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS.
SCOTLAND.
  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
  RATING.
  RATING.
  FISHING-HARBOUR ACCOMMOUATION.
  FISHING-HARBOUR ACCOMMOUATION.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (BOOTS).
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (BOOTS).
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, WALTHAMSTOW.
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, WALTHAMSTOW.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (INSPECTORS).
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (INSPECTORS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS.
  RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS.
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TRAINING DEPARTMENT, SCOTLAND).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TRAINING DEPARTMENT, SCOTLAND).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIOXS (MEDICAL BOARO, DUBLIN).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIOXS (MEDICAL BOARO, DUBLIN).
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE (WOMEN).
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE (WOMEN).
  BETTING ORGANISATIONS.
  BETTING ORGANISATIONS.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  MARCONI COMPANY.
  ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
  ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
  GOVERNMENT FEINTING (HARROW WORKS).
  GOVERNMENT FEINTING (HARROW WORKS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  BREWERY COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  BREWERY COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  BEER (GRAVITY).
  BEER (GRAVITY).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  GERMAN DEPOSITS.
  GERMAN DEPOSITS.
  LICENCE DUTY (REBATE).
  LICENCE DUTY (REBATE).
  COUNTY COURT FORMS (PRINTING).
  COUNTY COURT FORMS (PRINTING).
  SUGAR BEET FACTORY, KELHAM.
  SUGAR BEET FACTORY, KELHAM.
  BANKS.
  BANKS.
  ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  ELECTIONS (POLLING FACILITIES).
  ELECTIONS (POLLING FACILITIES).
  PRISONERS' TREATMENT (ATTEMPTED ESCAPES).
  PRISONERS' TREATMENT (ATTEMPTED ESCAPES).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  PRISONS (WOMAN INSPECTOR).
  PRISONS (WOMAN INSPECTOR).
  SHOP HOURS.
  SHOP HOURS.
  DARDANELLES (BRITISH SHIPS).
  DARDANELLES (BRITISH SHIPS).
  FLOGGING SENTENCES.
  FLOGGING SENTENCES.
  PETROLEUM IMPORTS.
  PETROLEUM IMPORTS.
  RICHBOROUGH.
  RICHBOROUGH.
TRANSPORT.
  OMNIBUSES AND TRAMCARS (OVERCROWDING).
  OMNIBUSES AND TRAMCARS (OVERCROWDING).
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES.
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES.
POST OFFICE.
  RURAL TELEPHONES, CORNWALL.
  RURAL TELEPHONES, CORNWALL.
  PRINTED MATTER.
  PRINTED MATTER.
  FACILITIES, THORNLIEBANK.
  FACILITIES, THORNLIEBANK.
  SUB-OFFICE, NEW MILTON.
  SUB-OFFICE, NEW MILTON.
  GRATUITIES (J. W. WALKER).
  GRATUITIES (J. W. WALKER).
HOUSING.
  SUBSIDISEDD HOUSES (RENTS).
  SUBSIDISEDD HOUSES (RENTS).
  SOWERBY BRIDGE.
  SOWERBY BRIDGE.
  EMPLOYMENT.
  EMPLOYMENT.
  WEDNESBURY.
  WEDNESBURY.
  RIVER LEA (EFFLUENTS).
  RIVER LEA (EFFLUENTS).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGES).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGES).
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  DIABETES (INSULIN).
  DIABETES (INSULIN).
  POISONS.
  POISONS.
  WHITLEY COUNCILS.
  WHITLEY COUNCILS.
  PIECE-WORK.
  PIECE-WORK.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DENTISTS REGISTER (J. TELFER).
  DENTISTS REGISTER (J. TELFER).
  TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED MEN (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED MEN (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  SEWAGE SCHEME, POOLE.
  SEWAGE SCHEME, POOLE.
  RELIEF SCHEMES (WAGES).
  RELIEF SCHEMES (WAGES).
  LOCAL AUTHOEITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT.
  LOCAL AUTHOEITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  GRETNA FACTORY.
  VOTERS' LISTS.
  VOTERS' LISTS.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  EXCHANGES.
  EXCHANGES.
  BARROW.
  BARROW.
  SEAMES.
  SEAMES.
  MARCH TO LONDON.
  MARCH TO LONDON.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  BUILDING TRADES.
  BUILDING TRADES.
  JUVENILES.
  JUVENILES.
  EX-SEBVICE MEN.
  EX-SEBVICE MEN.
  MANCHESTER-LIVERPOOL ROAD SCHEME.
  MANCHESTER-LIVERPOOL ROAD SCHEME.
  THAMES TUNNEL.
  THAMES TUNNEL.
  ARTERIAL ROAD SCHEMES, ESSEX AND KENT (LOST TIME).
  ARTERIAL ROAD SCHEMES, ESSEX AND KENT (LOST TIME).
  CRIMAN CANAL.
  CRIMAN CANAL.
  LAND RECLAMATION, HUMBER.
  LAND RECLAMATION, HUMBER.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT, WHEATMEAL, AND FLOUR (IMPORTS).
  WHEAT, WHEATMEAL, AND FLOUR (IMPORTS).
  PRICES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  PRICES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).
  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).
  SLAVE RUNNING (CAPTURE OF DHOWS).
  SLAVE RUNNING (CAPTURE OF DHOWS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW CAPITAL SHIPS (BOY LABOUR).
  NEW CAPITAL SHIPS (BOY LABOUR).
  DELIVERY OF GOODS, PORTLAND (CONVEYANCE OF TRADESMEN).
  DELIVERY OF GOODS, PORTLAND (CONVEYANCE OF TRADESMEN).
  OFFICERS' STEWARDS AND COOKS.
  OFFICERS' STEWARDS AND COOKS.
  IRISH DEFENCE FLOTILLA (PAY).
  IRISH DEFENCE FLOTILLA (PAY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  CITY EQUITABLE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
  CITY EQUITABLE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
  CROWN PROSECUTIONS (LAW OFFICERS).
  CROWN PROSECUTIONS (LAW OFFICERS).
  KENSINGTON PALACE.
  KENSINGTON PALACE.
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATUTORY CONTROL).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATUTORY CONTROL).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PASSPORT SYSTEM.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will undertake to examine the passport system, with a view to minimising the inconvenience and expense caused to the travelling public. This Question is one, I venture to think, of some importance. The passport system was introduced as a war measure. Before the war it is probable that few of your Lordships had ever seen a passport, and when peace came all travellers hoped that the system would be abolished. Far from that happening, however, it now threatens to become a permanency, with all the hardships caused by the system, the waiting (often for hours) at Consulates in order to obtain a visa, standing in queues, sometimes in the rain, at ports and frontier stations, and so on. With these hardships and inconveniences most of your Lordships are familiar. They are, of course, intensified in the case of persons who, owing to ignorance of the complicated regulations, fail to have their passports in order. I could give instances, but most of your Lordships can no doubt supply them from your own experience.
The late Government, so far as I know, made out no case for the continuance of the system. It is alleged, of course, that it prevents undesirables from crossing the frontiers, but that it does nothing of the kind is shown by the recent case of Bevan, who, although unprovided with proper passports, had no apparent difficulty in crossing three or four international frontiers. It is notorious that undesirable aliens enter this country every day. An objectionable feature of the system is that many of the passport officials are paid out of fees. The instinct of self-preservation, therefore, urges them to offer opposition to any suggestion for modification, while the amount of bribery to which this system has given rise can only be described as vast. I do not suggest that the Government could abolish the whole system by a stroke of the pen, and I am merely asking them to examine it, but I hope that they will show themselves sufficiently reactionary
378
not to be afraid of putting the hands of this clock back to where they were in 1913.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend as to the intolerable nuisance of passports and also as to the vast amount of corruption to which the system gives rise all over Europe, but I do not believe that the passport system, however bad it is, really prevents the movements of bona fide travellers. I hope that Ms Majesty's Government will do nothing in the way of relaxing passports which may facilitate the arrival of alien agitators and revolutionary organisers into this country. We have a quite sufficient supply of those people here already. Lately, there has been a rather heated discussion in the United States about the admission of M. Longuet who, as your Lordships may know, is a grandson of Karl Marx. Karl Marx is the person who has done more probably than any one else to promote revolutionary movements in this country. He is now the apostle of the extreme section of labour, and his poisonous doctrines are taught in all Labour colleges. But Marx was not an economist. He was really a revolutionary. He adapted his economics to suit his revolutionary purposes, and he was a pan-German who set about promoting revolution in other countries with a view to the aggrandisement of pan-Germanism. I believe that M. Longuet has been admitted to America, because in America, as here, there are certain influences which always operate to enable people of that class to conic in. I humbly trust and believe that His Majesty's Government, in any modification they may make of the passport system, will bear in mind the danger to which I have referred.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend who asked the Question was quite right in saying that the passport system originated with the war, because I am very conscious that in certain parts of the world passports were requisite even before the war, but the hardships or rather I should say the inconveniences, because they do not amount to hardships—which are attached to the business of getting a passport and having it viséed are familiar to all your Lordships. Probably every one of you has been abroad and has suffered under it. I know I have. Consequently, I speak in full sympathy with my noble

379
friend from a personal point of view. But he must not think that it is a matter which lies altogether in the discretion of His Majesty's Government. There are regulations which exist in every foreign country, and it is necessary for British travellers to comply with foreign regulations, or they will find themselves in great difficulty. It is not, therefore, a matter for us entirely, but we have done what we can to mitigate the difficulties and inconvenience to which I have referred.
The price of a passport is very moderate; the passport continues in force for two years, and can be renewed. Moreover, in reply to my noble friend's Question, the Government are constantly examining lie system with a view to the possibility of minimising both its extent and its inconvenience, and, as a matter of fact, there has been an agreement for the mutual abolition of visas between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of two or three foreign countries—namely, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. In the case of Switzerland it has not been abolished altogether, for it continues in the case of persons who intend to reside permanently in Switzerland, or persons who are looking for employment in Switzerland, yet it is abolished in so far as tourists are concerned. My noble friend can enjoy himself on the mountains of Switzerland without the nightmare of visas disturbing his pleasure. Not only that, but we are in negotiation with many other countries with the same object. I am sure the noble Lord will see how very much we are in sympathy with him.
I ought at the same time to point out that we have paid attention to the point raised by my noble friend who has just sat down. The Home Office do find that in certain cases the visa is of great use—that is to say, the visa which is imposed when the traveller is starting is of great use in checking the entrance of undesirable aliens into this country. We are not prepared at present to abandon it in the cases to which I have referred, but in all other respects my noble friend will see that we are doing our best.

ASIA MINOR: SIR HENRY WILSON'S MEMORANDA.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Memoranda on the military situation in Asia Minor, prepared by the late Field
380
Marshal Sir Henry Wilson for the information of the Cabinet, can be laid on the Table. I think we can now confidently expect that the Conference at Lausanne will end in a peaceful issue, thanks to the wise and able guidance of the noble Marquess the Leader of this House, but in the best case the appearance of the Turks in the guise of conquerors in Europe, which has not happened for more than four hundred years, must bring about consequences of the most serious kind in the near future. All that has happened seems to be due to some serious misconception regarding the military position in Asia Minor. Whether there was any chance of a Greek victory at the beginning of last year I must not discuss, there was certainly no chance of a victory this year.
The Turks had gained time to collect ammunition and arms, and to consolidate the forces that we had shattered during the war. The Greeks might, perhaps, still have occupied, and been able to hold, Smyrna, but when they struck out into the heart of Asia Minor, 250 miles from the sea, into a roadless and rugged country, they were from that time in a position in which they were practically a doomed force. The Turkish victory which, as we all know, has excited the Moslems throughout the world, was really quite a small military achievement, and even now the Turkish Army is not a very formidable body, as I think my noble friend Lord Newton told us the other clay. The idea that it is a formidable body is one of the many illusions through which we have passed. If that Army had attacked us the other clay at Chanak possibly it would have met with a most disastrous repulse. I feel that the Turkish leaders were well aware of that fact, and, therefore, refrained from making any attack.
The present situation seems to have arisen very largely from military misconceptions and military illusions. The late Government in advising, or encouraging, or not restraining, the unfortunate Greeks—I really do not know which of the three it was—led them practically into a position in which they found themselves a doomed force. I am quite certain that the late Cabinet, during the past few years, must have given careful attention to the military situation in Asia Minor as a whole. The late Prime Minister, on Monday last, said that lie told M. Gounaris on January 12 last that "there would be no peace unless the Greek forces retired from Smyrna."

