Sitting of 18 May 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (NO. 6) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private. Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many of the permanent and temporary members of the various headquarters staffs and their branches are ex-service men, and their proportion in each case to the total numbers employed both permanently and temporarily?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): Excluding the Pension Issue Office and the Statistical Branch, which, under present conditions, are mainly reserved for women, 679 permanent and 7,671 temporary men are employed in the various headquarter offices and their branches in London and the provinces. Of these, 540 (or 79 per cent.) of the permanent men and 7,589 (or 99 per cent.) of the temporary men, are ex-service men.

    LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
    Sir D. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a scheme prepared by the Board of Agriculture for constituting holdings on the site of Nigg Camp, Ross-shire, and approved by the Treasury, has now been postponed?
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution of protest against the delay in providing small holdings on the site of Nigg Camp; and whether he can hold out any hope of early action to satisfy the demand put forward by ex-service men?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The scheme to which my right hon. Friend refers was laid before me in accordance with the provisions of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919. On consideration of all the circumstances I did not feel justified in authorising the scheme. In accordance with my instructions, however, the Board of Agriculture are proceeding under an alternative method by which I hope that a suitable scheme for the settlement of ex-service men may be arranged very shortly.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the disappointment of these ex-service men at the delay they have now seized the land and are in possession of it?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think that is not so. I have taken steps to inform these ex-service men of the present position and the instructions I have given, and the situation has been entirely eased.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Do we understand that the scheme has been abandoned after it had been approved by the Treasury?
    Mr. MUNRO: The scheme was abandoned because, under authority conferred upon me by Statute, I did not think it proper that it should proceed.
    Major WOOD: Had it meantime been approved by the Treasury.
    Mr. MUNRO: I think it had been approved by the Treasury so far as the Treasury had jurisdiction, and by the Board of Agriculture, but by this Statute the final say in the matter is conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: What are the grounds for the right hon. Gentleman's decision?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am not at all sure that I am bound to give them in answer to a question. I gave the scheme most careful consideration and in the exercise of the discretion conferred on me I turned it down.
    Mr. HOGGE: What precisely does the Minister mean by saying he is not bound to give us, who represent Scottish seats, the information on which he turned down this proposal?
    Mr. MUNRO: I said quite distinctly that I am not sure that I am bound to give that information in answer to a question. The hon. Member will have the fullest opportunity, if he desires it, to raise it.
    Major WOOD: May we not be informed why the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind?
    Mr. MUNRO: There was no change of mind.
    Major WOOD: Must there not have been a change of mind, in view of the fact that he submitted it to the Treasury?
    Mr. MUNRO: No, the Treasury has to consider the matter from the point of view of finance. I have to consider it from a wider point of view.
    Major WOOD: Was not the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the scheme when he submitted it to the Treasury?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better raise it on the Estimates.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    MOTHER'S PENSION (MRS. J. MACHIN).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. Jane Machin, of Starkholmes, Matlock, whose son, Leading-seaman Ivor Machin, No. 182,420, H.M.S. "Defence," was killed at the Battle of Jutland, and in respect of whom she has been receiving a pension, including bonus, of 4s. 2d. a week, which is now discontinued; whether he is aware that Mrs. Machin is a widow 72 years of age; that all her sons fought in the War; and that her only income is her old age pension and a small amount, never exceeding 5s. weekly, from her only unmarried son, who lives away from home; and whether he will immediately restore this small pension and thus render unnecessary any application for Poor Law relief?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am personally inquiring into the facts of this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend at an early date.

    DISABILITY PENSION (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of W. J. H., late No. 971,162, Royal Field Artillery, who was demobilised in August, 1919, and who applied for a pension in respect of tuberculosis in April, 1921; if he is aware that this has been refused by the Ministry on the ground that the medical advisers were unable to certify that the disability was in any way related to this ex-soldier's service; will he state, if the Ministry does not acknowledge any responsibility, why the man has recently been in one of the Government hospitals at the expense of the Government for treatment for tuber-

    523
    culosis; and, in view of the fact that he joined up voluntarily as a healthy active man and was passed A 1 into the Service, that he is now in an advanced state of pulmonary tuberculosis, and has no means to live on whatever, will he reconsider the case as a special one and give this man some immediate assistance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The decision of my Department having been confirmed and made final by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, I regret that the application for pension cannot be re-opened I would remind my hon. Friend that treatment for tuberculosis is provided by local authorities for both ex-service men and civilians in accordance with their general scheme of treatment for this disease as approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

    TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
    Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of his statement that discharged and pensioned sailors and soldiers should not suffer on account of the Geddes Committee Report, he is aware that on 3rd May more than 20 men had to go from Paignton to Torquay to draw their weekly allowance at a cost of 9d. to each man; and whether this amount will be refunded to these men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret to find that there was some misunderstanding in this matter. The allowances should have been remitted by postal draft, and that course will be followed in future. In the circumstances the necessary travelling expenses incurred by these men will be refunded.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total personnel of the Royal Aircraft Establishment; and what are the numbers, respectively, of technical staff, clerical staff, skilled mechanics, and unskilled labourers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The total personnel is 1,316, of whom 270 represent scientific and technical staff (including Royal Air Force officers), 85 clerical staff, 626 skilled mechanics (including apprentices). and 335 labourers and general workers.

    Ex-OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a certain firm of bankers are endeavouring to recover from ex-officers money which was paid to them in error by that firm a considerable time ago and accepted by them in good faith; and what steps does the Ministry propose to take in the matter?
    Captain GUEST: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will investigate them and will send him a reply.
    Mr. RAPER: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why the Air Force entrust the payment of their officers to two banks, one of which carries it out in a businesslike way and the other in an unsatisfactory way? Why not entrust the payment of officers of the Air Force to one bank?
    Captain GUEST: I will make inquiries.
    Mr. L. MALONE: Is there any reason why the Air Force should not adopt the policy of the Admiralty, and not give a monopoly to any private bank at all?
    Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject in a few days, I will give him a reply.

    IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the letter issued by the Agent-General for Tasmania regarding Commander Burney's proposal for establishing an Imperial airship service; whether His Majesty's Government have come to any definite decision regarding this proposal; and whether, in the event of this or any other similar scheme being adopted, it will be stipulated that the Air Ministry shall maintain adequate technical control?
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air what action His Majesty's Government, intend to take regarding the proposal put forward by Messrs. Vickers, Limited, and the Shell Company to develop airship communications?
    Captain GUEST: I am familiar with the letter referred to by my hon. Friend, and have been in close communication with the Agent-General of Tasmania in regard to Commander Burney's proposal for establishing an Imperial Airship Service. Although I am unable at this stage to make any statement regarding the financial aspect of the scheme, Commander Burney has been informed that, in the opinion of the Air Council, his scheme constitutes a notable advance on previous proposals of this kind, and that if certain additional safeguards are provided, it offers reasonable prospect of satisfactory operation between India and this country. This statement is subject to the definite qualification that the commercial success of an undertaking depending upon the regular use of airships as a means of transport must, at present, be highly speculative. In the event of this or any other similar scheme being adopted, the question of adequate technical control by the Air Ministry will receive full consideration.

    BRITISH INVESTMENTS, BRAZIL
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the publication of the list of those British undertakings, financial and commercial, in respect to whose creditors the Brazilian Government has defaulted, for the purpose of warning the British investor, especially when money is so much needed in this country.
    Earl WINTERTON (for Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have been asked to answer this question, in consequence of the indisposition of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As a result of inquiries made since the hon. Member last gave notice of a question on this subject, I have been unable to ascertain that the Brazilian Government, as distinct from Brazilian municipalities, is in default in respect of the creditors of any British commercial or financial undertakings.

    HOSPITAL POSTERS, ROYAL PARKS.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glas-
    526
    gow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been drawn to the efforts now being made to re-establish the financial position of metropolitan hospitals; if, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, he is prepared to waive the rule forbidding the erection of advertisements in the royal parks; and if in this special case he can see his way to authorise the display of posters of moderate size, provided they are only fixed outside the park railings and for a strictly limited period?
    Major BARNSTON (for the First Commissioner of Works): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner felt that, as the object in view was of such importance and of so much interest to the public generally, he would not be justified in withholding his consent to the exhibition of these appeals; but his permission was given with great hesitation, on account of possible interference with the amenities of the parks, and only on the definite understanding that it would not form a precedent.
    Captain Viscount C U RZO N: Would applications be considered from any other charity on the same principle?
    Major BARNSTON: That is just what I have said would not be done.

  IRELAND.

    FREE STATE ARMY.
    Mr. G WYNNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the fact that by the Act for the ratification of the Treaty the number of soldiers that can be raised by the Provisional Government is fixed in proportion to those employed by the Imperial Government, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that this provision shall be observed; whether he will state what, is the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army; and if he can say what is the form of oath taken by such recruits?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): As the House, was informed last Thursday, if and when, as a result of the elections shortly to be held, the Free State is established in Ireland, the provisions of

    527
    Article 8 of the Treaty will come into force, and their strict observance will be an object of legitimate inquiry by His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, as the House is fully aware, the position is one of great difficulty. His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that the forces at the disposal of the Provisional Government are within the proportion contemplated by the Treaty, but it would not be fair to the Provisional Govern-men for me to give a more definite reply to this question in the present circumstances. I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries as to whether the oath is the same as that which was taken by the Irish Republican Army?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have done that. Since this question was put on the Paper I have been making inquiries and I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: When will the elections take place, and will they be pushed on, in view of the conditions in Ireland at the present moment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question. It does not arise here.
    Mr. MURRAY: On a point of Order. It arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is an oath necessary in the case of the soldiers of the Free State?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is really not a question that should be asked of me.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman boasted several times in this House that he was responsible for all law and order in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I must disclaim, and the Government disclaims, any responsibility for law and order since the transfer of powers on 1st April last.