381
That was a most sound opinion, but it conflicted violently with the remarkable speech he delivered on August 4 last, only seven months later.
He then said that—
"There is only one way now in which the Greeks can have a decision, and that is by marching through almost impenetrable defiles for hundreds of miles into the country."
That was a sound opinion, too, but it partook somewhat of the obvious. But he went on to say—
"It was a very daring and a very dangerous military enterprise. They [the Greeks] established a military superiority in every pitched battle. They wore barred by the conformation of the country, and the fact that they had to maintain lines of communication that no other army in Europe would ever have dreamed of risking."
Finally, notwithstanding that the Greeks were beaten by the weakness of their lines of communication, he went on to say that if we were only holding the ring between them and letting them fight it out, the Greeks would march to the capital and take it in a week. Parts of this speech are said to have been read out as an Order of the Day to the Greek Army in Asia Minor, and it is believed to have hastened, and practically decided, the doom of the widely scattered Greek forces.
When I read that speech I could not help thinking that it afforded evidence of very muddled military opinions somewhere. I well remember other occasions on which bad military advice has led to the most unfortunate consequences; but that was in days when the War Office had no department specially charged with the duty of studying military problems, and when the Government had no formally constituted military adviser, a military adviser provided with the best means of obtaining and analysing information. The Imperial General Staff has existed now for sixteen years, and has had time to become a very useful body, which I believe it is. It has never had a more wise, or more experienced, or more far-seeing chief than the late Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson.
The Cabinet, therefore, in dealing with this military problem in Asia Minor had the great advantage of a particularly able military adviser. Even the finest intellects cannot function perfectly unless they are provided with adequate and accurate information. Of course, it was open to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to disregard
382
the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff, but in doing so they would surely accept a very grave responsibility. It is also possible, judging from recent revelations, that important memoranda may never have reached Ministers for whom they were intended; they may have been held up somewhere or other, or the Prime Minister's large secretariat may have provided him with advice of some other kind. Any of these hypotheses would account for the amazing speech from which I have just been quoting.
In view of the deplorable events which have occurred, and all the troubles which have been quite unnecessarily created, I humbly suggest that Parliament should know what our best military opinion was at this very critical period. I also suggest that it would be an act of justice to the memory of the late Field Marshal, assassinated mainly because he was in the habit of plainly stating what he believed to be the truth. Surely, it is undesirable that our Military General Staff should be believed in any quarters to be so ignorant and so deficient in judgment as to countenance measures which led the Greek Army straight to disaster. Now that the very secret Gounaris correspondence has been made public I think the Government might hold that some other disclosures of a closely connected character might be made with advantage at the present time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for War, whose public duties have called him on a visit of inspection to the British Garrison on the Rhine, I have to answer in his name. I am sure Lord Sydenham will not think that I am wanting in respect for him if I do not follow him through all the remarks with which he has introduced his Question. I see no good purpose that would be served by going back into the old history of what happened during the late Government, and it would hardly conduce to the shortness of your Lordships' proceedings. It really does not bear on any responsibility of the present Government. I ought also to say, as a preliminary, that I see no logic in the noble Lord's argument that because there has been an exposure of confidential documents there should be more exposure of confidential documents. On the contrary, I should have thought that what has already happened would act as a warning.

383
It is not in the public interest to publish these memoranda which are given by confidential advisers of the Government to the Government for the time being, and I think that my lamented friend the late Field Marshal, had he been alive, would have been the first to re-echo that observation. The statements which a document of this kind contains are secret—secret in themselves, and secret also in the sources from which they have come—and it must be evident that if they were revealed it would act as a complete deterrent upon all other sources of the same type from giving any information to the Government. They are given under the strictest seal of confidence, and it would be most unwise to take a course which would dry them up.
I think that is almost sufficient. These matters deal with very delicate subjects of foreign policy, which had much better be avoided. In addition to these general observations I have to say that Sir Henry Wilson's Reports and opinions regarding military developments from day to day during the last year in Asia Minor naturally and obviously connected themselves with problems which are still with us, and which at this moment are the subject of anxious consideration. I am sure my noble friend will not press me any further on the matter.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at the beginning of the late war either M. Viviani or M. Briand (I forget which) laid it down that war was much too serious a business to be conducted by military and naval men, and there has been revealed a good deal inure truth in that aphorism than appears on the surface. In any case, whether that statement was well founded or not, there can he no doubt that it was extensively acted upon not only in this country but in many others, and that the politicians not only took charge of military and naval operations during the war but, as we all know, have taken a considerable share in the events of what are euphemistically known as the times of peace. If Mr. Winston Churchill had been a Greek politician, he would have been condemned to death for what he has done since the war on no less than five or six separate counts.
I am one of those persons—I expect very few of your Lordships will agree with me—who hold the view that successful military and naval officers are disproportionately rewarded in this country.
384
I always think that they receive extravagant rewards in the shape of honours, places and vast sums of money—a practice in which no other civilised country indulges. But if the politicians of this country reward successful military and naval officers disproportionately, in view of the fact that the latter have got them out of trouble which the politicians have themselves created, then it must be admitted that the politicians get their own hack in another way, because it is a well-known fact that the opinion of scientific, military and naval authorities has been frequently, indeed consistently, treated with contempt, not only by the British Government but by other European Governments.
There must be noble Lords present here who are old enough to remember the France-Prussian War. They will also remember, no doubt, that after the collapse of the French Armies, and after the war was over, it was shown that the French Government had received ample warning for years past from their Military Attaché in Berlin, Colonel Stoffel, regarding the tremendous strength of the Prussian military machine and the danger to France from that quarter. That correspondence was ignored, much in the same way as the Gounaris correspondence disappeared the other day.
Now let me take a case nearer home; let me take the case of the Boer War. Everybody present will remember the wave of indignation that swept over this country and the fury with which the Government of the day, and especially the War Office, were attacked for the ignominious reverses which we experienced at the beginning of that campaign. But when the war was over it was discovered in the War Office that the Intelligence branch of the War Office had furnished the Government of the day with every kind of information upon the subject, and had predicted literally what was likely to occur. There never was any more complete vindication of a Government Department than that which transpired when investigation was made into the position of things before the war broke out.
Let me take a last case, the case of the late war. I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that if you go back ten years, or even as much as fifteen years, you will find in the archives of the War Office and of the Foreign Office any number of

385
representations and warnings from Berlin and other cities with regard to the German danger and the preparations which were being made in Germany with a view eventually to waging war against this country. Yet, with all this information at their disposal, the Government of the day had the audacity to pretend that the war came upon them unawares. I have no doubt that these warnings existed, and that there are hundreds of Despatches dealing with this particular point which have always been conveniently ignored by Governments, and which are never likely to see the light.
The case brought by my noble friend, Lord Sydenham, is, I. admit, not an exact analogy, but I should like to point out that there is no one in this House who speaks with greater authority than my noble friend, because he has occupied a position in this country which I do not think has been occupied by any other noble Lord sitting in tins House at the present moment. What my noble friend says—and it has not been contradicted—is that the policy which led to the present state of things in the Near East was exposed and condemned by the late Chief of the General Staff. He apparently pointed out, not only the danger of the course which we have encouraged Greece to take, but also the extreme danger in which the British forces would be and are at present placed in view of this particular policy. On that point I may be allowed to say that I have never encountered either a naval or military officer in the Near East who did not desire to clear out, not only from Constantinople but from the Straits, as soon as a possible opportunity arrived, whilst at the same time they were unanimous in approving the policy of tile Government in standing firm against the threats of the Turks and in practically ordering them out of the place.
But that really is not the point. The point is this. Is my noble friend correct in stating that documents exist at the War Office or elsewhere warning us of the danger which we were incurring? If these documents do exist—and I imagine that there is no doubt whatever on the subject—then it scents to me only fair and reasonable, in justice to this man who is no longer alive, that the facts should be made known, and that the Papers should be published. I am not in the least convinced by the argument of my noble friend who is leading the House. I know perfectly well that,
386
if these documents are withheld, it will only be for the purpose of saving the reputation of Party politicians.
The tragedy of the situation in the Near East appeals to me perhaps more vividly than it does to any one present here this afternoon, because I have been an eyewitness of it. Nobody can deny the fact that the present terrible situation is in a large measure clue to the policy which we have pursued. When I think of this tragedy, when I think of the chaos and the misery to which that portion of the world is reduced, and of the ultimate consequences, I confess that I feel strongly that the responsibility which rested on the politicians, whether they belong to this country or to any other country, should be exposed, and should never be concealed on account of some misplaced idea that its publication would detract from the reputation of Party politicians.

ATTENDANCES OF PEERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord PHILLIMORE, who is unable to be here this afternoon, I beg to make the Motion standing in his name with regard to the attendances of Temporal Peers. I believe there is no difficulty about giving this Return, which is quite short, and I gather that it will practically be a continuation of a Return that was given to this House a few years ago.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the Number of Temporal Peers who (1) did not attend the sittings of the House; or (2) attended them less than ten times in the sessions of 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922 respectively.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the Government have no objection to this Return.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ALLIES CONFERENCE.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, whether, before any definite commitments in relation to Reparations are made at the Paris Conference, an opportunity will be given to Parliament

387
to discuss the policy of His Majesty's Government upon this matter. The noble Marquess who is leading the House was considerate enough to communicate with me last night, and to inform nee that my noble friend, Lord Grey, desired to make some general observations on the question of payment of war debts, that he was unable to be in his place in the House to-morrow, and therefore that in the opinion of the noble Marquess the Question which I have put down would provide the most suitable occasion for such general observations as noble Lords might desire to make.
I have sonic few, not extensive, observations on the whole subject which I desire to make, and I therefore take advantage of the opportunity which the decision of the Government affords me to deal very briefly with the subject of Reparations, for which I and my colleagues in the last few years have held so large a responsibility. It is hardly necessary to say that no one who has had to deal in a responsible capacity with this most difficult subject in the last few years would willingly say a word which could add to the embarrassments of the Government, at the moment when they are actually dealing with this question. The position of the noble Marquess is even unusually difficult, because the Minister specially responsible for this Department is engaged elsewhere upon public business and cannot deal with the issue himself. If the noble Marquess, therefore, finds any observation or question which I put embarrassing or inconvenient to answer, he will, of course, say so and that is an end of the matter.
But I observe that M. Poincaré, according to the French Press of to-day, intends on Friday to make a full statement of what happened in London. If that be true, and it is repeated in many of the more influential organs of the Press in Paris, today, it is plain that no disadvantage can possibly follow if we are made aware from this side of that which took place at the last meeting, and if we are informed, as generally as the Government find themselves in a position to inform us, of what is the policy of the Government upon this question at this moment. I may recall here that it was the almost unbroken practice of the late Government, when Conferences of this kind were in progress or were contemplated, to make at least general statements of the policy which it was intended to carry out. Nor will your
388
Lordships need any reminder that the present occasion is one of somewhat unusual anxiety, for the reason that the renewed Conference is to take place on January 2. At that date Parliament will not be sitting, and the decisions that are to be taken there will therefore, unless the unusual course be adopted of inviting Parliament to meet prematurely, be taken, and it is presumed irrevocably taken, before we shall have an opportunity of considering them in this House. I hope, therefore, subject to any overriding consideration of the public interest, to which one will of course gladly surrender, the Government I may find themselves in a position to give us information upon this subject with some freedom to-night.
I find myself, as I understand it, in very general agreement with the indications of policy which have been made by the Prime Minister hr another place, but there are one or two questions which I should like to ask. The Prime Minister says, and here I think all must agree, that "it would not be right that the settlement should be fixed in such a way that we only, of all the Allied countries, would be virtually paying an indemnity." Now the Prime Minister has expressed in this phrase, and not for the first time, a profound truth. If we in this country are to pay, as we must and intend to pay, our indebtedness to the United States of America, and if at the same time we are to remit the Reparations from Germany, and the debts which are owing by France and Italy to ourselves, it would be literally true that we who did not provoke the war, and we who won the war, would be the only nation in the world that would in truth be paying any substantial indemnity at the close of the war. Such a proposal would, in my judgment, be extremely difficult to recommend to the people of this country.
What is the position of this country at the present moment? Your Lordships are more heavily taxed, as are other persons not in this House but in the same station of society and with the same means, than any class in any belligerent country in the world, with the possible exception (but even that requires qualification) of a comparable class in the United States of America. Not only is that the case, not only is it most cruelly embarrassing to every one of us in our private lives, but it has in its reactive effects upon the general