    OUTRAGES.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a speech of Mr. Moylan, delivered at the Dail
    528
    Eireann in Dublin on 28th April, in the presence of all the members of the Provisional Government, in which he stated that he was the leader of a body of armed Republicans, that he always seized every opportunity to rob British subjects of their goods to support this band, and that he himself had robbed 19 post offices around Kanturk, and had collected the taxes in the district and used them for his own purposes; whether, in view of the fact that no prosecution has been instituted against this member of the Dail, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Provisional Government that this man should be prosecuted before a legal tribunal?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. As the hon. Member implies in his question, the Provisional Government is responsible for the enforcement of law and order within their area, and I must again ask the House to recognise what is the fact, that that Government is at present faced with armed rebellion against its authority, and is not, therefore, in a position to take the action which it would naturally take if its authority were unchallenged.
    Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has frequently stated that if we bring cases to his notice, he will bring them to the notice of the Provisional Government. Here I have brought a case in which a member of the Dail boasts of having robbed British subjects. Does he say he will put no pressure on the Provisional Government immediately to take action against this man who boasts publicly in a public assembly of what he has done?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should have been put down.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Seeing that the right hon. Baronet still poses as Chief Secretary for Ireland—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet begins his question in a way that puts him out of court.
    Mr. GWYNNE: May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that this is a question of robbing British subjects? Is that not a case for this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a question of order in Ireland.
    Sir J. REMNANT: My question, I hope, is in order. I was merely going to ask the right hon. Baronet—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Baronet cannot begin a question with ordinary courtesy, I must stop him. He used the word "pose," which obviously is not a word used in ordinary courtesy between Members of the House.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Will you allow me to apologise? I did not use it in any offensive way. I merely meant to say I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman does stand for, because he does not represent the South of Ireland. I was going to ask if he could not find time to go there himself and satisfy himself of the real ghastly state of affairs there.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there really no way by which open and avowed robbery of British subjects can be stopped in Ireland?
    At the end of Questions—
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the unsatisfactory answer given to Question No. 22 on the Paper to-day, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, and that is, the open and avowed robbery of British subjects in Southern Ireland, and the refusal or omission of the Provisional Government to prosecute the avowed perpetrators of these outrages and the refusal of the British Government to make representations on the subject to the Provisional Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a Motion that I can accept. It clearly deals with a matter which Parliament, by Statute, has transferred to the Provisional Government, namely, internal order in the Southern part of Ireland.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to complain, and, if necessary, to complain on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, of the refusal of the British Government, given to-day, to call the attention of the Provisional Government to these serious outrages in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I made no such statement in the answer which I gave. Representations are made, personally and
    530
    by letter, daily to the Provisional Government on all matters of this kind that arise. I made no statement that I refused to make representations.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Did I not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in a particular case, he would call the attention of the Provisional Government to the circumstances and urge them to prosecute, especially having regard to the fact that the individual concerned is a member of the Dail, and did not the right hon. Gentleman say he would not do so?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not even rise. Mr. Speaker rose, and I was compelled to remain seated. The House, I am sure, will bear me out when I say that to practically every question that has been put, asking if representations will be made, the answer has been in the affirmative. I repeat that, both personally and by letter, representations are daily made to the Ministers of the Provisional Government in regard to these and similar cases.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has this particular case been represented to the Provisional Government, and have they given an answer that they cannot function in the matter in their own capital city?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman cannot state that he has made any representations to the Provisional Government, might I respectfully suggest that if this had happened in a foreign country we should have had the right to ask our Government to make representations to that foreign Power that steps should be taken to protect British subjects. Surely, it cannot be ruled that we should have less power in our own Dominions than we have in a foreign country.
    Mr. INSKIP: On a, point of Order. Is it not a fact that on previous occasions, and as one instance in 1906, in the case of Natal, our Government interfered in the interests of the preservation of law and order, and that representations were made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Government of Natal to protect the interests of the subjects of the Crown?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say that I have in mind the case of 1906. Therefore I will not say anything about that for the moment, but really this question of representations does not arise, because the Chief Secretary has stated that he has made representations. If it were permitted to bring that on at the end of questions, it would make possible the raising in this manner of a continual series of subjects which Parliament has deliberately transferred to another authority.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I beg pardon for insisting on having a ruling on this point, but it is of great importance. Do I understand, Sir, that you rule that we could ask the Government to interfere in the case of a foreign country, but that we cannot in the case of one of our own Dominions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have given no such ruling, and, what is more, I should not be drawn further than dealing with the particular case in question.
    Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. Is it not always a matter for the cognisance of this House if there is a robbery of British citizens, wherever they are, whether in the Colonies or abroad? Where British citizens are robbed, is it not the duty of this House to demand information and, if necessary, investigation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This House has, in various cases, transferred responsibility for law and order to other authorities. Where it has done so, hon. Members do not retain the right to raise these matters on the Floor of the House—certainly not by way of an Adjournment Motion.
    Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. I would like a ruling whether the point of Order is not very considerably altered by the fact that when we were asked to agree to the bargain between the representatives of Ireland and the Government, the representatives of the Government in this House gave us distinctly to understand that the assistance of the Government would be given to the Provisional Government in maintaining order and in preserving the amenity of life in Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any question of assistance, if asked for, does not change the place where the responsibility rests.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: On a point of Order. Is it not within the power of this Parliament to withdraw, if it should think fit, the authority which it has conferred upon the Provisional Government in Ireland, and, if that is so, is it not open to this House to consider and discuss whether circumstances have arisen which would render that course necessary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Of course, what Parliament by Statute has conferred, Parliament by Statute may equally withdraw, but it would be on a proposal to withdraw that the matter could be discussed.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. Might I ask one further question? Where the British Government deliberately refuses to make representations to the Provisional Government in a matter affecting the lives or property of British subjects, are we not entitled to challenge the action of the British Government in this House for their failure and, if necessary, to do so upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. May I put this point of view to you, Sir? It is conceded, as I understand it, that it is part of the duty of the Government to make representations to the Provisional Government in this matter; that is to say, that the Government themselves recognise that it is part of their duty to do something to protect British subjects in the South of Ireland from these outrages which they are alleged to have undergone. If it be their duty to make representations, might it not be contended, with some force, that it is their duty to make those representations effective, and, if those representations are not effective, is it not within the power of hon. Members to raise the question whether something further ought not to be done in order that the Government's duty in this matter should be effectively discharged?
    Mr. SPEAKER: As I conceive it, if the Noble Lord's doctrine were accepted, the whole fabric of the British Commonwealth would be gone.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (UNESTABLISHED CIVILIANS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office

    533
    what recognition is being made to the temporary unestablished civilians attached to the Royal Engineers in Ireland whose connection with his Department and whose employment are now being terminated as a result of the Southern Irish settlement; whether he is aware that some have been employed for many years and made their homes in Ireland and are yet now cast adrift; whether he will investigate especially the case of Henry S. Noakes, surveyor, thus discharged after nearly 20 years' service; and whether, in view of the recent establishment of several other temporary unestablished staffs, such as health, valuation, and dockyards, a similar procedure can be followed in the case of these men attached for so long to the Royal Engineers?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The position of War Department employés in Southern Ireland whose services are no longer required in con sequence of the change of Government, including those in the Royal Engineer services, is still under consideration, and I hope that a decision will not be long delayed. Steps have already been taken in the case of certain classes of employés of the Royal Engineers who have served continuously since before the War to effect transfer to other commands where vacancies can be found. As regards the case of Mr. Noakes, whilst the Department would naturally wish to assist him if possible, I understand he desires employment under the Free State Government and I am not aware whether that Government is in a position to offer him employment. His last period of service under the War Department, which was on a purely temporary basis, dated from April, 1919, only. As regards the last part of the question, proposals for the establishment of certain classes of Royal Engineer employés in the War Department service generally are being investigated through the War Office Whitley Council machinery.

    REFUGEES (DISTRESS COMMITTEE).
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House the Terms of Reference to the Irish Distress Committee
    534
    presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. The Terms of Reference are as follow:

    (1) To investigate applications by or on behalf of persons ordinarily resident in Ireland who for reasons of personal safety have come to Great Britain and are represented to be in urgent need of assistance.

    (2) To furnish the Irish Office with reports on the adequacy or otherwise of their reasons for leaving their homes, and so to enable the Irish Office to make detailed representations to the Provisional Government to secure their return to their homes at the earliest possible moment.

    (3) To authorise the Irish Office in cases of proved necessity to advance money sufficient for immediate needs.

    (4) To advise the Government from time to time on any further steps which may, owing to the further development of the situation, be required to deal with the problem of refugees from Ireland.

    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: What sum of money has been placed at the disposal of this Committee?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Leader of the House has already said about £10,000.
    Lieut. - Colonel ASHLEY: Is not £10,000 a miserably inadequate sum to allocate in this matter, in which there are hundreds of cases to be dealt with?
    Lord R. CECIL: Will this Committee have power to make any recommendations for permanent compensation or only to alleviate temporary difficulties?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: To alleviate temporary difficulties. It has power to make further recommendations of any kind.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Where will the Committee hold its meetings?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: All correspondence is to be addressed to the Office of the Committee at 9, Queen Anne's Gate, which is a few doors away from the Irish Office.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Reparation Commission have received a reply to their last Note from Germany recognising the need to cover all outgoings without resorting to further inflation, stating that the German Government will before the 31st May submit to the Commission a complete financial scheme, and offering to afford to the Reparation Commission all facilities to investigate the state of German finances, whether he will state what steps the Commission are now taking to carry out this investigation; whether a Report thereon will be published; and whether any replies have yet been received to the communication addressed to Allied Governments owing war debts to this country concerning the transfer of inter-Allied debt responsibility to Germany?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I understand that the Reparation Commission have received an answer from the German Government which is now under their consideration. I cannot say what the result of that consideration will be. No official communication has been made to the Allied Governments of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has the assurance of the Government of the French Republic that they will take part in a conference on the question of German reparation before taking further military action against German territory?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No fresh assurances have been given or asked because none are required. Should the Reparation Commission report that Germany is in default, it will be necessary for the Allied Governments to confer together as to the action to he taken.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of fresh assurances, does he mean that we had already assurances to this effect, and is he aware that the present policy is to march on the 31st unless an agreement is reached?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No: I am certainly not aware that the allegation in
    536
    the second part of the question is correct. I cannot conceive that it is. In regard to the first part we have a definite and explicit assurance from the French Government. After the occupation of Frankfort, I think it was in April, 1920, we received from the French Government the following declaration, "that as regards the future the Government of the Republic repeat that in all inter-Allied questions raised by the execution of the Treaty of Versailles there is no intention of acting save in accordance with its Allies."
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the Government of the United States of America regarding the action to be taken by that Government, with or without the cooperation of the other Allied and Associated Powers, regarding the failure of Germany to satisfy the demands of the Reparation Commission on 31st May; and whether America has yet stated whether she will participate in the occupation of the Ruhr Valley should that measure be decided upon by the Allies as well as by France?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

    SHORT WEIGHT (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although inspectors of weights and measures can take legal action against the seller of goods where it is proved that the weights themselves are false, they cannot take such legal action, except as common informers, where short weight in goods is given by the seller; and whether he will take steps to amend the law to give inspectors of weights and measures the necessary authority to take legal action in this connection, thereby protecting the public against short weight in the purchase of commodities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The hon. Member will find the legal position as to short weight fully set out in the Report of the Select Committee on Short Weight, 1914 (H.C.