389
prosperity of the nation an even greater consequence, because it is to-day hampering our merchants, most vitally impairing our competitive power and resources, and, more than any other circumstance, is impeding the restoration of our prosperity and our capacity for procuring employment for our people. To this must be added that while we have math, these sacrifices in the direction of taxation other nations have not felt themselves called upon to do so, and it is certainly true that sonic of those nations, who are at this moment our debtors, have either not felt themselves called upon to make, or have not been prepared to make, demands upon the citizens of their countries comparable to those which we have made upon the citizens of our country.
Nor is it an adequate explanation to say that those Governments are, in fact, unable at this moment to make their Budgets balance, and that therefore they cannot support the burden which the loans of the war imposed upon them. That is not a sufficient explanation for this reason—although the Governments of those countries at the present moment are unable, having regard to their unwillingness to tax their citizens, to balance their Budgets, it is not in the least true to say that there does not exist in those countries great wealth. There is very great wealth in those countries. It is not for me, in dealing with communities of which I am not a member, to offer any criticism of the capacity which they feel to impose sufficient burdens of taxation upon their citizens to balance their Budgets, but am repeating what financially and economically is almost a commonplace when I say that there exists in those countries all the elements by which, in ordinary economic terms, men have measured wealth in the history of the economic development of the world.
We who have imposed these burdens upon ourselves to our great suffering in the last four years, but with immensely advantageous results upon our credit and upon the value of our currency, have at the same time, and partly in consequence of that which we have done, been face to face with an immense and perhaps a chronic burden of unemployment. What in that matter is the present situation? We in this country, almost alone of the countries of Europe, have at the very time at which I address your Lordships, as we have bad for the last three years, vast numbers of deserving citizens who ask nothing better
390
than to work and who have not been able during the whole of that time, and may not be able for the next three or four years, to procure the means of maintaining a decent subsistence for themselves and their families. They have been thrown upon the assistance of the State, which of course can never be adequate in such a case and is always a poor substitute for actual employment. We in this country have been face to face with this grave problem to which none of the nations who are indebted to us have been exposed. There is no unemployment in Germany; there is no unemployment in France; there is practically no unemployment in Italy. If the view which the Government have rejected were to prevail we in this country would be asked, while paying the whole of our own debts, to remit the debts owed to us by other nations, although those other nations are less highly taxed than we are, and although they are not compelled to support the grave and almost intolerable burden of unemployment which we must at this moment support.
I rejoice greatly that the Prime Minister has made it plain that, while he is prepared to make concessions upon this point, the Government has no intention of surrendering everything which this country is entitled to claim. The policy of the Government was stated by him in, I think, extremely reasonable language. He said that if we saw some chance of a complete settlement with a prospect of finality, we would be prepared to run the risk of not receiving in the end as much from the Allies and Germany as we might have to pay to America. But the Prime Minister made it plain also that it would be foolish to make such concessions if the whole question were to be opened again. I am, if I may say so, in complete agreement with that conclusion, and with the implication of that conclusion. The imlication, of course, is that, if we are prepared to run the risk of not receiving in the end as much from the Allies and Germany as we might have to pay to America, we were none the less of the opinion that it was proper, in all the circumstances of the case, that, just as we should have to repay our obligations to America, so we should receive something from those to whom we advanced money, or on whose behalf we guaranteed money in the course of the war.
What is the basic fact of the present Reparations position, which I do not

391
propose, as I have made it clear, to argue at length, but on which I would desire to make a few very brief observations? The basic fact, indisputable and undisputed by any one, is that Germany cannot at this moment pay the amount that is due under the Reparation Agreement. No one, so far as I am aware, in any country in the world, pretends that at this moment Germany can pay. If she cannot pay it is obvious that there must be a moratorium, and to that conclusion, as I understand it, all the parties concerned assent. The French Prime Minister, M. Poincare, if I understand him aright, has said that he does not dispute this conclusion, but that the interests of France indispensably require what he calls fruitful securities. I have analysed the existing position as closely as I can. I have had, as others have had, to give attention to it in the last few years, and I know of only three possible securities. If there are others I am bound to say they have escaped my attention.
The first possible security is that of the occupation of the Ruhr district. If the Government feel a difficulty about expressing their views upon that subject it is certainly not for me to press them, but I may be allowed, I hope, in cautious language to indicate one or two most grave possibilities, which in my judgment would arise if that course were decided upon and adopted. It is not, indeed, true to say that there exists in Germany to-day the capacity for military resistance to such an attempt. Unless the situation has wholly changed from the time when I had sources of reliable information upon this subject your Lordships may wholly disregard the statements, which appear in alarmist sections of the Press, to the effect that German officers in large numbers are instructing the flying formations of Bolshevist troops.
Your Lordships stay completely disregard the statements, made with so much appearance of particularity, that at the present moment there are secret formations in Germany; that there exists all the mechanism of a great army, which, once again, may be swiftly forged to spring -upon the liberties of Europe. Such predictions and such warnings are the delusions of ignorance. I speak with a knowledge, which I thick, on this subject, will not be denied, of the opinions of those who have
392
represented us, and do represent us at the present moment, in Germany, when I say that it is the undoubted truth that in the circumstances in which, and in which alone, the weapons of modern war can be forged, this country, or any country in Europe, need not apprehend that for five years there can be any military menace in Germany, nor could any such menace be effectively developed without its being so developed in the sight of, and to the knowledge of, every one of the countries which ex hypothesi at that moment would be in a situation of overwhelming military superiority, and so could prevent and suppress it.
No, that is not the peril which I apprehend. The peril which I apprehend, if there were an occupation of the Ruhr district, is of a different and a more insidious character. After all, the Germans are still, and they always must be, a great and a formidable people, and there ought to be, if the humiliations can be avoided, a limit to the humiliations which it is wise to put upon them. I am not measuring in scales as to whether they have deserved it or not. I am attempting to argue this question on the simple ground of expediency, and I am most apprehensive of the mischiefs that might arise if control were assumed over an immensely populous industrial district in Germany in circumstances which they would consider to be circumstances of profound humiliation to themselves. And I am at least most deeply concerned that, whoever else runs those risks, this people should in no way be partakers of them. I need only indicate, as one possibility, the grave risk that there might be a national strike in Germany when some other Power had assumed the responsibility for conducting the business of the coalfields. I say no more of that, which is the first productive security which has been very freely mentioned in responsible quarters in France.
The second security, which has been equally recommended, is that of setting up a Customs barrier along the Rhine; and, in the alternative, that proposal is sometimes made in another shape. It is that there should be a Customs barrier thrown round the Ruhr district. I cannot conceive that that method is likely to be in any way a successful one. Here again I do not urge, and I have no right to urge, that a definite answer should he given to me now. On that point I would call attention to

393
this circumstance. The Allies have already tried for a brief period the method of Customs. What happened? All that was collected was paid in paper marks, and I am informed that the Reparation Commission at this moment has, in innumerable elitists, countless stacks of German paper marks. The precise value of this commodity at the present time as the result of a Customs barrier is, I think, open to the very greatest doubt.
The third course that has been proposed—and I am aware of no other—is that we, or that some of the Allies, should seize, for the purpose of obtaining money, the forests, or some of the forests, of Germany, and perhaps sonic of the mines of Germany. I would only say of that proposal that it is quite impossible that you should assert control over either forests or mines without forces of occupation to protect those who are in charge of them. Incidents that have happened in many German towns in the last few weeks have shown the dangers to which those are exposed, or may be exposed, who undertake intervention of this kind in such towns. If there be any resort to any proposal of this kind, I hope that here again the view may be taken by the Government of this country that the results which are likely to be attained will not be commensurate with the risks and the expenditure that will be involved.
Let me add an almost final word upon the question: What is the true situation of Germany to-day? I do so because we are bewildered by conflicting views. One authority gives us the view that Germany can readily pay whatever we demand; while others are convinced that she cannot. The first fact which is indisputable is that at this moment and as the direct consequence of the inflation that Las taken place, the mark is travelling that road of ruin along which the kroner and the rouble have already marched. The inflation which has taken place and which is, from one point of view, and even from the German point of view, sheer financial insanity, has nevertheless been, in my judgment, in some degree deliberate. The German Government, which has, undoubtedly, made itself responsible for this inflation to some extent consciously, though in other ways she has been driven whether she wished it or not along the road of inflation, has run terrible risks in so far as the adoption of that course has been a voluntary one.
394
Let there be no delusion as to the facts. At the present moment Germany is printing notes as fast as the presses can work and as fast as the men who are engaged in the task can produce those notes. Germany has gained Some to advantage by this inflation. I do not think the advantage comparable to the disadvantage; but it is very great. What she has done by her policy of inflation in the last font years is virtually to wipe out as with a stroke of the pen the whole of her domestic war debt. Had we in this country undertaken a policy of inflation comparable with that which has taken place in Germany, we should have sustained many disagreeable results. The pound sterling would not have challenged that comparison with time dollar in America which is a source of pride at this moment to everybody who values the credit and stability of English commerce. But it would have had this compensating advantage—that we could have paid the war debt which was advanced and lent at the crises of the history of this country. We could have paid that in deflated and almost worthless paper.
This advantage, for what it is worth, Germany has enjoyed; but observe the risks which must be set upon the other side of the account. There is no man living, however experienced, who can tell us at this moment whether Germany is not, as the result of this inflation, on the brink of a complete economic collapse. And what would that collapse mean? I do not deal with the tragedy—for it has already happened; it has not only happened, but it has exhausted its cruel effects—I do not deal with the tragedy of the bruising and destruction of the middle classes in Germany. They have disappeared almost as completely from the social and economic life of the nation as the middle classes have disappeared from the life of Bolshevist Russia. But supposing that the collapse took place, what would be the effect upon Europe, and what would be the effect upon the creditor nations of Germany?
As to the effect on Europe I need not speak. Many of your Lordships have thought deeply upon this subject and know well the folly of supposing that you can strike out from that complex and artificial international structure which in the days before the war we knew, somehow or other and very vaguely as a homogeneous geographical and political entity—that you can strike out from the centre one

395
virile, highly sophisticated, and highly trained nation that at the moment is the greatest consumer in one sense of our products and, on its other side, one of the greatest producing areas of raw materials (I mean Russia)—and that both those two great entities can be subtracted from the elements which, working together, before the war made the prosperity of Europe and, in making the prosperity of Europe, established the security of employment for the working classes of this country. That you can do such a thing as that and retain any hope for the restoration of our national prosperity within the lifetime of anybody living is, believe me, impossible.
What, then, is the hope at this moment? What is the prospect for the future? Let me in my concluding observation make the best contribution which I can to that subject. The most able document unquestionably which has been published in the whole course of this difficult discussion is the Report on the Stabilisation of the Mark which was issued by the International Committee of experts, of whom Mr. Brand was the American representative and Mr. Keynes the British representative. Not very long ago they prepared a masterly Report which was summarised inadequately in the French Press, and of which some brief but insufficient account appeared in the English Press. I should welcome a decision that this masterly document, so fruitful suggestion, so coldly analytical in its examination of the existing difficulties, should be printed and published as a Parliamentary Paper.
May I quote very briefly three or four of the outstanding passages of this Report? The signatories say—
"We are deeply impressed by the vital need of an immediate stabilisation of the German mark. It is an essential condition of saving Germany from the threat of complete collapse."
Your Lordships will observe that, in the opinion of these gentlemen, I did not exaggerate when I said that you cannot save Germany from complete collapse unless you can stabilise the mark. The document continues—
"It is equally essential in the interests of her creditors whose claims will otherwise become valueless. Granted certain concessions from these creditors which we indicate below, stabilisation is possible."
The Report in a later place continues—
"As regards external business, we are of opinion that, so long as Germany is not relieved for a
396
period from payments under the Treaty of Versailles, any attempt to stabilise the mark would be futile and could only result in the useless dissipation of Germany's ultimate reserves. Such relief is, therefore, an indispensable prior condition.… The essential principle is that payments must not begin again until they can be made out of a real surplus and not out of proceeds of a fresh inflation. We believe that the period must now be fixed at two years at least."
The underlying truth of that conclusion will not be disputed by any one.
It is of no use saying to Germany in her existing financial situation: "You must pay the instalment of your debt." They will say: "How are we to pay it?" And you wilt say, "You borrow more money or you print more notes." It is, of course, the vicious circle in full swing. I cannot do more than quote one or two more salient and most instructive passages—
"In the long run the success of stabilisation must depend on the equilibrium of the Budget. On the other hand, stabilisation is in itself a necessary condition for the recovery of equilibrium."
"We have been informed from the German Treasury that, if the mark were stabilised and if the Budget were relieved of the present extraordinary charges, it would be possible to balance normal revenue and expenditure at an early date. Present conditions have thrown the statistics of the Budget into confusion. But we see no reason to doubt the accuracy of this expression of opinion as to what is possible."
Then there is one most, remarkable paragraph to which I draw the special attention of the House.
The signatories say—
"We conclude that in the conditions we postulate an immediate stabilisation is possible by means of Germany's own efforts. Indeed, we go further. Certain technical conditions are now present—the large gold reserve, the scarcity of currency, the margin between external depreciation on the one hand and the degree of international inflation and internal depreciation on the other—which render the position unusually susceptible to control."
I ask your Lordships to be good enough to listen to this—
"At the rate of 3,500 marks to the dollar the gold in the Reichsbank now amounts to about twice the value of the note issue."
I confess that statement did amaze me. I was not aware of it till I closely studied this Report. At the rate of 3,500 marks to the dollar, so amazing has been the paper depreciation, so large has been the gold reserve, that at the existing rate to the dollar the gold in the Reichsbank now amounts to twice the value of the note issue. "It is," say the signatories, as well

397
they may, "an unprecedented situation. No other currency has fallen into decay with so great a potential support still unused."
They then give their recommendations. I will summarise them in a moment for your Lordships. These are the outlines of a plan for stabilising the mark which surely is the only way to avert utter collapse. They say—
"In return for a suspension of payments under the Treaty of Versailles for a period of two years the German Government should offer to the Reparation Commission the following definite guarantees—

"(a) That an independent Board of Exchange control would be constituted as a special department within the organisation of the Reichsbank and that the Reichsbank would hold adequate gold from their reserves at the service of the Board.