    537
    359). As already stated, the Government propose to introduce shortly legislation with regard to the sale of tea and bread.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that members of the State Management Council recently visited Maryport, near Carlisle, with the view to purchasing 29 licensed houses in West Cumberland not at present under State control; that the owners refused to sell; and that, during the period when the supply of alcoholic liquors was restricted, State control houses at Maryport were supplied with liquor far in excess of their ration, while private houses were strictly confined to their ration; and when it is proposed to stop this State competition with private enterprise?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Certain members of the Council visited Maryport and discussed the question of purchase with certain owners. The latter were unwilling to sell. As I told the House, there is no present intention of making any further purchases. I know of no foundation for the allegations contained in the third part of the question. It is not proposed to end the State Management Scheme.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries? Is he aware that I have been on the spot?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that a distinct pledge was given to the House that there should be no extension of this State control, and, in view of that pledge, how is it that negotiations have been taking place since?
    Mr. SHORTT: Because the negotiations were before the pledge.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority these gentlemen have been negotiating for the purchase of these 29 houses?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. The functions of the Central Control (Liquor) Board have been transferred to the Home Office.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had stated, when he gave the pledge, that the negotiations were going on'?
    Mr. SHORTT: The question was not asked of me. It was common knowledge.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does not the right hors. Gentleman realise that when he makes a pledge the House takes it as a pledge, and not that something is being done behind it?
    Mr. SHORTT: There has been nothing done behind the pledge. The negotiations were in existence, then the Schedule came out, the pledge was given, and nothing further was done.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would not all these difficulties be solved if the right hon. Gentleman went. out of the beer business?

    ASIA MINOR.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received details of the armed risings of the Greeks in the Samsun and Baffra areas of the Black Sea coast of Turkey in Asia against the Turkish authorities in the latter part of 1921; whether these risings were aided by Greek warships, which landed arms at various points on the coast; and whether His Majesty's Government has received details of a plan for the formation of a Greek Pontus Republic comprising a great portion of the Black Sea coast?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Turkish statements regarding armed risings of Greeks in Pontus are unfounded. Three Greek warships bombarded Ineboli last June after the Turkish authorities had refused a demand for the surrender of arms and the destruction of munition dumps. Also at the same period one shell was fired by a Greek destroyer at Eregli, and minor bombardments are alleged to have taken place at Trebizond, Rizeh Barracks and Samsun. There is no evidence that any arms were landed. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a movement existed among the Greeks of Pontus, fostered and encouraged by Greek communities and associations of Pontic Greeks abroad, for the liberation of Pontus from Turkish misrule; and several appeals

    539
    from such associations have been received by His Majesty's Government since the Armistice, asking that the claims of the Pontic Greeks to independence might be favourably considered in the peace settlement. Such political aspirations, however, can furnish no justification for the wholesale and barbarous deportations of women and children which have recently been carried out by the Turks from the district in question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it that Greek statements are always accepted but no Turkish statement is accepted? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has the information about the villages burnt and the people killed by these Greek bands? I do not say one excuses the other.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in the habit of putting as facts his own suppositions. It is not a fact that the statements of the Greeks are always accepted by the Government without confirmation. The information I give the House is drawn from our own or from competent neutral observers.
    Sir J. D. REES(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a prominent and independent Mahommedan such as Sir Abbas Ali Baig, K.C.I.E., C.S.L, late Member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India, now resident in this country, or other person of like character and position, will be included in the Committee of Investigation into charges made against the Anatolian Turkish Government and Turks of cruelties and atrocities perpetrated against the Pontine Greeks, and whether the Committee will also be charged with the duty of investigating the conduct of the Greeks towards the Turks from the date of the Greek landing in Smyrna?
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether, if it be considered necessary to have a Kemalist representative on this Commission, he will also see the desirability of having a prominent Greek like M. Venizelos, the former Greek Premier, on the Commission?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member could not have heard the question. There is no suggestion in it of a Kemalist representative. It is a question of appointing a distinguished Mahommedan who is a British subject. The suggestion made in the question will be carefully considered as soon as the replies of the Allied and American Governments and of the Angora authorities to the proposals of His Majesty's Government have been received. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil).
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I apologise for having unintentionally done any injustice to the distinguished Mahommedan gentle man mentioned. I merely again ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability, in case of a distinguished Mahommedan representative being put on the Committee, of putting a distinguished Greek on the Committee also.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will repeat the hon. Member's suggestion to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I do not myself see any necessity for this proposal.
    Lord R. CECIL: Do I understand that no replies have been received from any of the Governments?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I know, no replies have yet been received. They had not been received yesterday, and a message pressing for a quick reply was then sent.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (PROVISION OF MEALS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to continued unemployment, the present cost of school feeding is imposing an extra charge upon the ratepayers in England and Wales of over £30,000 per month in excess of last year on account of the Government's reduction of the grant in aid; and whether, in view of the seriousness of this burden, the Government propose to take any steps to prevent this additional cost being thrown on industrial and other districts already heavily over rated?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I can add nothing to the answer given by the Leader of the House on the 8th May to questions put by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for the Dartford Division.
    Mr. THOMSON: Why should expenses which were a national charge last year be a charge on local authorities this year, when the rates are so much higher than they were last year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    CRIMINAL LAW ACTS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose this Session to pass a Bill amending the present Criminal Law Acts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

    WEST INDIES.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies upon his official visit to the West Indies will be published?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion that the Report would be laid on the Table of the House as soon as there had been time for it to reach the Colonies concerned. The Report was despatched by last week's mail, with a request that its receipt should be acknowledged by telegraph. As soon as these replies have been received from the Governors concerned, immediate arrangements will be made for it to be laid.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Was the hon. Gentleman authorised to give any pledge of his recent tour in reference to the future fiscal system of this country?
    Mr. WOOD: I do not think that arises out of this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the answer to it as well as I do. If he puts down a formal question, I will answer it.

    HAGUE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether the Dutch Government will pay for all the expenses of the proposed conferences regarding Russia to be held at The Hague in the same manner as the Italian Government have paid for Genoa; and whether, in addition to the amounts to be paid in connection with these conferences by the Dutch and Italian Governments, Supplementary Estimates for the expenses of British participants in them will be presented to the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of any such expenses being borne by the Dutch Government has not in any way arisen. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is unlikely that it will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the British Delegation, as provision is made for such expenditure under Sub-head K1 (Special Missions and Services) of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote in which an item of £20,000 for "Unforeseen Missions and Services" is included.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the Mission to The Hague will be purely a Foreign Office Mission, on which other Departments will not be represented?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If there be a Mission to The Hague—I do not speak with final authority at present—I do not think it would be purely a Foreign Office Mission in the sense of being drawn from the ordinary diplomatic or Foreign Office staff. Matters to be discussed at The Hague would require experts of a different character.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs be represented at The Hague?
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the question he brought before the House, and shall we be allowed to discuss the personnel of the delegation which is likely to go to The Hague?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be for the Chairman of Committees to say whether it is possible under that head to discuss something which the hon. Member thinks is likely to happen. As regards all these questions, I think they had better be deferred until myself or until some Minister can tell the House

    543
    definitely that there is to be such a Conference at The Hague, and of what nature it will be.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether a subsequent Conference to the Genoa Conference has been arranged to consider the results of that Conference; where will it be held and on what date; what Powers have agreed to send representatives; who the British representatives will be; and whether a further Vote of Confidence will be invited from this House?
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal how many international conferences have been held since the signing of the Peace Treaty; and whether he can make any statement as to the proposed conference at. The Hague?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received official information of the decisions on these questions. As regards the first part of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, I am doubtful as to its intention and scope, but if I am right in thinking that he refers to Conferences of the Supreme Council I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 27th March.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything definite about the Prime Minister's return, and the possibility of his being able to give this information?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have reason to expect that the Prime Minister will return to this country next Saturday evening, but I cannot make any definite statement as to a discussion in this House until I have seen him.
    Captain BENN: Will the discussion, when it takes place, be in such a form as to permit the House to pronounce its opinion definitely on the issue involved?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have not come to any conclusion on the subject. If one of the Opposition desires to Table a Motion, of course, I will consider the character of the Motion and see whether we can afford facilities for it.
    Captain SENN: It is not the intention of the Government to put down another Vote of Confidence in themselves?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I reserve the right to do that at any time I think fit.

    NAVY ESTIMATES.
    Captain BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state, apart from reductions consequent upon the Washington Agreement, what is the net annual saving effected in the Naval Estimates?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible to give the net annual saving on Navy Estimates if by net annual saving is meant the saving which will be continued year by year. For it is evident that certain classes of savings,e.g., those resulting from reduced purchases of oil fuel in 1922–23, as compared with those in 1921–22, or in the Sketch Estimates as submitted to the Geddes Committee, will not necessarily be repeated in subsequent years. The Navy Estimates for 1922–23 show a reduction, as compared with those submitted to the Geddes Committee, of £16,300,100. To this sum must be added a sum of £3,054,800 included in the current Navy Estimates on the non-effective Votes and involved by the reduction of naval personnel, These figures taken together amount to £19,354,900, and if from that sum be taken the £11,095,300 due to the stoppage of the four battle-cruisers, as the result of the Washington Conference, the net reduction may be taken as £8,259,600. I deprecate, however, the attempt to distinguish too sharply between the savings due to the Washington Conference and those resulting from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Cabinet, in considering the Navy Estimates for 1922–23. had in mind the successful issue of the former as well as the latter, and were, of course, influenced by both in coming to their conclusions.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 1,800 naval officers and many thousands of men are being economised in the Navy this year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.

    HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
    Captain BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give the House any official information about the progress of the movement for the reform of the House of Lords?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. There are no official statistics on the subject.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the powers of which it is proposed to deprive them by these Resolutions?
    Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the progress of this movement is backward or forward?
    Mr. HOGGE: When the Foreign Secretary has recovered his health will these Resolutions be introduced into the House of Lords, or, in view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary is apparently still seriously ill, will the Government take any other steps to table the Resolutions, so that we can know exactly what the form will be?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a very natural question to ask, and the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is equally natural that the Government should have desired that this question should have been introduced into the House of Lords by the, Leader of that House. I hope that my Noble Friend will be sufficiently restored to health to take up his duties again in that House before long; but I agree that even his absence cannot be allowed to defer indefinitely the progress of this matter.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman renew his pledge that these proposals will be carried into law before this Parliament is dissolved?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always anxious to gratify my hon. and gallant Friend, but perhaps I had better not on this occasion.

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE RETURNS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange in the weekly Revenue and Expenditure Returns to show separately the expenditure on the fighting services, the Civil Services, and the Revenue Departments?
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question on 11th May to the hon. and gallant Member for the Henley Division, in which my right hon. Friend the Chan-
    546
    cellor of the Exchequer promised to consider an amplification of the quarterly return in the direction desired. The weekly return shows the total issues for Supply Services. Owing to the pooling of balances with the Paymaster-General, the issues for each Department do not over short periods give any indication of the actual expenditure of that Department, and figures of the kind asked for in the question would be merely misleading.

    TREASURY BILLS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the Treasury Bills shown in the Floating Debt Return for March, 1922, consisted of bills deposited as collateral security for external debt; and whether this sum is also included in the total of external debt for the same date?
    Mr. YOUNG: The Treasury Bill total given in the Exchequer Return for 31st March, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, is the total of all Treasury Bills. Of this total about £8,500,000 either carry an option of repayment abroad or are issued as collateral for foreign debt. These bills are counted as external debt for the purposes of the External Debt Return.

    EXCISE REVENUE (BEER AND WHISKY).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange to show separately in the Weekly Revenue Return the Excise revenue from beer and whisky?
    Mr. YOUNG: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Weekly figures tend to be misleading owing to special circumstances affecting clearances, etc., from time to time. Figures relating to such a period would, therefore, afford no reliable index to the state of the revenue, and would inevitably lead to mistaken inferences.

    INTERNATIONAL CREDITS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government has abandoned, or contem-

    547
    plates abandoning, the scheme of international credits unanimously adopted at Brussels; how many applications have been before the international credits organisation for the right to issue gold bonds under the auspices of the League of Nations?
    Mr. YOUNG: The Termeulen scheme is a matter for the consideration of the League of Nations and the countries which desire to borrow, and His Majesty's Government are not directly concerned in it. I understand, however, that four definite applications are before the League and that numerous other applications are pending.

    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any appeal by the Inland Revenue Department has been lodged in the Union Pacific Railroad Rights case; and, if not, whether those persons who paid Income Tax under misapprehension many years ago will receive a refund with interest?
    Mr. YOUNG: The decision of the Court in the case to which the hon. Member refers was in favour of the Crown, and has not been appealed against. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    GOVERNMENT AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health has in recent years, as a condition precedent to granting sanction to loans or to agreeing to certain Clauses in private Bills, stipulated that the particular corporation should accept the Government audit, he can give an undertaking that if the Audit (Local Authorities, etc.) Bill is passed, the Ministry will not adopt this attitude in respect to the audit proposed under the Measure?
    Sir A. MOND: The Clause in the Bill enabling a borough council to adopt Government audit was withdrawn in Standing Committee. The point suggested by my hon. Friend does not, therefore, arise.

    HOUSING
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions from the Horwich Urban Council asking for the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, and requesting the continuance of financial assistance to local authorities' housing schemes; and whether, in view of the failure of the ordinary economic laws to meet the present housing shortage, he can make a statement on the subject?
    Sir A. MOND: As regards the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division on the 15th March. On the question of an extension of the State-aided housing scheme, I cannot add anything to the statements I have already made.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does that mean that we cannot hope that the Minister of Health will do anything to help to reduce the shortage of houses in this country?
    Sir A. MOND: No.

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, £100,000 cash has been guaranteed to Messrs. Hugh Stevenson and Sons, Limited, and Messrs. Cropper and Company, Limited, for the purpose of completing the erection and equipment of a board mill: whether the sums under the Act to be guaranteed were for reducing unemployment and affording finance reasonably unobtainable without State assistance; whether every board-mill factory is still working short time; and, if so, what is the reason for the advances made to Messrs. Stevenson and Cropper?
    Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no special information as regards the third part; and as regards the last part, the recommendations were made by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Trade Facilities Act, and they satisfied themselves that these were oases in which the Government guarantee could properly be given.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why should my hon. Friend approve of this grant of money for

    549
    those two firms if it is a fact that the board-mill trade is working only halftime, and that the Trade Facilities Act is to provide money to relieve unemployment?
    Mr. YOUNG: We rely in this matter on the judgment of the Advisory Committee, who take into account this among other matters.

    WIRELESS BROAD-CASTING.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General on what principle, and subject to what conditions, licences for wireless broad-casting stations are given to industrial concerns?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The conditions under which licences for wireless broad-casting will be granted have been the subject of a conference with the interests concerned. My right hon Friend will take an opportunity of making a statement as soon as the conditions are settled.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I will put down a question next week.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that paragraph 6 of Circular U.I.A. 505 C compels local employment committees to refuse benefit to a single man or woman who lives with an adult relative who is employed half-time or more, he will say whether these persons are entitled to benefit towards which they have contributed; and under what section of what Act is he acting in directing committees to refuse benefit?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): As I have repeatedly stated, persons entitled to benefit under the permanent provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in respect of contributions paid are in no way affected by the condition referred to, or the other special conditions relating to un-covenanted or "free" benefit. These conditions have been laid clown in the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible now for insured people to be deprived of benefit though they may have contributed to the scheme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Circular which I sent to the local authorities on the point which will more fully explain the position.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the exact Clause under the Unemployment Insurance Act under which this is done?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. Clause 4, sub-section (1):
    "If it appears to the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is expedient in the public interest, etc.—"
    the benefit may be granted.
    Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases men who form part of a family, all of whom are unemployed, have had their extension of benefit discontinued, for the sole realm that one member of the family is in receipt of unemployed benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has not correctly given the rule. The rule states that. "ordinarily persons will not be entitled," and the last paragraph says that these conditions are not designed to rule out of benefit cases where the provision would inflict real hardship. They are intended, however, to prevent the depletion of a fund which is limited, which is built up mainly by heavy contributions, and which is urgently needed in the case of those for whom it is properly designed.
    Mr. SWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general interpretation is that all single men are prevented from getting unemployed benefit, that there has been no end of hardship to the family—where there is a big family—and that the only person getting benefit is the head, while the rest must come under the Poor Law or starve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps I might send my hon. Friend a copy of the Circular—
    Mr. SWAN: Send it all round.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no objection. If the hon. Member knows of any

    551
    case which has not been administered in the spirit of the rule, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. SWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send the same advice to all committees where it is being done?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that this rule of his makes the scheme a charitable scheme instead of an insurance scheme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Since November, 1920, I have managed to make the Insurance Act find 57 weeks' benefit for persons who in some cases may not have paid anything at all. I do not think that these Regulations are unjust. They do not affect covenanted benefit.

    WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Home Secretary when the Wild Birds Protection Bill will be introduced?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I hope it may be possible to introduce the Bill soon after Whitsuntide, but I cannot at present make any promise.

    FIREGUARDS (CHILDREN ACT, 1908).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that between 1,500 and 1,600 deaths of children occur every year in Great Britain as a result of being left alone in rooms with unprotected fires, he will introduce legislation to strengthen Section 15 of The Children Act, 1908, with a view to compelling householders having children under seven years of age to provide a fireguard in the case of fires in rooms frequented by such children?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I cannot accept the figures named in the question, but there is undoubtedly a considerable death rate among children from this cause. The risk is not one which can easily be dealt with by legislation and I cannot promise to introduce legislation specially for the purpose, but the question whether any Amendment of Section 15 of the Children
    552
    Act, 1908, can be proposed will be carefully considered when an opportunity for reviewing that Act arises.

    PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION.
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if the Government have knowledge of any other pledges than those already disclosed given by the Government since 3rd August, 1914, on which they propose to base the introduction of further protective legislation; and, if so, what they are?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not aware of any other similar pledges.

    ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE (POOR LAW RELIEF).
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)—by Private Notice—asked the Minister of Health whether it is a fact that a recommendation or instruction has been given by his Department to any boards of guardians that relief should not be granted in cases where the head of the family is not at present employed in consequence of the dispute in the engineering industry, and, if so, will he state the reasons for this action?
    Sir A. MOND: No, Sir. But where boards of guardians have consulted me, I have felt bound to remind them that, by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney-General v. Merthyr Tydvil Guardians, 1900, relief cannot lawfully be granted to any man for whom work is, in fact, available.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it a fact that these instructions have been issued, and that such instructions constitute taking sides on the part of the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that although the works have been thrown open —which is the excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman—the lock-out notices still appear posted on the gates of the works locking out these men? Will he therefore take into consideration the withdrawal of such a recommendation?
    Sir A. MOND: I have already stated that I have made no recommendation and sent out no instructions, nor is it my duty to do so. Where I have been asked by boards of guardians to advise,

    553
    I have had to advise them on the law as the Court of Appeal has decided it. If a workman applies for work at a works and the employer cannot employ him, the case would he different from that to which I have referred.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the decision of the Court of Appeal not refer to cases where there is no dispute in operation?
    Sir A. MOND: Not at all.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does it not apply to a general case of work being there for individuals who are of that particular trade? Is it not the case that in this particular instance there is a dispute in the industry, which has thrown a large number of men idle, that the lock-out notices are still posted, and that any decision come to by the Court of Appeal in a previous case is not on parallel lines, and consequently cannot apply to this particular instance?
    Sir A. MOND: The question dealt with previously by the Court was the question of the coal strike in South Wales. The Court of Appeal then laid down the law on the subject, and to it I refer the hon. Member. It is not my duty to interpret the decision of the law, but to draw the, attention of boards of guardians to the law laid clown by the Court, and to leave them to take what action they think fit.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice of which he speaks has had the effect on certain boards of guardians making them discontinue the relief which they were giving to then who were thrown into a state of idleness through the lock-out? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that work is now available for all the men in the engineering trade who may be disposed to return to work on the employers' terms?
    Sir A. MOND: The facts may be as the right hon. Gentleman states. It is not my duty to investigate whether it is a strike or a lock-out. It is my duty, if I am asked by a board of guardians what the law is, to refer them to the case which the Court of Appeal has decided. I am not a judicial authority. It is for the boards of guardians to interpret the decision of the Court of Appeal as best they can, and to keep within the law. I am not seized of the fact whether or
    554
    not there is work in these factories. Neither is it my duty to inquire.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman state precisely and fully in terms what advice he has given to the boards of guardians?
    Sir A. MOND: I have stated that already. I have referred them to the ease of the Attorney-General v. the Merthyr Tydvil Guardians, 1900, as reported in the Law Reports. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to read that case, of which they do not seem to be aware. I have said that if the boards go outside that decision they are acting outside the law. I have informed the boards of guardians of that.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clerk to the Manchester Board of Guardians only yesterday told some members of that body that he had received an intimation from the Minister of Health that a lockout no longer existed in the engineering industry and that in consequence no relief could be given unless employés could show that no work was available, and that, acting on that assumed authority of the Minister, some guardians have already refused to give relief, and that those who give relief are told that they were liable to a surcharge?
    Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member has given me no notice of the particular case he mentions. If the Clerk of the Board of Guardians asked the Ministry for advice I have no doubt the Ministry gave him the proper advice by referring him to the law of the land as it exists. We neither make the law nor alter it. The law exists.
    Mr. DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent out any intimation, either verbally or otherwise, to the boards of guardians, without a request coming from them?
    Sir A. MOND: No, Sir. I have pointed out that already in the answer I have given.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if any circular has been sent out by the Poor Law branch of his Department, and will he lay upon the Table of the House copies of the advice he has sent out, either by request or otherwise?
    Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman is aware as to whether or not it is the habit of the Ministry of Health to send out circulars to Poor Law guardians. Where Poor Law guardians ask the Ministry for advice, we conceive it to be our duty to advise them on the law as it stands, to enable them to keep within the law and not run the risk of being surcharged.
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman during the putting of the question by the leader of the Labour party, will he state to the House whether he is of opinion that the lock-out is ended? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not part of the right hon. Gentleman's duty.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: In view of the unsatisfactory reply to the question I have previously submitted, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Minister of Health in influencing boards of guardians in the withholding of relief from families, where the breadwinner is unemployed in consequence of the dispute in the engineering trade, which action is causing immediate distress and suffering in many quarters."
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion which I can accept. The Minister has distinctly stated that he has not tendered any advice or recommendation. The limit of what he has done, in reply to a question, has been to refer inquirers to a case decided in the Courts. Therefore, clearly the Minister has not exercised any administrative power in this matter, and it is only on an exercise of administrative power that he can be brought to account under Standing Order 10.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: is informing boards of guardians that, if they take a certain course they will be surcharged, not influencing them in their decisions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: To inform an administrative body what is the latest case decided by the Courts of Law cannot be said to influence them. It is merely giving information, and that, of course, is an obvious duty in the ordinary course of events.
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of the effects following from the action of the right hon. Gentleman, as stated in the Motion now submitted, are we not entitled to ask for an opportunity to call attention to that action, in view of the grave distress that has followed upon it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If an opportunity be given, that, of course, is not a matter for me. What I have to do is to interpret the Rules of the House and this particular rule. If this opportunity be given by the Government I will accept it.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: In view of the, statement made by the Minister of Health in submitting to certain boards of guardians a decision of a Court on a coal strike, as he said, and seeing that the particular dispute that is presently going on is not a strike but a lock-out, does not the fact that he has transmitted to those boards of guardians a decision upon another question entirely influence those boards of guardians in a dispute which is not a strike; and, consequently, does not this particular Motion come within the category of a definite matter of urgent public importance?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly, the responsibility for the action taken under the law lies with the guardians, and not with the Minister of Health. If hon. Members could point to a circular or something of that kind which had been issued by the Minister, I might be able to accept the Motion for adjournment.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay all the Papers on the Table of the House?
    Sir A. MOND: I shall be very pleased to do so.
    Mr. MILLS: Is it relevant to this particular situation that a decision given as far back as 1900 should be quoted, seeing that since then there has been an entire reform of the whole system of Poor Law and that a Royal Commission has reported?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Neither the hon. Member nor I can alter the law.
    Mr. HALLS: Is not this quite a new departure on the part of the Minister? We have not heard of anything similar taking place in this dispute until the last

    557
    day or two. It seems to me quite obvious—and it will be to the man in the street—that it is being done for a definite purpose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has promised to lay the Papers on the Table. We shall then have the facts before us.
    Mr. A. DAVIES: Was not the Minister's reply based upon the assumption that these men have work to go to, whereas, we submit, they have no work to go to? They are locked out.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so, but it is not a question into which we can now enter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Leader of the House what business he proposes to take next week; also whether we may expect the Prime Minister to be in his place next week, to make a statement upon the international situation, and, if so, upon what day it is likely to be made?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The business, so for as I can state it, for next week is:
  Monday, Supplementary Estimate, Teachers' Superannuation, and minor Orders.
  Tuesday, Navy Votes
  Wednesday, Electricity (Supply) Bill, National Health Insurance Bill, and other Orders.
  I propose to reserve Thursday for the present. I may be in a position to state en Monday what business will be taken that day.
  As regards the second question put to me, I think it undesirable to allocate the business for that day, at present. I will consult with the Prime Minister as soon as I can after his return.
  I thought it might be convenient to the House, if at the same time as I made this announcement, I gave such indication as I could of what was in the mind of the Government in regard to the Whitsuntide holidays. The House will, of course, understand that any intention I express or any hope I form to-day is dependent upon—
  Mr. MILLS: Good behaviour!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —is dependent upon the progress which the House finds itself able to make with the business in the meantime. I hesitated a little, at the ominous threatenings of hon. Members opposite a moment ago, as to whether I should make any announcement about holidays at present. However, if we can, we propose to move the Adjournment on Wednesday, 31st May, having an early sitting as is now customary—
  Mr. MILLS: Before the Derby.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —at eleven o'clock. We propose to meet again on Monday, 12th June. I know Monday is not a very convenient day, but I cannot postpone the meeting until Tuesday. I hope to arrange for some non-controversial Supply business to be taken on the Monday. In order to enable us to do this, we must ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, probably on two days next week, to make progress with a number of small Measures. None of them, I think, are very controversial, and none of them ought to occupy much time, but we really must make progress with them before we can adjourn. As regards the actual date of the Adjournment, I have gathered that some hon. Members would like to be free on Wednesday, and would prefer not to have to meet here on the Adjournment Motion. We were proposing to take the Finance Bill on the Monday and Tuesday, and if the House were pleased to conclude the Debate on the Finance Bill in time for the Motion for the Adjournment to be taken on Tuesday, there would be no occasion for us to meet on Wednesday. That is a matter which rests with the House rather than with the Government. We must do the business which I propose for next week; we must get the Finance Bill, and we must sit on Wednesday if necessary to do these two things.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to present an Estimate for so large a sum as £600,000 on Monday, seeing that the Committee he is going to set up may report within a very few days and nothing like that sum may be required?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure my hon. Friend that not one penny of the sum will be spent if it is not required. The fact that the Estimate is for £600,000 is neither an express nor an implied guarantee, pledge or undertaking by the Government or Parliament to anyone. As a matter of fact, the Estimate was laid yesterday, and I am not sure it is not already in the Votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is sanguine as to the rapidity of the progress which will be made with this inquiry. I hope his expectation will be realised. We shall, perhaps, know better on Wednesday. The Committee, in the ordinary course, will be appointed to-night.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that he will allocate Monday, 29th, and Tuesday, 30th, to the discussion on the Finance Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, if so long a time be required.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix any date before which the Committee appointed to inquire into the Teachers' Superannuation Question shall report?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot give instructions to a, Committee of the House to report on a certain date. As I said yesterday, it is the hope of the Government that the Committee may meet at once. I hope it will be appointed to-night, and that it can hold its first meeting on Monday. I very much hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green suggests, that the Committee will find very few meetings necessary to enable it to make a report to the House, but I cannot speak with confidence.
  Captain W. BENN: Before we adjourn for Whitsuntide, may we expect to have an announcement of the Cabinet decision in reference to Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from
    560
    Standing Committee A: Mr. Trevelyan Thomson; and had appointed in sub stitution: Major Mackenzie Wood.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Canals (Continuance of Charging Powers) Bill): Mr. Casey; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Frederick Green.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Lunacy Bill [Lords] and the Canals (Continuance of Charging Powers) Bill): Mr. Evan Davies; and had appointed in substitution: Mr..John Davison.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    PERFORMING ANIMALS.
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,
    Amendments to:

    Legal and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords],

    Ossett Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords],

    Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Ramsgate with regard to the purchase of lands; the provision of concert halls, and entertainments, and baths; to make further provision with regard to the health, improvement, and good government of the borough, gas supply, the consolidation of parishes, the consolidation of rates, the audit of accounts; and for other purposes." [Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Shepton Mallet Waterworks Company." Shepton Mallet Waterworks Bill [Lords.]
    Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords],
    Shepton Mallet Waterworks Bill [Lords],
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLASS II.

  MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed;
  "That a sum, not exceeding £95,284, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."[Note: £75,000 has been voted on account.]
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I hope the Committee will allow me, as this is the first opportunity there has been since the formation of the Mines Department, to make a short review of the work which that Department has done and is doing. I should like, first of all, to call attention to the fact, which I hope will be gratifying to the Committee, that there has been a very considerable reduction in the expenditure of the Department and in the staff since this time last year. When the Mines Department took over the work of the Coal Control Department, there war, 683 members of the staff employed. That was the figure in July, 1920, just before the Mines Department came into existence. In July, 1921, they had fallen to 496, and on 1st May this year they had fallen to 361. Although the Mines Department has been reduced in number, I should like to say, on behalf of the staff, that it has not been reduced in energy. The staff during the period, which includes the long coal stoppage, have shown very great devotion to duty. I should also like to point out that the expenditure is less, and that the reduction has been effected without the assistance of the celebrated Committee on National Expenditure. Last year the Estimates amounted to £215,000 odd, and this year they amount to 173,000. If you take the allied services, which we have to
  572
  account for in our Vote, and deduct from them the Appropriations-in-Aid, the figure last year was £248,635, and this year it is £195,330. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will, at any rate, feel that very useful economy has been effected.
  There is a misapprehension in some quarters as to the origin of the Mines Department. I have heard it said that it is a Department which has arisen in consequence of the War. That. is quite a misapprehension. There is only one function of the Mines Department which is the result of the War. It is that connected with the control of coal, the affairs of which are still being wound up. The Department was formed on the recommendation of no less than five different Committees and Commissions. The Government were pressed to bring the different branches of work connected with mines under one roof. Some of it was being done at the Home Office, some at the Ministry of Labour, and some at the Board of Trade, and the Mines Department was formed so that they should be connected under one roof, and therefore great economies in work and time effected. The only part which can be said to be directly due to the War is that part of the Accountants' Department which deals with the control accounts. That is only about one-seventh of the expenditure of the Mines Department, and that, of course, is temporary, and will come to an end as soon as it is possible to finish the accounts. I should like to say with regard to that section that they have very arduous work to do. They have to deal with a turnover of something like £18,000,000, and their work in checking accounts has resulted in a saving of £900,000 to the taxpayers of this country. I do not think anything can be said against an expenditure of from £25,000 to £30,000 if as a result you can save £900,000.
  About another seventh of the duties of the Department are concerned in carrying out the Mining Industry Act which was passed when the Mines Department was formed. I should like to say a word or two about some of the more interesting features of our work in that connection. There were two Advisory Committees set lip under that Act, one for coal and one for metalliferous mines. They have both proved of great assistance to the Department. The main advice which we have

  573
  received from the Coal Advisory Committee has been with regard to statistics. Of course, it was desirable that time should not be wasted in collecting statistics that would not be of value, but I am glad to say that the Advisory Committee supported the view that. I have always held that certain statistics which have been recently produced in the quarterly accounts are necessary for the industry and for the public at large, and that they should be continued. Those quarterly statistics have very often obviated great misunderstandings which might. have arisen if they had not been available, and it is most important that those, figures of cost of production should be continued. I am glad, therefore, that the Advisory Committee have recommended that the quarterly returns should still be supplied. I am also glad to say that the owners are assisting in getting those figures. We have an Advisory Committee on metalliferous mines. They have been very active, and they have been dealing with the regulations necessary for metalliferous mines and for quarries. The Quarries Committee have also been assisting us with regard to quarries. The regulations, which require a good deal of amendment and overhauling, are now being carefully considered by these Committees, and I hope will lead to great improvement in the future. They have also considered a good many questions connected with the health of persons working in metalliferous mines, and those questions are being remitted to a small medical committee, which I am glad to say has consented to work for the Department on questions affecting health in mines, whether coal mines or metalliferous mines.
  Another function which is carried out by an independent Committee under Lord Chelmsford is the allocation of the Welfare Fund set up under the Mining Industry Act by the levy of 1d. per ton on coal produced. The sum available now amounts to just about £1,000,000, and Lord Chelmsford's Committee have been very active in trying to arrange for its allocation. Four-fifths of that sum has to be spent in the localities from which it is raised, and there has been very considerable delay, owing to the difficulty of getting district committees to make up their minds exactly in what form they wish to take money out. There has born a certain amount allocated, and amongst
  574
  the interesting variety of objects I will mention: assistance in setting up institutes, recreation grounds, the extension of mining schools, for which, I think, a grant is being given by Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Perhaps the most attractive scheme of all is one in Ayrshire, where the district committee have recommended the allocation of the whole of their money, not only this year, but for the whole period of the grant, to the acquisition of a sanatorium for the mining community. They have a fine mansion, and 100 acres of land, and there will be accommodation for 100 patients in this convalescent home. I hope we shall have many varieties of objects for the welfare of the miners recommended by the district committees. I think this Committee would like to know three or four of the different works which are being done with the money.
  Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: Has any portion of the money been expended?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A very small portion has been expended. Grants have been paid up to £14,000, the grants allocated amounting to £167,000. I venture to hope the district committees will hasten their proceedings, and try to make up their minds on what they want the money spent, because in many cases it would lead to a great amount of employment in building, the laying-out of grounds, and so on, and the sooner they make up their minds the better. The money is there, and as soon as the Central Committee approves of schemes all this money can be paid out.
  Mr. HURD: What is the machinery? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it depends on the initiative of the locality?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are district committees which know the amount of their share, and they are invited to send up schemes to the central committee. If the central committee approve of them, then the central committee settle whether they will give the whole of the sum due for the object, or whether they will give them a part, or whether they will help then at all. Then there is one-fifth of the fund which can be spent centrally, and the committee have decided—as think, very wisely—to use that, so far as possible, for large national work., such

  575
  as research work, or larger questions of education, which go beyond the limits of any particular district. The principal work which we are hoping to start out of this fund is a new station for large experiments. There is now one at Eskmeals in Cumberland, which was found to be inconvenient, as it is a very inaccessible place, and a good deal of the plant is now worn out. The committee have decided to give a considerable sum towards the erection of a new experimental station, and I hope that we shall soon be enabled to get a site upon which to erect it, and to get to work before very long in carrying out experiments in coal-dust and all the other works that have been going on, as well as the ordinary work of testing miners' lamps, which went on at Eskmeals before.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: Has a new site been acquired?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No; there has been a great difficulty all over the place in finding a suitable site. It is not a very easy thing to do. In the first place, one wants a not very expensive site, and one wants a good deal of space, because some of these explosions are done down a long tube gallery, and very often a flame goes out for many hundred yards beyond the end of the tube, and, therefore, you want a clear space in front of you. I rather think we have a site now, but I am not at liberty to mention it, because negotiations have not reached finality. There is only one other point to which I should like to refer as coming under the duties imposed upon us by the Mining Industry Act.
  Mr. S1MM: Has the Committee which is referred to, the accumulation of the funds for the whole 12 months?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a penny a ton. I do not know at what date it began to be collected, but we have collected just over £1,000,000. There is still a sum due, but I do not. know how much. Under the Mining Industry Act we have the power to try to bring people together, and make drainage schemes in mining districts. That is to say, where different concerns do not cooperate, and keep water out of their pits, it is within our power to make schemes to assist them—of, course, some can easily do it without assistance—and it is generally a business which takes
  576
  some time to negotiate; but I am glad to say that I have to-day signed a scheme for the drainage of the South Staffordshire area, which will, I hope, lead very largely to the resumption of work in pits which otherwise would become derelict very soon. There are other cases where we are making investigations to see whether it is not possible, by bringing people together, and making a scheme and allocating the amount each has to contribute, to relieve the water in a considerable area where there is a favourable chance of mining, not only in coal, but also in other mines.
  I have mentioned work which involves the services of two-sevenths of the Department, so far as money goes. Practically the whole of the rest, with the exception of a small sum spent on statistics, which used to be done by the Board of Trade, but is now clone by our Department, goes in work formerly done by the Home Office on health and safety, which is the most important work my Department has to perform. The figures which we have got about fatal and other accidents are, at any rate, gratifying to this extent, that we have fewer fatal accidents in this country per thousand than any other country except Belgium, and Belgium, being a small country, is not really a very fair comparison. Even so, I am not satisfied that the accidents cannot be reduced very considerably. I do not think it can be done by piling regulations upon regulations; in fact, I think an excess of regulations very often has the opposite effect But I am trying to get statistics that are more easy of comparison—accidents by man shifts, which, I think, will be a better comparison from year to year. Of course, last year there were fewer men at work and, therefore, the number of accidents could not very properly be compared with any other year, but I hope we shall get those figures and be able to have a fair comparison. We have lost in the Department a very valuable servant of the Home Office, Mr. Walker, who was Chief Inspector, and whom, I think, many hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember as a very energetic and sympathetic inspector. [Hot. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear] I am sorry to say that failing health caused him to retire somewhat before his time, but I am glad to say that, in the leisure he has, he gives us the benefit of his advice on one or two