"(b) That so long as any part of such gold is unpledged, paper marks shall be purchased by the Board of Exchange, on demand, at a fixed rate to the dollar; this fixed rate to be determined on the principles outlined in the first part of our Report.

"(c) That the aggregate value of the net floating debt shall not be increased beyond a defined figure; all other Government requirements for credit to be covered by funded loans."

I am not able to inform your Lordships—it would be imposing an undue demand upon the patience and forbearance of the House—of all the qualifications which must necessarily be made or of all the difficulties examined and then dismissed by the signatories of this able and remarkable document.
It must be the hope of every one that our successors will be more fortunate than we were in dealing with this grave and difficult matter. They carry with them to the attempt, which is to be resumed on January 2 in Paris, the good wishes of all sections in this country. I hope it will not have been unwelcome to them, having had thrown upon me, as it was also thrown on my late colleagues, the burden of these problems for many years, that I have offered to them an expression of good will and a word or two of caution on points which seem to me of the first importance. I am sorry to have inflicted my observations at such length upon your Lordships, but the gravity of this question, the risk of taking a false step, may perhaps be accounted sufficient justification of one who bore a full share of these anxieties and these burdens for four years.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I approach this subject of inter-
398
Allied debts from rather a different stand-point from that of the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I do not propose to dwell upon that difference. What moves me at the moment is an intense anxiety that if the Conference which has now adjourned results eventually in failure it must mean that Europe takes a further step towards collapse, and it will probably mean that our relations with France are greatly imperilled. It is now more than four years since the Armistice, and it seems to me that the danger of political disturbance in Europe, and the prospect of still further economic collapse, instead of getting less is really becoming greater. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, spoke of the risk of taking a false step. That is a risk, undoubtedly. I think the risk of taking no step, and making no progress, is a still greater one, and I would like to deal with this question of inter-Allied debts from that point of view.
The policy of saying that so long as we pay our debts to the United States we cannot remit debts owed to us by European Allies is a very obvious one. I am not sure that it is quite so logical as appears on the surface, but no doubt, if it is departed from, it lends itself to the sort of criticism which the noble Earl who has just spoken indicated. The objection to it is that it is a policy which, though obvious, though superficially at any rate logical, though in appearance fair, is perfectly sterile, and with it no progress can be made. I think, on the question of the debts owed to us, there are one or two things to be borne in mind. First of all, the policy of making the remission of those debts dependent on whether the United States remit our debt to them, does not bring us an atom nearer to any prospect of recovering money from these European Allies who owe us money. We gain nothing by it. Financially, we do not improve our prospect of getting any of the cash paid which is owed us.
In the next place, I would observe that we have more interest in this country in seeing political security in Europe, and economic recovery in Europe, than we have even in getting cash payment of debts owed to us. Even if France and Italy were in a position to begin payment to us of the debts owed by them, and if we could begin to receive the money from them to-morrow, yet, if receiving that money and holding them to their debts meant perpetuating the present state of

399
Europe, or delaying recovery in Europe from the present state of unrest and economic distress, we should be the losers. If, by remitting not cash payments but the prospect of getting some cash payments in the future, we could do anything substantial to promote security of peace and economic recovery in those countries in Europe which are the customers for our trade, we should be immensely the gainers. I admit that if we remit those debts without doing anything to promote the prospect of such recovery, the Government that does it will undoubtedly be exposed to criticism that will be very difficult to answer.
Therefore, I think the Government should take a broad view and have a perfectly free hand with regard to the principle of remitting the debts owed to us; and I should like to state some of the conditions on which I think a remission, even a total remission, of those debts would be amply justifiable and beneficial in the interests of the true economic prosperity of this country. It is, of course, too much to say that by a remission of those debts we could secure that political appeasement and economic recovery which are essential if collapse is to be avoided and prosperity restored to Europe. But it will be worth while considering—and I want to take a broad view—what are at the moment the real barriers which prevent any start being made towards an improved condition of things in Europe.
The Reparations question is only one. The noble and learned Earl has shown how difficult it is to settle the Reparations question. I will not dwell upon it, but part of the difficulty is that the question in only part of the whole question of greater security in Europe. It might become easier, less impossible, of settlement if it were considered as part of the whole rather than if it were continuously discussed at Conferences by itself. Undoubtedly, inter-Allied debts and the Reparations question are so closely connected that they may be made the subject of a definite bargain and agreement, making the remission of inter-Allied debts a condition of bringing the question of Reparations within practical limits.
I think the noble and learned Earl did good service in drawing attention to the Report, which is not so familiar to me as it is to him, of the experts on the question of Reparations. One of the great mistakes
400
in dealing with Reparations was that the International Commission of hankers, which met at Paris in June, and which so far as we can gather from the Press, did see its way, on certain conditions, to getting the German exchange stabilised and eventually to recovering substantial sun is in the way of Reparations, was so discouraged that it adjourned. That circumstance, so far as I know, conveys no reflection upon the late Government here. I think it was the French Government., not the late Government here, which was responsible for that International Commission of bankers discontinuing its work. If you are to advance towards a settlement of the Reparations question the French Government ought to have in view the desirability of summoning another such International Commission of bankers, on which the United States was represented. Although that may not be the main way of solving the Reparations question, for there must be agreement between Governments first, at any rate, it y; ill be a most useful instrument in rendering practical whatever general principles the Governments agree upon.
But the Reparations question is not the only one which has prevented the economic recovery of Europe. You will not really get economic recovery in Europe unless you also get greater political security. The two things are not the same, but they go hand in hand. I regard the development and strengthening of the League of Nations as the best means—in my own opinion it is, indeed, the only sound means—of restoring political security. I am not going to dwell upon the League of Nations more than appears to be absolutely relevant to this question. It has done exceedingly well with all the work it has had to do and the opportunities it has had. But it is quite obvious that unless the League of Nations becomes more comprehensive Europe will again drift presently into two armed camps. I think the next and most important step is that when the Reparations question is settled Germany should declare herself willing to be admitted, and the other Powers should declare themselves willing to see Germany admitted, to the League of Nations. I would like to see that a consequence, an agreed consequence, of any settlement of the Reparations question. That is the second point.
The third point I would make with regard to the remission of inter-Allied debts is this. One of the things which weighs upon

401
the economic condition of Europe as well as upon its sense of political security is the expenditure upon armaments, or perhaps I ought to say, the feeling that there is no certainty that there will not again grow up in Europe competition in the expenditure on armaments. At the present moment the Washington Treaty is the one thing which stands between the world and a renewed competition in expenditure on naval armaments. We have ratified that Treaty. The United States, I believe, has ratified it. Japan has ratified it. It has not been ratified by France and Italy. I read the other day in a French newspaper a statement by one individual, which I am sure does not represent. the real view of the French Government or people, that not only would France not ratify the Treaty but, after having declared she would not ratify it, she would declare that she intended to build no more capital ships hut a new kind of navy, a more modern kind, more formidable than a navy of capital ships. I quote that not with any implication that it represents the views of the French Government. I do not believe it can. But it does open a prospect not only of a failure to ratify the Washington Treaty, but in the future of a competition in naval armaments. It would be too crude, too provocative to the French Government, to say that we cannot consider the question of remitting inter-Allied debts unless you are prepared to ratify the Washington Treaty. You cannot do things that way.
But there is all the same a connection, though not a direct connection, between them. I long to see these inter-Allied debts, as far as we are concerned, remitted and completely remitted, because I long to see conditions produced which I think would justify their being remitted. If, after they have been remitted—even if this had secured a settlement, though in that case it could be only a temporary settlement, of the question of Reparations—if then one of the countries to whom we had remitted that debt. were to begin forcing expenditure on armaments, there would be great feeling and very great criticism in this country. I agree that it is possible to connect the two questions too closely together, but I give it as an illustration of how, if we are to remit inter-Allied debts, there might be, if not direct consequences of remitting them, at any rate indirect consequences which would make us feel that, though no great actual progress might yet have been made,
402
the risks and dangers of increased political disturbance in Europe in the future had been at any rate greatly diminished and that the barriers which at the present moment prevent any actual progress being made had been thrown down.
There is a fourth point with which I wish to deal. It is, I think, more important still. My object is to try to regard this question as a whole, and though the particular parts with which I am dealing may not all seem very relevant to this question, I believe they really are relevant, because I believe that you cannot deal with any of these particular parts unless you have in mind a comprehensive view of what are the real causes which are keeping Europe in the state in which it is found to-day. In my opinion one of the chief causes of all the political trouble, the difficulty of making any political progress, since the Armistice, has been the fact that there were two Treaties most important to France included in the Peace settlement—not parts of the Treaty of Versailles, but as much parts of the Peace settlement as the Treaty of Versailles itself. I mean the Franco-British and the Franco-American Treaties, which guaranteed to France that, should there in the future be German aggression against her, she would have for her support the whole strength of the British Empire and of the United States. Those Treaties were as much part of the Peace settlement as the Versailles Treaty itself.
Those Treaties have absolutely disappeared; they are gone; and would ask people in this country, who are very apt to criticise France as having been restless, or aggressive, or contemplating strong separate action in these last years, perhaps even at the present moment—I would ask them to hear in mind what would be their feelings had they been Frenchmen, seeing this Peace concluded, and regarding those two Treaties as indirectly part of that Peace, regarding the great object of that Peace for France as not so much mere cash payment to indemnify her for the war (though that was really important) as that she should have security against the recurrence of the terrible position in which she was placed for so many years before the last war. What must have been the feelings of Frenchmen when, after a Peace was concluded which they regarded as a, whole, those two Treaties, which did far more

403
for the future security of France than the Versailles Treaty itself, suddenly disappeared?
This is, of course, no reflection on the late Government. When they had signed the Franco-British Treaty and secured its immediate ratification, it failed. The reasons for that failure are perhaps imperfectly understood outside the United States, anti if we did understate] them no good purpose would be served by dwelling upon them. There are people, I know, who even at the time considered that those Treaties were not very wise policy. But even they, I think, must agree that the fact that, after these Treaties had been made, they should then have failed and been withdrawn, is a most disastrous one. They were part of the Peace—to France they roust have appeared almost as the greatest part of the Peace—and their collapse has knocked the bottom out of the Peace. I think the failure of those Treaties does account for a great deal of what has seemed to many people an aggressive spirit in France, and, I believe, really accounts to a great extent for the risk of France taking these measures, of the inadvisability of which the noble Earl who preceded me spoke with some force.
Imagine what would have been the situation had those two Treaties remained. I know they cannot be revived; I know there is no chance of the Franco American Treaty being revived, but I dwell upon what might have been the course of events had they remained, simply in order to help people to realise how great a difference has resulted from their having collapsed. Had they remained, the United States, ourselves and France would have been partners in policy. Not only would there have been no chance of French aggressive action towards Germany with that partnership in being, but there would have been no cause for it. I am sure that if those Treaties had remained and we three had been partners in policy, the Reparations question would have been taken in hand in the very earliest years after the war. The first thing would have been to settle that the amounts estimated as possible by the Versailles Treaty had been greatly overestimated, and that they must be reduced. The next step would be by common agreement to find out and settle what Germany could actually pay. The third step, no doubt, would have been to stabilise the German exchange long ago, to prevent the collapse of the German mark.
404
The result would have been that by this time Germany would have paid to France far more than she has yet paid, because the amounts would have been reduced within possible limits, the collapse of the mark would have been prevented, and the whole condition of Europe might have been very different from what it is. That, I think, is what would have happened had those Treaties remained. They collapsed. Now Mr. Lloyd George, early last January, I believe, was aware that, with regard to Reparations and the questions outstanding with France, if you wished to come to an agreement with the French Government upon them you would only come to that agreement by finding some means of giving, back to France that sense of security with regard to the future which she thought she had obtained in the Peace Treaty and which she has lost. Early in January last Mr. Lloyd George was discussing the question of making some sort of pact with the French Government to take in some way the place of the Franco-British Treaty.
I was so impressed with the subject at the time that:1 made a speech at Bristol, I think, on January 10, in which I endeavoured to be friendly and helpful to what I understood Mr. Lloyd George's policy then to be. I made certain reservations about which I will say something in a moment. The result was very curious. In some quarters which supported Mr. Lloyd George, I am told, my support of that particular point of his policy was made a subject of attack and complaint, although the part he was taking in it passed without criticism. That is one of the illogical things which sometimes happen in politics and upon which it is no good to dwell.
But I would like to give my view for what it is worth, and it is the same view as it was then. I do not believe you can get security in Europe by making exclusive agreements with particular Powers. I think you can only get security by making them in a form that is not exclusive, and inside the League of Nations, and what I had in my mind then was an agreement with France under which if either of us was in a dispute with another Power, and that other Power would not agree in the last resort to refer that dispute to the League of Nations, we should support each other, and having it in a form in which other members of the League of Nations, including Germany, if she were then a member, could join. In that way you would make the League and each nation who was