  577
  committees, and other subjects when we call him in. I should like to express here my thanks to him for all the work he has done.
  There is one thing I have been able to do, and which, I think, has brought greater uniformity into the work of the inspectorate. I believe, under the Home Office, there were meetings of the chief inspectors from time to time. I have now arranged that we shall have them quarterly, and we have had two or three of them already. Before they come up to the general meeting in London, they have meetings of their sub-inspectors in their own districts, so that we can have a chain of communication from the minor divisions of the country to the major divisions, and so up to the Department itself. The meetings generally last about two days, and a great variety of subjects is discussed, experiences are exchanged between the inspector of one district and the inspector of another, which must conduce, I think, to greater uniformity of action, and greater knowledge of how to deal with any particular difficulty, and I am very glad to think they have so far proved their success.
  I referred just now to a Medical Committee. We have, I am thankful to say, the advantage of being able to consult a very able small Medical Committee consisting of Sir Walter Fletcher, Dr. Haldane, Sir Kenneth Goadby, and Dr. Collis, and when the committees call the attention of the Department to some question of health, there is this Medical Committee to whom we can refer it for professional investigation before we take any action. Then there is also the Mining Dangers Research Board, which is doing, and I hope will do, very valuable work with regard to questions of safety, and under it are questions such as nystagmus, miners' lamps, and spontaneous combustion—all these questions which are involved in the accidents that are reported to us. Under them is a Sub-Committee of technical people to go into the question of safety appliances, about which many hon. Gentlemen opposite have been inquiring from time to time lately. It is very important that any safety appliance should have a proper and a long test before it is made compulsory, or even recommended. A safety appliance which is not thoroughly
  578
  satisfactory may do a great deal more harm than if you have none at all. Therefore, it is most important that these safety appliances which are invented by various people should have a full and proper test, and that we should have the advice of this technical committee before recommending them, and certainly before making them compulsory.
  There is also a Medical Research Council with whom we were in close touch, under the Privy Council and not under the Mines Department, and I am glad to say that we have asked that Council, and they have consented, to consider two or three very important questions. One is stone-dusting. That is as to what kind of stone should or should not be used in stone-dusted mines. This matter, I think, is of very great importance. There is also an investigation going on into beat-hand and beat-knee, and several other cognate matters. I should add that we get assistance in these research directions from the Universities, and also from organisations for which the owners pay. When I look at the fatal accidents—and I make a point of reading the report on every one—I cannot help feeling that a large number of them could be avoided by a little greater care. After all, care is the best safety appliance you can possibly have. There are an immense number of accidents due to easily avoidable carelessness, and there are others due to not having first-aid. A man, say, gets a small scratch. He thinks little or nothing of it, and goes on working, but a few days later septic poisoning or something of the kind sets in, and he dies three or four weeks later. If it became a habit always to go for first-aid treatment for any scratch or injury, however small, we should save a good many lives. I quite realise that many men do not care to make a fuss about what seems a small matter, or a small wound, but it would be better for everybody who met with an injury of the kind with which I am dealing to get it into their minds that it is their duty, however small the accident, to take advantage of first-aid.
  I am trying to initiate and push a "Safety First" campaign. This is being done in one or two places already. I am sure a great deal more could be done in this direction. Hon. Members, I think, are familiar with the safety-first placards

  579
  and advertisements which one sees about London in relation to crossing the streets, getting on and off omnibuses, and so on. I have tried hard to get something of that sort done which will illustrate the dangers of the mine and the way in which many of them can be avoided. These could be exhibited in the schools and institutes in the mining districts, and on the premises of the mines themselves; but in this matter I must ask for the help of the miners themselves, and I hope I may look for that help to hon. Members who represent mining constituencies. I trust that they will support any effort the Department may make to promote this Safety First campaign. That is all I want to say about the work of the Department. I think I have dwelt upon the most important sides of it, but I should like to say a word or two on the condition of the industry at the present moment.
  With regard to metalliferous mines, I am bound to say that the position is gloomy in the extreme. Nothing but a great revival in trade seems to me to be likely to bring back life to the lead and tin mining industries of the country. Iron-stone mining is in rather a better state than it was. I only hope that the readers of the industrial barometer are right in their forecast of an industrial revival, and if they are there is hope for the metalliferous mines. In regard to coal, I must say that I feel in a more hopeful mood than I was this time last year. My feelings are different now to those entertained then. The contrast is very strikingly in favour of this year as against last. We were then brought suddenly up against the greatest depression in trade. Trade had toppled over in this country, and we had nothing before us but the certainty of lower wages, fewer markets, less work, and the most gloomy and depressing prospects. I am not going to talk about what happened during the stoppage.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Perhaps there is no need.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps it is better for everybody that we should think more of the future and less of the past.
  Mr. HALLS: What about the causes?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Whatever the cause, we have had the stoppage, and we do not want another one. Then we went down to a deep, dark, gloomy period of depression. I think that we can feel now, having gone for a long time on the difficult road, that it is widening out and that the prospects are getting, indeed, more hopeful as we go further on. There are many reasons for thinking what I do. First of all, there is the wonderful recovery in our export trade. I think that. is a most satisfactory feature of the situation. To every country outside Europe, except South America, our exports in the last quarter—I mean the first three months of this year—were greater even than in the year 1913. They were greater to France, while to the principal countries of Western Europe they were only about 6 per cent. below the great year 1913. That, I think, is a wonderful thing when we think of what the position was this time last year. We had then lost all our markets; now we have got some we had not before, and have nearly recovered those, we had before.
  The output also is very satisfactory. True, there are fewer men employed, but the output per man, in spite of the seven hours per day, is very much better. It is something like one ton per shift per man. In the last two or three months there has been an improvement in the number employed. Since the revival at the end of last. year something, I think, like 40,000 more men have been employed in the industry than before. There have been more days worked and fewer days lost. All that is very satisfactory. At the same time wages and profits are not satisfactory. I think, however, we may feel this, that the industry has got into a position in which it can take advantage of any recovery in trade, and having faced the difficulties which the industry has faced with a courage that everybody in this country must admire, we can, I think, confidently hope that any revival in trade will find the whole of the industry ready to take advantage of it, which will mean that we start again on the upward path. The coal industry has done more than any other industry to lessen the cost of living by cheapening coal and so cheapening every process of production. It makes me very angry when I hear people say that they want coal to come down still further before some other industries can begin

  581
  again. What other industry has made the sacrifices which have been made by the coal industry? The coal industry has set the example. They have done what they could to cheapen the cost of living, and I hope that when the cost of living does come down they will, at any rate, get some of the benefit of it, because it will make the money they earn go further than it does now.
  I do not know that I can prophesy with much optimism about the coming boom. I find that even my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is careful in the way of prophecy. But there is one thing I should like to say about household coal. There seems to be a good deal of misapprehension about the different qualities of coal. I am constantly being asked why it is that coal can be sent abroad at 20s. or a little more per ton and yet people have to pay twice as much as that, or even 60s. per ton, for their household coal here at home. People do not seem to understand that the qualities are entirely different. They do not consider the fact that when there is a good demand for household coal all through the winter that that keeps the price up, but when there is little demand for industrial coal the price keeps down. If people like to buy cheaper coal and try it in their fires they are at liberty to do so, but they cannot expect the very best coal at the lowest price. Let me give three specimens of household coal which have gone down very considerably in the last month. Take the comparison between now and last year. This time last year Derby Brights were about 62s. per ton. In July they went to 64s.
  Mr. MALONE: Where?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In London, I think, but I am not quite certain. I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know if I am wrong. On 5th November last year they were 62s., in April last they were 54s. That, at any rate, is some reduction. Kitchen coal was then 59s., then 63s., then 59s., and in April 50s. As to stove coal, I have no quotation for April, 1921, but in July it was 60s. a ton, in November 47s., in April 19s. Those thinking about household coal will derive some comfort from the fact that it is going down in the summer, but it is important that this House should realise that there are many other factors in the cost of household
  582
  coal beside the wages of the miners and the profit of the owners. There is the cost of carriage, railway rates, the cost of distribution.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: And there are explosions in the mines!
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The coal industry is confronted with a very difficult task. In some cases the owners have not been able to make any profits at all, wages have gone down to the minimum, and they have only been maintained at their present rate by a contribution of what would otherwise have been the owner's profit. I think everyone must admire the way in which the industry has made this effort. I know that there is great distress in some particular districts, chiefly because of the short time which is being worked, and I only hope that the recovery in trade will come soon, and put an end to the misery which is so serious in many districts of this country. I feel that whatever may be the future the industry is in a position to recover, and recover very rapidly, as soon as a general improvement in trade sets in.
  I only wish to say in conclusion that I hope the efforts of this Department will be mainly directed to questions of health and safety and, if we can have a year without stoppages or disputes, then we shall have time to devote a great deal of our attention to this question and make investigations with the assistance of our scientific friends. The President of the Board of Trade stated that the policy of his Department was to be one of kindly, but not intrusive, beneficence in trade. We do not wish to be either intrusive or obtrusive, but we hope to follow the example of our Mother Department. We wish to be a common meeting ground for all interested in the industry for an exchange of views. We wish to be a friend to all men of good will in the industry, and do what we can to moderate differences. We have had the men's grievances laid before us, and if we have been of any use in these matters so much the better. I think it is a good thing to have a Department which is a medium through which one interest can approach another interest.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I am sure we are very much indebted to the Secretary for Mines for the valuable information which he has given to

  583
  us in the course of his address. I am certain that the Members of the Committee who are not particulary interested in the mining industry will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the careful manner in which he has outlined the economies which have been effected in his own particular Department. So far as those of us who largely represent mining constituencies are concerned, we are also indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given to us regarding the continuance of these quarterly returns, welfare, research, safety and accidents, and particularly for the hope which he held out of returning trade. I am certain that we all join with the Secretary for Mines in the hope that in the near future there may be a considerable, improvement in the industry which is under his particular charge.
  I did not rise, however, for the particular purpose of following the line taken by the Secretary for Mines. I rose with the object of bringing before the right hon. Gentleman a question of even greater importance than any of those he has been discussing, important though they may be. I think the Secretary for Mines will be the first to admit. that unless we are able in this industry to earn the wherewithal to keep the mining community in some degree of comfort, all these other things will be of secondary importance. I am moving this reduction in the Estimate for the purpose of enabling us to bring before the Committee and the country the serious conditions obtaining in the mining industry, and the deplorable effect they are having upon mining homes throughout the British coalfields.
  During the past 15 months there has been a serious fall in wages, in fact it. is the most serious that has ever taken place in the coal industry. I will take my own district to illustrate my point, because it is typical of the conditions prevailing in at least three-fourths of the British coalfields. In my own district wages have fallen during the past 15 months by no less than 12s. 1½d. per day, or a weekly fall in an average, working week of no less than £3 Os.7½dIn addition to the general fall that has taken place in accordance with our agreement, there have been substantial partial reductions which increase the figures I have given considerably. These partial reductions have been made by a particular owner in
  584
  certain parts of the coalfield over and above the general reductions that have taken place under the terms of our agreement, and they have very substantially increased the figure of reductions which I have already given. I am not going to take the line that this is a breach of the agreement of 1921, but I am going to say that it seems to us, where these partial reductions have taken place, to be a deliberate evasion of certain existing agreements if it is not encroaching on the agreement of 1921.
  These reductions have brought the miners' wages down in almost three-fourths of the coalfields to something like 8s. 4½d. per day, or down to a weekly wage for an average working week of five days roughly to £2 2s. per week. That has brought wages down to the minimum under the terms of the agreement, and there can be no further fall, but in all conscience that fall is serious enough, because it means that the wages of the mining population in those parts of the coalfield have been brought down to 20 per cent. over the July, 1914, wage.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman referring to the minimum wage, and not to the average wage?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I am dealing with the minimum wage to which the reductions have brought our men.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes, the minimum wage.
  Mr. ADAMSON: There are many thousands of our men who are not earning that wage, and why talk so much about that? The men are now brought down to something like 20 per cent. over the 1914 wage, although at the moment the cost of living is standing at 81 per cent. over the standard of July, 1914. The mining community, by comparison, are 50 per cent. worse off to-day than they were in July, 1914. When you add to this great fall in wages the fact that short working time is quite common in a number of the different. mining districts of the country, and that we have still thousands of men wholly unemployed, you can form some idea of the tragic conditions existing in our mining community. This simply means that there is actual starvation existing in the mining districts of the country. In addition to the deplorable condition of wages, and as a result of it, the household reserves, in the form of savings for clothing, boots, and other