405
a member of the League of Nations a party, inside the League of Nations, to such an agreement, and each nation would feel that the League of Nations was a party to it and that it had a security which at present it does not possess.
If the Government find the French Government difficult to deal with on the question of Reparations, and find the French Government too easily disposed to take strong measures and occupy more German territory, I believe the real reason, although perhaps the French Government may not admit it themselves, is not so much that they are anxious to get cash from Germany in payment of the Reparations. I do not believe that those strong measures will produce the cash. They are much more likely to produce the collapse of Germany, which will he a disaster to Europe. I believe the reason is much more that, left insecure, as they think, by the terms of Peace, they desire to get that security which they thought they had for the future, and which they think they have lost, by occupying more German territory and weakening Germany. I do not believe that security is to be gained in that way. I do not believe that any nation makes itself more secure in the long run, however much it may acquire security for the moment, by occupying large tracts of territory inhabited by a different people from its own.
It would be an undoubted disaster if the Conference, which is to be resumed in January, were to result in measures which I do not think would really help Reparations, and which I think would only intensify the political unrest of Europe, without promoting economic recovery. But I do not anticipate, and I hope the Government will tell us we need not yet anticipate, that the Conference will not result in agreement. What I do want to bring out is this. Although the French seem to make little of it themselves, I am sure that what they want most of all is security in Europe. As long as you deal with these questions of Reparations solely by themselves, and deal with them as if they were purely economic things, without facing the facts, I do not believe progress can be made. I think it is very easy, if you take this question of getting greater security for France, to point out the objections to any suggestions which will be made. It is easy, if you deal with the questions of armaments alone, to point out objections. It is easy, as the noble Earl who preceded me
406
said, to point out the difficulties of making any settlement, it is regard to Reparations. I dare say that at this Conference which is to be resumed it will be impossible to deal with the questions which really affect the future of Europe on the broad lines on which I have been endeavouring to deal wit It them in my speech this evening. I dare say that may be impossible, but, if so, I hope that at any rate it will do something to persuade people that these things must be dealt with as a whole.
The object of my remarks this evening has been to try to explain that if these things fail one by one when dealt with separately, it is because they are not dealt with as parts of a whole. If any one, taken by itself, seems to be insuperably difficult, it is because it is not regarded as part of the whole great question. If we could only see oar way to deal with any one of these questions as if it was going to be part of a settlement which was going to produce real peace and the economic recovery of Europe, then I think the difficulties would disappear. It is a very great question, and I have dealt with it inadequately, because it really requires a mind of enormous grasp to deal with the question as it should be dealt with, but I do feel that we are in a moment of great anxiety, and I would like to make, and I thank your Lordships for having enabled me to make, what contribution I can, not with a view of extracting an answer from the Government by asking from them an explanation of their policy, but simply in the hope that somehow or other out of the general consultation of people's minds, some better way may come of saving Europe from the course in which it is now going than has yet been found.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that in making arrangements so that the noble Viscount could make what he has described as his contribution—his great contribution—to the discussion of this subject, we have been very wisely advised. At the end of his speech he said he was conscious that it was a very big question, and as I listened to his remarks as they were unfolded, and to the infinite implications and complications which most legitimately he referred to, I felt how very inadequate I should be in saying anything in this discussion. I wish my noble friend the Leader of the House had been here, and if anything can add to my feeling

407
of diffidence it would be the knowledge, which is the knowledge also of your Lordships, that I speak in a moment of great international delicacy, in the middle of a Conference which has been adjourned, and which is therefore only half completed, and with the prospect that other speeches, delivered both in this country and elsewhere by people of great importance, will immediately succeed in the next few days what I am about to try to say. I am quite sure that in these circumstances your Lordships will realise the very difficult conditions in which I address the House.
A great part of the speech of the noble Viscount was, very naturally, addressed to the position of France, and her difficulties and her policy. But there is no one who listened to the noble Viscount, no one who reads what he says, but will realise that he spoke throughout as a convinced and profound friend of France.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He was most anxious to show that he fully realised French difficulties, and that he very fully sympathised with French efforts to find a solution. I cannot help saying that I hope that when French statesmen read what he has said and recognise that it comes from a friend, they will weigh well the advice which he has in so friendly a spirit given to them, for I am sure that, if they do so, nothing but good will result.
And not only the noble Viscount, but the noble and learned Earl also, referred at some length to French policy and even to German policy. I do not propose to follow these two distinguished speakers in their analysis of the French position: that would evidently be the last thing which I ought to do. But I should like to make one remark upon the Report of the experts, to which the noble and learned Earl referred. I must admit that, like many others, I am not as familiar with that very important document as is the noble and learned Earl. In the course of his speech he said that he hoped it might be laid before Parliament. I can assure him that, if he presses that point, he will not find any difficulty, so far as we are concerned. But what, that Report emphasised, what indeed was contained in the speech of the noble and learned Earl, was that the immediate danger we have to fear is not
408
the re-awakening of the forces of war, but, the much more serious dangers of financial disaster. That is, of course, the fact. That is the moral of this Report to which the noble and learned Earl referred, and it is that, danger—that very imminent danger—which it was, and is, the business of the Conference to do its best to avoid. As to the particular methods which the noble and learned Earl described as being contained in the Report, I would rather not say anything about them. They come from very high authority, and they deserve most respectful consideration, but it would not be right for me to deal with such details as that.
The noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount mentioned the position which we occupy both as a debtor and as a creditor in this Conference. Neither of them criticised the declaration of my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, last night, and therefore I do not think it necessary to go into that any further. The declaration is in your Lordships' hands, and I think it will be recognised, and the noble Viscount will recognise, that it is in the direction at any rate of preventing the relation being any longer a cast-iron relation as between the three parties, Great Britain, America, and the debtors on the Continent; there is an element now of elasticity which has been admitted. That is, in the noble Viscount's view, at any rate a step in the right direction. I am sure it is a step in the right direction. One hopes that it will have as much effect upon the general mind as it evidently did upon the Italian Government.
I was glad when the noble Viscount, in his own distinguished way, dealt with this aspect from the broader aspect. It is really from the broader aspect that we ought to regard it. The policy of the Government—that which makes the foundation of the policy—is to increase the stability and sense of confidence of the world in these matters. That seems to me what is fundamental. We want, as it were, to knit together once more the innumerable bonds which united society before the catastrophe of the great war. We want to restore, if we can, that sense of confidence. And I need not say that it is very important in that connection that, most of all, we should maintain the close relations which exist between this country and France and Italy. It would be a very bad way to begin this policy of stability if we had allowed the divergence of which I spoke

409
on the first day of the session to continue as between ourselves and France, and had not done our best to eliminate it.
I think your Lordships will recognise that the fruits of that close relationship with France and Italy are already showing themselves in the Conference at Lausanne. You must take foreign policy as a whole, and the causes which go to make common action at Lausanne are intimately connected with the course of policy which is pursued between England and France in other parts of the diplomatic field. And I think we may congratulate ourselves most sincerely upon the wholesome effect which the close relationship between our country and France and Italy has already had at Lausanne under the skilful management of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not mean to say for a moment that in that relationship with France we ought to accept a subordinate position, or subordinate our policy entirely to France; but that we should try to work on parallel lines, and in conformity with French wishes, seems to us to be elementary. We must bear in mind always the British point of view, British interests, the convictions of British public opinion; but at the same time, in so far as we can work hand in hand with France, we shall find a solution both at Lausanne and elsewhere.
I do not know that I can usefully add anything to what I have said. I should immensely deprecate, and the Government would immensely deprecate, any language to the effect that the Conference which has been held in London had broken down; that would be a very untrue account of it. It is in truth and in fact an adjournment and not an end, and I think we may confidently hope that when this Conference re-assembles in January we shall, in the broad spirit which the noble Viscount has indicated, be able to arrive at some proposals which I hope may be at once to the interest, and may command the assent, of the French Government. It is in that hope that the Government will meet the Conference again on January 2.

TRADE FACILITIES AND LOANS GUARANTEE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, on this Motion I have to say that I hesitate to move to-day an Amendment in reference to this Bill, in that, having only just arrived from abroad, I have not had time to place it upon the Paper. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to put it down for Third Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Bill reported without Amendment.

IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I hope I shall be interpreting your wishes and doing that which you desire it, in the short speech that I intend to make in introducing this Bill for your favourable consideration, I deal briefly with its provisions rather than indulge in a long speech on the merits or demerits of admitting Canadian cattle into this country. That question has been debated many times. It is one which is familiar, I think, to almost all your Lordships, as most of you are interested in agriculture, and it is not in the least probable that anything I could say for or against that subject from an agricultural point of view would be in the least likely at this late hour to influence your vote or decision one way or the other. With your Lordships' permission I shall abstain, therefore, from entering into the merits or demerits of the question of admitting Canadian cattle.
I might be allowed, however, to refer somewhat briefly to the circumstances which led His Majesty's Government to introduce this Bill in this session of Parliament. Your Lordships are aware that in August, 1921, the Commission appointed to deal with this matter reported in favour of the admission of Canadian cattle. On some points that Commission did not speak with any very certain voice, but that, after all, was only natural because several of the matters which they had in hand were problematical. They had only to give their opinion upon what they heard and

411
they could in certain circumstances only prophesy as to what the result would be. I think I am right in saving, and your Lordships will admit, that their Report was distinctly in favour of the admission of Canadian cattle.
After the publication of the Report, debates on this question were held not only in this House but in another place. I believe I am right in saving that what weighed more with your Lordships than even the Report of the Commission itself was a speech delivered only a few months ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall—who presided, I believe, over the Colonial Conference of 1917—in the course of which he declared in your Lordships' House that, in his opinion, a distinct pledge was given that these cattle should be allowed to come in. If I may say so, I think that statement had greater weight with your Lordships than almost any other argument and that you practically decided it was the right course to pursue to deal with the matter and to lift what was known as the embargo. Since the coming into office of the present Government, I understand that representations have been received from the Canadians pressing for the immediate passing of legislation.
It is certain that if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament a certain time will elapse before the cattle can be admitted, because arrangements will have to be made to provide proper lairages, and so on. It will, in consequence, be some few months before the Act can come into operation. For all those reasons, I understand that the Cabinet decided that this Bill should be introduced in this session, and that is why I am asking your Lordships in, I am afraid, a rather hurried manner at the end of this short session, to deal with this important matter.
Having said so much, I think I had better run through the clauses of the Bill and briefly explain their provisions. Clause 1 deals with the importation of Canadian stores and the conditions under which they may be imported. These conditions have been agreed by the Canadian Ministers and by the Ministers of the late Government who represented the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Agriculture. They are considered by both Governments to be fair and reasonable both to Canada and to this country. May I ask your Lordships to note that Clause 1 deals only with the admission of Canadian store cattle.
412
Clause 2 gives power to the Minister of Agriculture to make Orders authorising the importation, under certain conditions, of Canadian cattle other than store cattle; that is to say, breeding cattle. This is not strictly within the terms of the Resolution passed by your Lordships' House, but I may point out that Orders made under this clause must be laid on the Table of the House and, if objected to within twenty-one days, are invalid. That is to say, that any Order made by the Minister of Agriculture must be laid on the Table for twenty-one days, and it will be open to any member of either House to object to that Order.
Clause 3 has the effect of bringing Irish cattle within the Regulations in the Schedule to the Bill relating to imported animals, and thereby makes permanent the present temporary Regulations affecting the movement of Irish cattle, which were imposed in consequence of the very severe outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease some months ago. These Regulations are made permanent on the recommendation of a Committee, under the chairmanship of Captain Pretyman, which was appointed to consider the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Committee, while not suggesting that Irish cattle brought over infection, felt that the principal cause of a widespread outbreak was to be found in the practice of moving large numbers of Irish cattle about the country.
Clause 5 provides that compensation shall not be payable out of public funds in respect of any imported animal slaughtered at the port of landing in consequence of disease. I think it is only fair that if any animal, when landed and inspected by a veterinary officer, is found to be suffering from disease, and if that animal and other animals that have been brought into contact with it are slaughtered, the British Government should not have to pay compensation to the owners of the cattle. Clause 6 enables a charge not exceeding sixpence per animal to be made on each imported animal to cover the expenses of veterinary examination. I think that, too, is quite fair. It is not imposing a hostile tariff on these animals, but is merely a charge made in order to cover the expenses of examination. Clause 8 enables a Minister to alter the Regulations respecting the movements of imported cattle, but not to reduce the period of detention. I hope I have interpreted your Lordships' wishes by dwelling only briefly on these matters, but

413
if any noble Lords desire to raise questions I will do my best to answer them. It is for that reason that I have not dealt at greater length with the Bill.
I may say that I believe that the future for agriculture in this country lies rather in the breeding and the fattening of stock than in growing wheat for the population. This country is perhaps second to none as a country for breeding and fattening stock, whereas it can be surpassed by many other countries in facilities and in climate for the growing of wheat as food for the people. I believe, therefore, that the future of agriculture must lie mainly in the direction of milk and stock. I also think that if we could largely increase the amount of stock in this country it would not have the effect, as many think, of reducing the agricultural population. On the contrary, I. am inclined to think that a greater head of stock in this country would give employment to just as many men in looking after that stock and in growing food for it as would be employed if we devoted more attention to wheat. But I do not wish to dwell longer on that subject. I can only say, in conclusion, that I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill and that the prophecies of those who anticipate that it will do injury to agriculture may not be fulfilled, but rather that the passage of the Bill will remove a grievance between ourselves and one of our greatest Dominions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I desire in the first place to thank His Majesty's Government not only for introducing this Bill but for introducing it during the present short session. It appears to me to carry out completely and fully the Resolution which your Lordships were pleased to pass last session, and, as the noble Earl who has just spoken has pointed out, it goes even further than your Lordships' Resolution, which dealt only with stores, because this Bill covers breeding cattle, too. Therefore, so far as the Bill is concerned, I thank the Government for bringing it in, and I wish it a speedy passage. I need hardly say that I shall do nothing to check its career.
But I observe, with profound regret, that the Bill differs, as it reaches your Lordships' House, from the Bill as it was
414
introduced by the Minister of Agriculture in another place the other day. The original Bill contained Clause 4, which gave permissive powers to the Minister of Agriculture of the day, under certain limitations and restrictions, to sanction the introduction into this country of cattle from the other Dominions. A debate took place in the other House upon this clause, and, to my great regret, the Government accepted a Motion for its rejection, so that it is no longer to be found in the Bill. I do not pretend for a moment that the omission of this clause raises practical difficulties. I do not think that it is likely for some considerable time, if ever, that the other great Dominions of the Crown will be in a position to send any considerable quantity of cattle here beyond those which they now send for breeding purposes. Therefore, it is not because it is going to interfere with the breeding trade in the Dominions that I regret the omission, but because I am convinced—indeed, I have already some reason to know—that this Act of the British Parliament will cause considerable annoyance and disappointment in our other Dominions.
I believe that, so far as we can do so without sacrificing the legitimate interests and rights of the people of our own land here, we are bound, by a force which grows in strength every day, to take any and every opportunity that presents itself, whether it be in legislation or in administration or in any other way, to recognise the claims of the Dominions as a part of the Empire, and to put an end, so far as is possible, to those enactments or customs of administration which tend to check and interfere with trade between the overseas Dominions and ourselves. So strongly do I feel upon this subject that my first inclination was to move in Committee of your Lordships' House the re-insertion of Clause 4. Indeed, I had drawn an Amendment for that purpose, but, on consideration, I do not propose to take that course, or to submit an Amendment to your Lordships for reasons which I will, very briefly, give. I have said that I, at all events, am profoundly grateful to the Government for having found it possible to introduce this Bill in the very short session of Parliament, which was summoned for other and very different purposes, and I recognise that we are coming to the end of this short session. It is, I believe, for the convenience of everybody that it should be terminated at the end of this week, and if an Amendment

415
were introduced here by your Lordships it might delay the passage of the Bill. Negotiations would have to be entered upon between the two Houses, and it is possible that it might, as has happened before, even risk the passage of the Bill, and that is the very last result for which I should like in any way to be responsible.
There are other considerations which govern my decision in this matter. As the Government have already told us, there is to be an Imperial Conference next year in London. It will be attended by the Prime Ministers, and no doubt other Ministers, of the various Dominions, and that fact puts this particular question of Clause 4 of this Bill in a different light. That Conference next spring will afford an admirable opportunity for the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Minister and other Ministers, to confer with the different Dominion Ministers, and possibly it would be better, if a change is to be made, that it should take effect after such a Conference and after His Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves as to the precise forms and conditions our Dominions would like to have if a Bill of the kind is to be introduced.
There is no immediate pressure. It is, really, a question of sentiment, not of actual injury to any prospective trade. But that sentiment is strong, and one which I hope will continue to govern your Lordships' House and affect legislation in this country with increasing force. If I thought a postponement of this alteration would have an adverse effect upon the feelings of people in our Dominions, I would run the risk of some disagreement with the other House rather than what I regard as a much graver risk, giving offence to those to whom we owe so much. But I do not think that will be the case. The distinguished statesmen who represent our Dominions here as High Commissioners will realise the difficulties of the situation, the practical Parliamentary difficulties, and they will also realise that it will be possible to discuss the question at the Imperial Conference, where it can be much better dealt with than it can be to-day. Therefore I do not propose to move the Amendment of which I have spoken—namely, the re-insertion of what was Clause 4.
I do, however, propose to appeal to the Government to give us a definite assurance
416
that they will make it their business to raise this particular question at the Conference next spring, and see that it is fully discussed, and that they will do all they can to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement and introduce legislation, if necessary, in order to give effect to the arrangement. If the Government are good enough to give me an assurance to that effect I shall not think it necessary or desirable to move the Amendment.
The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill wound up by expressing his hope as to the future of agriculture. I am one of those who have never believed that the introduction of cattle from overseas, Canada or elsewhere, is going to interfere materially with the raising of store cattle in this country. I do not think that time will ever come, and for this reason. In the days when we had previous experience of the importation of store cattle from Canada, farming in Canada was confined almost exclusively to two forms—immense ranches where the cattle were raised, and large territories of virgin soil producing corn. The face of the Canadian agricultural world has been altered, the whole system of farming has changed, and to-day you have in Canada mixed farming as successful as it is in this country. I think the Canadian store raiser and farmer will find that it is far more advantageous to raise his own stores than to send them here and sacrifice his profits.
Remember what is going on at this very moment. There are in England to-day surplus store cattle which are being taken into the markets and not sold. If there are more store cattle than are wanted, for which purchasers cannot be found, then, surely, there will be no temptation to the Canadian breeder to send store cattle here which might meet the same fate. I have no fears on that point. I introduced my Bill in 1896 not because of any fear of legitimate competition on the part of the Canadian store breeder. I introduced it purely to make certain that the health of our cattle was secured, and if I thought this Bill was going to endanger the health of our flocks and herds I should be the last person to support it. I agree that the raising and fattening of store cattle offers probably one of the best, if not the best, prospect for the British farmer. We are singularly blessed in our soil and climate, and in the conditions under which we carry on this branch of

417
the industry. It will not be possible for those who carry it on thousands of miles from here to make a profit out of that industry when they have to cover all those thousands of miles and are faced with the same difficulties as we are when their cattle land in this country.
The only question that remains is that of disease. As regards Canada, we have abundant proof that she has a clean bill of health, and has had it now for more than thirty years. There is in this Bill ample powers to enable the Ministry of Agriculture to protect the health of our herds and flocks, and my appeal to the Ministry is to devote more time, attention and energy to the work of protecting our cattle than they have done just recently, and to realise that it rests with them to see that no harm follows from this legislation. I hope the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will be able to give me an assurance as to the omission of what was Clause 4. I thank the Government for bringing in the Bill and including it in their programme for this session. Most heartily do I rejoice that it has fallen to our lot to remove one of the causes of dissatisfaction which has existed far too long. Legislation of this character will strengthen our Empire materially and bind still closer to us those great Dominions to which we owe so much.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the thanks accorded the Government for their prompt recognition of the pledge and the manner in which they have carried it out. I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House in expressing my opinion as to what effect this removal will have on English agriculture. That is a very open question. There seems to be, however, a little misunderstanding still. Perhaps in introducing this hasty legislation at the end of the session this could not be avoided, but I should like to have some explanation on what was Clause 4. Was Clause 4 put into the Bill as the recognition of a pledge, or was it not? Clause 4, as I understand it, admitted cattle from other Dominions, and there was considerable hubbub in another place when it was announced that Clause 4 was going to be omitted.
I may particularly call attention to a speech that was made by Major-General Sir Newton Moore, who is the Member for one
418
of the Metropolitan constituencies, and a former Premier of the great Dominion of Australia. He spoke—and I think this matter ought to be cleared up—in severe criticism of the deletion of Clause 4, in which he was joined by other Members. He criticised it in view of the promises made—and I should like to know whether any promises really were made—that the same conditions should apply to the other Dominions. If promises were made and they are not going to be carried out, this is another unfortunate incident. If that is so, I am sorry to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, does not propose to move the Amendment which he informed us he was going to put on the Paper. If a promise was made, I am afraid it will be my duty to put the noble Viscount's Amendment on the Paper, in view of a promise having been made and once more not having been carried out by His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I wish to say only one or two words, and will not delay matters very long. Last year I expressed myself rather strongly in the Press with regard to the action which led to this agitation being raised for the importation of Canadian cattle. I did so mainly on the ground that it might do considerable harm to the policy pursued by the agricultural authorities of doing everything possible to improve the milking breed of cattle, to induce farmers to get a larger yield of milk from a given acreage of land by improving their milking breed and giving all possible encouragement to the new system of milk recording. I felt that considerable harm might be done if breeding stock were imported in this rather indiscriminate way, and I was glad to see that, in an Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, which was accepted by the House in the debate of last July, it was proposed that steers only should be admitted under this Bill.
The noble Earl who introduced the Bill referred to Clause 4, which, I see, provides the Minister of Agriculture with permissive powers of admitting breeding cattle.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is Clause 2.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Is it under that clause that Orders will lie upon the Table of the House for twenty-one days?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Orders made under that clause will lie upon the Table of the House.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I presume, then, that no Order will be made in that way except when the House is sitting.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, it gives both your Lordships' House and the other House an opportunity to take exception to such Orders.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I only hope that, in carrying out this policy, the Ministry of Agriculture will pay every possible regard to the movement now in progress for improving the milking properties of our cattle, and that this Bill may in no way detract from its effectiveness.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships more than a very few minutes, but I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that, thus early in the life of a new Parliament, the practice to which exception has so often been taken of asking your Lordships to pass important measures in a very inadequate space of time at the end of a session, should so soon have been renewed. I am still rather at a loss to discern the reason for this very great haste, for surely, on this matter, if on any, your Lordships should be entitled to express an opinion after adequate consideration of the proposals laid before you. But we have really had very little time to study the Bill as it now reaches your Lordships' House, and to digest the course of events in another place.
I do not propose, however, to go over all the old ground again. I rise mainly for the purpose of asking the noble Earl in charge of the measure for an assurance on one specific point. I am bound to say I am one of those who are sorry that this Government should have taken over this legacy from their predecessors, and I am particularly sorry that it should have been brought forward now, at a time when agriculture is passing through a very grave crisis and needs all the encouragement and the support which it can possibly receive. Yet this measure is brought forward in the face of innumerable resolutions, passed by various bodies very well qualified to speak on behalf of the agricultural interest. I cannot but fear that it will increase that feeling, I might almost say of despair, which now obtains in agricultural circles,
420
and that it will tend to shake whatever confidence may still be left in the protestations which have been so freely made of late, that in future agriculture will be recognised at its proper worth to the State.
What is the real reason for the introduction of this measure? I do not suppose that any one seriously believes that it will reduce the price of meat. As the noble Earl himself said, the Report of the Royal Commission was not very convincing, and I think one may say without any disrespect that the members of that Commission themselves did not seem to be quite convinced as to the merits of that particular aspect of the case. The real reason, of course, why this measure is introduced is, as we are told, that this country must honour its pledges. On that proposition there can be no dispute. Of course this country must honour its pledges; but we have been reminded more than once recently that the freedom with which commitments have lately been made has rendered this a somewhat complex matter, and I think we may well ask how far this is to be a precedent, and how far this country is to be bound by promises which have been given without the express sanction of Parliament.
It has always been a mystery to me why, since Providence has endowed us with an island home, successive Governments should strive to throw away the advantages of that priceless heritage. We have had many previous instances, and now we are to have overseas cattle coming here to imperil the safety of our own incomparable herds. We certainly shall not designate these cattle as alien cattle, inasmuch as they have come from our Dominions. If that were the only consideration, we should welcome them, though I am afraid the poor animals themselves will be somewhat unwilling guests; but they are strangers to our shores, and, speaking with all deference, I fear that it is idle to deny that there is some risk attached to their admission.
It is an unfortunate thing that once more agriculture should be mixed up with polities. That has been the obstacle with which agriculture has always had to contend, and I am afraid it is evident that it is still not yet freed from that handicap. And till agriculture is left to work out its own salvation free from politics the outlook will continue to be rather gloomy.

421
It is useless to discuss this measure now. The Government have evidently made up their minds, and no doubt this Bill will pass. If I understand aright, we are still to a large degree at the mercy of the Ministry. At first sight, no doubt, there are safeguards, and we shall be told that these safeguards have been inserted in accordance with the Resolutions arrived at a few months ago. But when I look at Clause 8 I see that to a very large extent the Minister can over-ride the safeguards, and can do almost anything that may seem good to him and to his advisers. I suppose that in this respect the Bill does not go much further than the Act of 1894, but I cannot think that when those Resolutions were adopted a few months ago it was intended that the enforcement of the safeguards should be at the discretion of the Minister.
I said just now that I wished to have some assurance upon one specific question. Is there any intention to carry out the provisions of this Bill with any real regard for humanity, and, if so, in what form? And what penalties will be attached to any attempt to evade those provisions? I notice in the Bill that a veterinary surgeon is to travel on the boats and to report on the health of the animals, but I see nothing to impose upon that veterinary surgeon any obligation to report on the conditions of travel. I observed with the greatest delight an Amendment which was recently adopted in another place, and accepted by the Government, to make some provision for the adequacy of the vessels. I am afraid I am a little sceptical as to how far those provisions will really be carried out. We all know of the cruelty which was formerly attached to this trade, and that it was very largely on account of the revulsion of feeling against that cruelty that the embargo was put on; at any rate, that was one of the causes. It is now clearly laid down that the vessels must be adapted to the purpose, and certain objectionable features are, as far as possible, to be eliminated.
The Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place before the introduction of the Amendment to which I am referring, said that he had ample powers under the Act of 1894, and, on referring to that Act, there can be no possible question that he has those powers. But what guarantee have we that the officials will use them, and will use the additional powers now conferred
422
upon them? I have no doubt that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will assure us of his own personal sympathy, just as the Minister did in another place, and I have no doubt that the sympathy in both cases is genuine. But we shall probably be told also that the Ministry are likewise sympathetic. As to that, I am afraid I have rather less confidence. Many efforts have been made in the past to restrict the cruelties of the export trade from this country, and the obstacle has always been officialdom. No doubt, the permanent officials individually are most humane, but as a corporate body they are callous in the extreme. And we know that the Minister has to rely very largely on his permanent officials for information and advice on these subjects. What hope have we that they will be more humane in dealing with this import trade?
I read with great interest what the Minister said, I think the night before last, on this subject. He used almost the identical words that the late Minister used with regard to the export trade. He said that as far as he possibly could he would do all in his power to prevent cruelty. We were told that with regard to the export of horses; and yet, I am afraid, there is only too good reason to believe that the same cruelties go on now, and that they are practised almost to the same extent as they were before the passage of the recent measure. I very much hope that the noble Earl will give us a definite, assurance that real regard will be paid to humanity in dealing with the import of these cattle. The former conditions were a disgrace to all concerned. If this Bill passes, as no doubt it will, I shall be one of those who will regret it, but it will be some slight consolation to know that, whatever fears one may have as to the evils which may result from it, at any rate the conditions of cruelty will not be one of the added objections.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this highly controversial question, which has now come before us in the form of a Bill, has been discussed up and down the country for the last year or more, in some cases with a warmth which one might almost call ferocious. But when the subject came before your Lordships' House last summer the merits of the case were overshadowed completely by other questions, and I was alone, or nearly alone, in endeavouring to draw your Lordships'

423
attention to the aspect of the case as it presented itself to British agriculturists. It has been agreed now, as the result of votes in both Houses of Parliament, that this Bill shall go through as practically an unopposed measure. But it will be well to recognise that the reason why it does so is not that the arguments of those who object to the lifting of the embargo have been defeated, but that the sense of the country has declared that a pledge given by a British Government must be honoured. With that, of course, I entirely agree. Clearly the pledge was given. Whether it ought to have been given is a matter on which I and many others hold our private opinions.
I should very much like to know where these pledges begin and where they end. The huge preponderance of British agricultural opinion has declared its opinion with no uncertain voice that the lifting of this embargo is inimical to the industry's interests. On the face of it, it must be inimical to its interests. We know that there is a considerable minority who hold a contrary opinion, but they have been rather in the position of a man who clutches at a straw when he is drowning. They expressed that opinion because they hoped that, in their grave anxiety, the lifting of the embargo might perhaps come to their assistance. I think that is the reason why they hold that opinion. But, in any case, it cannot be denied that the great preponderance of agricultural opinion is against the lifting of the embargo.
We know that in passing this Bill we are running the risk of doing ourselves grave hurt. We cannot conceivably be doing ourselves the slightest good. In this matter of pledges look at what agriculture is faced with. In the country districts one of the chief difficulties that agriculture has to contend with is the enormous incidence of the rates. What causes the rates to be so high? Surely, the charges incurred for education are one of the principal reasons. We are not allowed to touch those costs because we are faced with pledges made to those concerned in giving education. Again, agriculturists are suffering very heavily indeed by reason of the high freights on the railways, which, in their turn, are due to the pledges given to the railwaymen's unions. I am not complaining of these things, but here are three instances of pledges which operate against the interests of British agriculture.
424
And when it comes to pledges given to British agriculture itself, what happened to them? It is fresh in the memory of all your Lordships that Parliament, in its discretion, did not then consider it necessary that its honour should be upheld. At every turn agriculture is made to give way to other interests, and the result is that now it is no exaggeration to say that agriculturists as a whole stand on the edge of the precipice. Some few have slipped over already. This Bill, when it passes, will push over a few more. When the edge of the precipice crumbles the whole of us will be thrown into the abyss, and that debacle will not be long in coming. The Prime Minister has given abundant evidence of his desire to get a grasp of the subject, but, important though the questions are which the Committees that have been set up are going to discuss, they really are only important side issues, and, however favourably to agriculture those Committees may report, they cannot but be palliatives; they will not get to the root of the trouble from which we suffer.
I am not here, any more than any one of your Lordships, to plead the cause of the interest with which we happen to be intimately connected. We are here to contribute what we can to the good government of Great Britain and the Empire, and I would like, if I may, to divert your attention for a moment away from the consideration of the plight which agriculturists as individuals or a class are in, to a consideration of what would happen to the nation if agriculture were allowed to be ruined, and if the sort of policy is to be continued which we find in this Bill—namely, the policy of sacrificing British agriculture to other interests.
There is not a State in the civilised world which finds it possible to continue its existence except when based upon sound and profitable agriculture. Is it possible that this country of ours will be able to do what all other States find impossible? To me it seems that with a demoralised agriculture industrial England is as a god of brass, standing upon feet of clay. What we want to maintain that enormous superstructure are foundations, solid, broad-based and ever spreading, and we can only secure those foundations by restoring confidence to British agriculture. We have got to make it worth while for the man who works upon the land to continue to do so, and to make it possible for the

425
man who puts his brains and capital into the land to get a reasonable living out of what he is doing. Until confidence is restored to British agriculture those things will remain impossible, and, in fact, matters will go from bad to worse.
There are members of this House who are far more conversant than I am with the conditions of agriculture. Those conditions alarm me, and they must alarm your Lordships. I beg the Government, knowing their good will towards the subject, to try to get down to fundamentals and to discover some policy which will make it possible for British agriculture to thrive in the future as it has thriven in the past. Something has got to be done, and I hope it will be done quickly. I have been tempted to digress from the immediate subject of the Bill for a moment, because this Bill, small matter, comparatively speaking, as it is, is in the wrong direction. It cuts across the interests of British agriculture and does not help them. I hope that it is the last we shall see, during what I may hope will be the long-continued term of office of the present Government, of any sort of legislation brought in which does not on the face of it carry with it the assistance of British agriculture.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, as a member of the Royal Commission which sat upon this matter I welcome this Bill as a just and sensible measure. The noble Lord has made a moving appeal on behalf of agriculture generally. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, is once more accurate in the estimate he gave, and that this Bill which is now introduced into this House will not have any harmful effect upon agriculture, but, on the other hand, may assist a great many portions of agriculture and also other industries besides that of agriculture. With regard to Clause 4, which was deleted in the House of Commons, the noble Marquess has talked about the pledge. I do not know whether any pledge has been recently given. Pledges seem to be floating about this country, and it is difficult to keep pace with them; but at the time the Commission was sitting no such pledge was brought forward or spoken of, although the Canadian pledge was freely spoken of, and the Commission itself dealt with the question of importation from other countries than Canada in its Report.
The lines are very few and I think I may read them. The Commission said—
426
"It was urged by way of objection to the Canadian application that it would be impossible, in practice, to discriminate and that diplomatic difficulties might arise with foreign countries it Canadian stores alone were admitted. We do not think that this objection is of weight. Canada is an integral part of the British Empire, and if Canada makes out a case for admission, no complaint could be made by a foreign country that it would be unfair to admit the cattle of Canada alone. Considerations of a similar kind would apply as regards parts of the Empire other than Canada if any of them were to claim that admission should be granted to their cattle. No such claim has, so far, been made except on behalf of Canada and no such claim seems probable, but if it were made it would have to be determined according to the circumstances of each case."
Therefore, I would support the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that the matter should be brought up at the Conference which is sitting next year, rather than that a clause should be put in which might have a hasty and detrimental effect.
Quite sufficient was said before the Commission to indicate that in parts of His Majesty's Dominions, particularly in the Tropics, very serious diseases did exist, of which little was known in this country, and other diseases were alluded to as existing in South America, which have really not been examined properly with a view to estimating what their danger might be to cattle in this country. With regard to Canadian cattle enough was said before the Commission to lead me to believe that there was a clear case. The Commission had before it primarily the question of disease. It was proved up to the hilt that since the year 1896, and for even a longer period than that, there had been no really serious diseases existing in Canada, and that the claim for keeping Canadian cattle out was not a good one.
The Commission alluded to other reasons, but, as the noble Earl who introduced the Bill very properly remarked, the Commission was hampered by the question of policy which arose, and they said at the end of their Report—
"We have not thought it within the terms of reference to enter into questions of Imperial policy, as regards the food supply of the country in time of war, protection of home industries, or the effect of possible political changes in the Constitution of the United Kingdom."
Some of those "possible political changes" have since taken place, and may considerably alter the question of whether we shall or shall not depend upon one portion of the United Kingdom for our entire supply of store cattle in the future. I support the Bill.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I should not like this debate to close without my having said a word or two about one clause in the Bill which has not been referred to by any previous speaker except my noble friend who moved the Second Reading. It is Clause 3 which alters the law as regards the admission of Irish cattle into this country. In referring to that clause I do not, of course, question the right of this country to take every step which is necessary in their view to safeguard their herds. As a farmer in Ireland I should resent any suggestion that we had not that right in Ireland now, and, of Course, I would not make any claim controverting that in dealing with our relations with England. But there is a strong feeling in both parts of Ireland about the insertion of this clause in the Bill. We believe it to be unwise. We believe that it is unfair as drafted, and also that it is particularly unfair to take this opportunity when you are legislating for Canada to pass what we believe to be a very harmful provision as regards ourselves.
My task is easier than it might have been for two reasons, and I need not detain your Lordships at any length. It is easier, firstly, because the case has been splendidly fought in another place by honourable friends of mine, some of them representing Northern Ireland and some of them closely in touch with Southern Ireland. They did their best but were overwhelmed. If I may express my own opinion, I do not think they were overwhelmed on the merits; they were overwhelmed for other reasons to which I shall refer. My task is also easier because I know that in saying what I want to say I am not attacking His Majesty's Government. They are doing nothing to do us any harm. I am attacking their predecessors.
The word "pledge" has been more extensively used in this debate than any other word in the English language, and I shall continue the use of it. We are confronted, first of all, with the fact that there is a pledge to Canada. A pledge was given in October last, I think, by two Ministers to the effect that the new arrangements under which Canadian cattle would be imported into this country would also apply to Ireland. We are informed that that pledge was given by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Winston Churchill; two gentlemen, we may note
428
in passing, who, by the wisdom of the electors, are not at the moment included in the counsels of the nation. But that pledge was given, and it was given, so far as we know, after no consultation with Ireland at all. I do not think the Ulster Government was consulted, and I do not think the Southern Irish Government was consulted. There was, after all, a Provisional Government existing in Southern Ireland which ought, surely, to have been consulted. So far as I know, neither of them was consulted.
Further than that, it is our belief that the pledge was concealed from them. Of course, no Papers have been laid, and they have not informed us of their ever having had any knowledge that this pledge was given with a view to a subsequent proposal. Moreover, though I do not think I can say there is a pledge, there is an engagement to the contrary with Ireland. We understand that in the autumn of last year the Irish Board of Agriculture approached the English Ministry of Agriculture and offered to help in the drafting of this Bill. But the Irish Board was told: "Oh no, we do not want you; this Bill is not going to affect Ireland in any way." That statement has been made in the House of Commons and has not been contradicted, and I think I am entitled to repeat it here. I do not think that a message from one Department to another can be called a pledge; but the fact that there had been such a message reached Ireland and leaked out there, and one may claim, I think, solely for the sake of argument, that it was in the nature of a pledge. Our sympathies remain, of course, with His Majesty's Government. We note with pleasure that they are being meticulously careful in carrying out the pledges of their predecessors; but it will be difficult for them to carry out those pledges when they find that pledges have been given by their predecessors, not for the first time, and to both parties—pledges which are mutually contradictory.
All that I desire to say on this proposal is that this Bill alters the conditions under which Irish cattle may reach this country. You are giving to those conditions a rigidity which does not exist at present. By so doing you are bound, slightly perhaps but none the less certainly, to affect the price of Irish cattle in this country, and, by so affecting it, to raise it and eventually to increase the price of meat. I am also

429
entitled to say, I think, that you may encourage the Irish cattle breeder to send his cattle somewhere else. It is common form, of course, in our debates in this House to say that the whole of the trade of Ireland is with England and that she cannot hurt us because she so greatly depends on us. But this cattle trade is a very big thing from your point of view. From the point of view of your meat supply, it is a far greater thing than anything that anybody suggests may come from Canada, and you must not grumble if the Irish cattle breeder does what I hear privately from Ireland that he is beginning to consider—begins to look for another market, with the result of decreasing what he sends here and increasing what he sends elsewhere. The subject is very much in an incipient stage and I will not say anything further about it at the moment. If I did, I might possibly be giving away secrets. But if anything does happen in that direction, do not forget that the initiative came from you and not front Ireland.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, it would be much more interesting to your Lordships, I imagine, if the noble Earl told us where Irish cattle will go if they do not come to England; and it would be much more interesting to us as English farmers, in view of the fact that many of us feel that numerous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have had some considerable connection with Ireland, though in many cases it is not easy to prove that.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It has never been proved.
EARL STANHOPE: Farmers in my county hold very strong views on the matter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Led, of course, by the noble Earl.
EARL STANHOPE: The disease appeared to come either directly or indirectly from Ireland, or arose among cattle which had arrived only a very short period previously from Ireland. That being the case, I very strongly hope that the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will not give Ireland a pledge in this connection without the fullest inquiry. I agree that Ireland must not be forgotten, but having regard to the legisla-
430
tion which has recently passed through this House, I imagine that Southern Ireland stands in the same position as the Dominion of Canada. Ulster, of course, is in a different position and has to suffer in consequence, and I think that everyone engaged in farming in England, sympathises most deeply with her. After all, charity, does begin at home.
As my noble friend Lord Hastings said, we have to safeguard British agriculture and to do every-thing possible to preserve it from collapse. The security of our herds in this country is one of the things on which the farmer places more reliance now than he does on anything else. His wheat prices have fallen, and many other markets have fallen, and if you are going to bring disease into this country agriculture must inevitably collapse. There is no question, I think, of disease being brought into this country under this Bill, because, as the noble Lord opposite has said, Canada has produced an absolutely clean bill of health. I hope, however, that before any other Dominion is allowed to import cattle into this country an equally careful inquiry will be made.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I wish to say only one word in answer to the allegation of my noble friend Lord Stanhope. He, I think, cast a terrible aspersion on our unfortunate country by saying that it was supposed that the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country had come from Ireland. I saw the other day that it was officially reported that after a very thorough and careful examination of the subject it was proved conclusively that Ireland was in no way the cause of the introduction of the disease into this country.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I also should not have got up to speak but for what Lord Stanhope has said. I followed the proceedings in another place very carefully, and really, whatever we may feel about it, after much discussion the whole thing comes down to the words in Clause 8. It comes to this, that instead of putting in statutory form hat the cattle should be under detention for a further period of six days, we think it should be in the discretion of the Minister to vary the period. This measure was introduced to satisfy Canada. A pledge was given at a time when Southern Ireland was not a Dominion

431
and when her interests were in the hands of the Government here. No person then foresaw that the importation of Canadian cattle could affect injuriously the position of the Irish breeders. So far as I could I followed everything that was said in another place, and it appears to me to have been admitted that, whatever consideration there was for the pledge which was given, there was no consultation with the representatives either of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland. The difficulty might have been met by merely leaving it in the hands of the Minister to prescribe what was necessary in the interests of this country. No one denies that this country is entitled to take measures to protect itself. But to put it in statutory form was outside the purpose of the Bill. It was done, I understand, without consultation with Ireland, or consideration of any reasons which might have been given against that course being adopted.
In regard to the prejudice which my noble friend Lord Stanhope has introduced by making a general statement that it was always suspected foot-and-mouth disease came from Ireland, I can only say that that has been refuted over and over again. It is always said; in this country it seems to be a matter of prejudice. I do not see, however, how it can come into this discussion at all. What we want now is that the Minister should have the discretion in this country of imposing such delay as he thinks necessary, but that the period should not be put in permanent and statutory form. I think that is a reasonable request, and I am sorry it was not granted in another place. I recognise the futility of pressing it here, and I shall not put down an Amendment, because to do so would merely be occupying the time of the House unnecessarily.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, may I deal first with the last point raised? It has nothing whatever to do with the question of Canadian cattle coming in. I have to remind your Lordships that in the very uncertain, confused and difficult position in which we were in this country owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease of great magnitude in the last few months, it was necessary that steps should be taken to stamp out that disease. It is difficult to find, and I do not think we have yet found, any particular solution of the problem as to where the disease comes from. I myself am
432
convinced that Ireland has got a very clear and a very clean record. Whether it is brought by birds or in crates of straw, or however it is brought, there is no doubt whatever that a large number of animals moving about from market to market were the means of causing a considerable spread of foot and mouth disease. Under powers which the Board of Agriculture could exercise they were able to prohibit the moving of cattle front market to market. The period was fixed at fourteen Clays in June, but in August it was reduced to thirteen days, and in October, I think, to six days.
I do not wish to threaten—it would be a futile task on my part—my friends from Ireland, but I have already received an intimation that there is an objection on the other side to fixing the statutory time at six days. A great many people think the time ought to be touch longer. They think that instead of it being fixed at six days it is desirable that it should be left in the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture to make the period still longer, and, if necessary, go back to the time originally fixed, which was fourteen days. I agree that the Ministry has the power of enforcing that period. I know that it is not any comfort to my noble friends from Ireland, but I cannot imagine a Minister of Agriculture in this country for a great number of years to come who would even contemplate the reduction of that period of six days which the Ministry now have the option of fixing. Practically no difference would be made if it were statutory, That opinion would be strong if any alteration were made in the number of days one can well imagine after the speeches we have heard this afternoon, notably, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We would not be able to stand for a day before the agricultural community if we were to reduce the period. Although I can hold out very little hope to my friends from Ireland, I do assure them that there would not have been the slightest chance, if this Bill had never been introduced, of there being any abandonment of the exercise of the option possessed by the Minister of Agriculture.
May I now turn to a point of very great importance, and one to which it is a matter of deep regret to me to have to refer—namely, the disappearance from the Bill of the original Clause 4. I most deeply regret that that clause was rejected in the House of Commons. I do not wish to go into the

433
question of pledges. I do not know why this question seems invariably to have involved pledges. Whether there was an absolute pledge or not I am not sufficiently discriminating to judge, but I have no doubt whatever that the clearest possible undertakings were given, both in the course of the debates in this House and elsewhere, that the removal of these restrictions on Canadian cattle was intended to apply equally to cattle from the other Dominions. The Resolution passed by your Lordships' House on July 26 referred to "stores from the Dominions," and as a result of the Conference between members of the late Government and Canadian Ministers it was publicly stated that—
"the Conference assented to the view that legislation on this subject cannot be limited to Canada but must be capable of adaptation to the requirements of other parts of the British Empire."
That is perfectly clear language.
The Bill as originally drafted, containing what was Clause 4, made it clear that it was the intention of the Government and Parliament that the removal of these restrictions should apply to Dominions other than Canada. I deeply regret that this clause has been deleted in the House of Commons. On my own responsibility I telegraphed my regret to the representatives of the Dominions, and I am fully prepared to give the undertaking asked for by my noble friend Viscount Long of Wraxall, that, if at the Conference, which we hope will meet in London next year, this point is raised and a mutually satisfactory arrangement reached, the Government will bring in legislation to give it effect. I do not know whether I shall be accused of having given another pledge, but it will only be carrying out the undoubted intention of the late Government, undoubtedly our own intention, and undoubtedly the intention of Parliament when it passed the Resolution last summer.
My noble friend Lord Jersey asked what was the reason for this hurry. The reason is that we have given a pledge and are anxious to implement it at the earliest possible moment. No practical purpose is achieved by delay. On the other hand, a considerable amount of work is necessary to prepare for the arrival of these animals from Canada, if they come, and it is obviously necessary to get the Bill passed as early as possible. There would, I believe, ha ye been great disappointment in Canada if the Bill had not been introduced in the
434
present session, and I have evidence that there is considerable satisfaction at the fact that the British Parliament took the earliest opportunity of redeeming the obligations to which they were committed.
The noble Lord also referred to the question of cruelty. A large number of animals have been shipped from Canada to various ports in this country, where they are killed on landing, and if there is any cruelty it is possible for any one to make inquiry and obtain information. I believe the passage is made easy for these animals. The Ministry of Agriculture possess ample powers for dealing with the question. So far as I am aware no case of cruelty has been proved, and I am sure that the Ministry of Agriculture would be most willing and anxious to make every inquiry in order to put an end to any abuse that may exist.
My noble friend Lord Hastings took a very sad view as to the future prospects of agriculture. I should not like to pit my knowledge and experience against his, but I am confident that far from being a danger to agriculture this measure will be of considerable help. Breeders of British stock have nothing to fear from Canada or anywhere else in the world. They are able to produce as good a quality of beef as can be found anywhere. 'What British agriculturists have to fear is, I think, the growing competition in chilled and frozen meat. That is a far greater danger than anything that is to be feared from Canada. One of the greatest problems we have to face at the moment is in connection with the food of the community. The more home-grown meat is used in this country instead of chilled and frozen meat the better. It is not possible, of course, for this country to depend entirely on fresh-killed beef, but the more we can encourage it the better for agriculturists and the consuming public.
I am not going to refer to one other subject at any length. I referred to it when I was a private member of this House, and I have reason still to believe that the passage of this Bill will tend towards an increase in cattle raising in Canada. That will entail an increased demand on our pure-bred stock here. Canada is looking to this country not merely for its foundation stock but for its renewal stock and we shall see a great and growing demand for both. That will be a considerable help to what may be but a small section of the community.

435
I trust we shall now bring this controversy, which has raged far too long, to a satisfactory conclusion. My regret is that we have not been able to make it such a complete piece of work as we had hoped to do when the Bill was first brought in. The small defect, due to a misunderstanding in the other House, will, if necessary, be remedied. I am confident that all who are connected with the agricultural industry in this country have nothing whatever to fear from the passage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[From, Minutes of December 12.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments
436
had received (by post) from the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, Minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of November last of the Peers of Scotland for the election of their representatives to sit and vote in the ensuing Parliament of the United Kingdom; and also, Return by the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland concerning titles of peerages called at the said meeting, in right of which respectively no vote had been received and counted for fifty years last past as at the date of the said meeting: Ordered that the said Minutes of Election, &c., be printed.
The Earl Cawdor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.