  585
  household requisites, are being used up with little or any sign of relief in the immediate future.
  5.0 P.M.
  During the past four months there has been a persistent rumour in my own district that the miners are to be paid what is known as the Sankey 2s. a day that was given to raise the standard of the mining community. There is a rumour which has persistently gone round during the last four months that this is to be paid retrospectively, and no amount of denials on the part of the mining officials has been able to kill that rumour. The reason is that there is such a terrible need for money in the mining districts that they are prepared to seize hold of any hope of money to relieve the deplorable condition of things existing there. This condition of affairs is producing a dangerous feeling in the coalfields—a feeling sullen and almost silent. I marked the words used by the Secretary for the Mines Department when he was complimenting the two sides on the patience with which they had borne with the condition of affairs during the past year. I can assure him of this, that that feeling is there, sullen and almost silent, but not the less it is the feeling, and as one intensely interested in the mining community, among whom I was born and with whom I worked the, whole of my days, I can assure the Government, the Committee and the country that, unless something is done, unless this condition of affairs can be remedied in some way, and that speedily, we will be face to face with a very, very serious position. I hope, for the sake of everyone, for the sake of the country and of the miners, that it will be possible for the Government and the mineowners to accomplish something that will bring relief to this hard-pressed community in some form or another. During the course of the Secretary's speech I made an interjection. He had made a statement, and I interjected that he would be safer not to discuss a certain line. He said that possibly both sides would be safer not to discuss that particular line. I am, however, going to be bold enough to discuss it, and to try and place the responsibility for the serious condition of affairs that exists in the mining industry at the present time.
  In trying to assess the responsibility, I place the larger part of the blame upon the Government. I know that some of my
  586
  hon. Friends on the opposite side will not agree with me when I make a statement of that kind, but. I think it is a statement I shall be able to prove substantially before this Debate ends. I have no intention.of going fully into the matter. Others will follow me, and I desire to leave them as much time as I possibly can. I will simply deal with it broadly. In my opinion, the Government are largely to blame for the deplorable condition in which the mining industry finds itself to-day, and for this reason. They evidently seemed to think that it was quite possible for them to take hold of this vital industry and run it in all its essentials for no less a period, than four and a quarter years, and then suddenly to hand it over to the miners, on the one hand, and the mineowners, on the other, without disaster occurring. It simply could not be done, and the result is that. the miner to-day is paying the price—far too big a price. He is being asked to carry a burden that it will not be possible for him to carry for a much longer period of time. What I suggest is this—that. the Government should appoint. a Committee to inquire fully into the condition in the mining industry, with a view to seeing what steps can be taken for securing a speedy improvement in the position of the mining population. I make that appeal to the Minister for Mines and to the President of the Board of Trade, and, through them, to the Government, because I can assure them that the condition of affairs is so serious that they will require to do it very speedily if the mining industry and the country are to be saved from a still graver disaster than has already taken place. I hope that the appeal will be readily accepted, and it is in that spirit that I move the reduction of this Vote.
  Mr. HOLMES: I listened with great sympathy to what. has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman who represents West Fife concerning the position in which the miners of the country find themselves at the present time, and I am not surprised that, on behalf of his colleagues, he has made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade to see whether something can he done to remedy a state of affairs which in many districts is almost pathetic. I hope, with the consent of the Committee,

  587
  before I sit down to thrown out some suggestion not only to the Government but to the coalowners and the miners. After four years of control, during which we lived through almost continual threats of strikes and stoppages which we had to put up with as a community we had decontrol of the industry on the 31st March last year. That led to a stoppage which lasted from the beginning of April to the end of June. It was a disastrous stoppage to the country in every possible way. It was settled at the end of June last year by an agreement which was signed by the Secretary for Mines and his Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government, by Mr. Evan Williams and Sir Thomas Ratcliffe Ellis on behalf of the coalowners, and by Mr. Herbert Smith, Mr. James Robson, and Mr. Frank Hodges on behalf of the miners. That agreement was to last until the 30th September this year, and it was to continue after that date unless notice was given on one side or the other to terminate it. We are within a few months of the possible determination of the agreement. I want to try and show the Committee how that arrangement is working, and the means and methods by which it may possibly be improved.
  As possibly most members of the Committee know, the country, so far as the coal mines are concerned, is divided into districts, and in each district the result of each month's working is tabulated. Every colliery has to send in the figures to the accountants—and there are, independent accountants acting on each side, one for the owners and the other for the miners. These returns are aggregated and on the result of the figures arrived at the wages of the miners for the following month are calculated. What happens is this. Take any particular county—say the county of Lancashire. The whole of the proceeds from the sale of coal in the collieries of that area are aggregated. Out. of those proceeds the miners get. their standard wage, as it is called. The standard wages are the district basis wages existing on the 31st March, 1921, plus district percentages payable in July, 1914. That is the first charge on the proceeds. Then come the costs other than wages, including timber, clerical staff and other charges that one may call the overhead charges incidental to the business. Then the owners take a standard point. That
  588
  standard profit is calculated at. 17 per cent. of the standard wages paid to the miners in the district. When these three totals are added together they are deducted from the proceeds and in most districts a surplus is left, and that surplus is divided 83 per cent. for the miners and 17 per cent. for the owners, and the miners' wages in the following month are calculated according to the surplus arrived at on those figures.
  That agreement placed the mining industry on an economical basis before any other industry in this country, and this is what the miners are suffering from at this moment. They are simply getting the wages which their industry can afford to pay. On the other hand, since other industries have not been placed in a similar position, they have to pay for the necessaries of life an amount far higher than in 1914 or that it is possible for them to pay on the economic wage they are receiving. If all the industries and occupations had been treated in the same way as the coal industry at the end of June last year the miners' position to-day would be entirely different.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: What other industries are not on an economic basis?
  Mr. HOLMES: I was coming to that presently. It would be better if the hon. Member would let me pursue my line of argument. I think we may say that the businesses that are on an economic basis are what we may call export businesses; the businesses and industries not on an economic basis are non-export businesses. Where a trade depends either wholly or in part on exports then it has come down more or less to an economic basis. That is not so in the case of the railwaymen, transport workers, and in particular the employés in all municipal services throughout the country, and the effect is —and it is one of the things which has had a psychological effect on the miners' minds at the present time—that the hewer of coal in a given town is receiving less than the man sweeping the streets. That is the result of having tried to put the coal industry on an economic basis without having at the same time put all other occupations and industries on the same basis.
  The agreement, in the main, has possibilities of fairness, if only it can be altered in certain particulars, and if, gradually, the result of the industries and

  589
  occupations of the country get on to a right level. But it was prepared in a hurry, as are nearly all these agreements when strikes and stoppages take place, and I am going to venture to point out three ways in which I think it is acting unfairly, and in which it should be modified. In the first place, the owners receive, as their standard profit, 17 per cent. of the standard wages. That is something very near what happened during the War in the building industry, where the builders were paid on the time and-line basis. They received 12½ per cent. on cost. What did that mean in the building trade during the War? It meant that the move wages they paid, and the higher were the prices of the raw materials that they purchased, the greater was their profit., and there was no encouragement to them to run their business on an economic basis. The comparison is not an exact one, but I should like the Committee to keep it in mind while I am putting this point forward. The result is that a colliery with good workings and a long expectation of life can afford at the present time to cut prices in order to get greater output and greater sales at the expense of the miners and without loss to the owners. I am going to venture to give to the Committee a somewhat complicated illustration in figures, and T hope they will bear with me while I do so.
  I will first take, a typical colliery in a typical county at the present time. The proceeds from 18,000 tons for one, month are. 122,500, that is to say, the price is 25s. a ton. The standard wages are £10,000, and the costs other than wages £7.000. The standard profit, calculated at 17 per cent. on the £10,000 of standard wages paid is £1,700; so that the standard wages, the costs other than wages, and the standard profit, amount to £18,700, as against £22,500 of proceeds, leaving a surplus of £3,800, of which the owners take 17 per cent. or 1646, and the miners 83 per cent., or £3,154. The total received by the miners, that is to say, standard wages plus share of surplus, is, therefore, £13,154. The. total received by the owners, namely, standard profit and share of surplus, is £2,346. Now I want the Committee to imagine the owner of that colliery to say that, instead of offering his coal at 25s. a ton, he will reduce his price by 5s. a ton,
  590
  and offer the coal at 20s. per ton. The effect of that must be—it is happening every day at the present time—largely to increase, his sales, and to increase his output. Of course, this only applies to a colliery which has good workings. The colliery owner can immediately increase his output, probably by 50 per cent., by cutting his price from 25s. to 20s. a ton at the pit head.
  Let me show the effect of that by reworking nut the figures for the colliery to which I have already referred, allowing for an increase of 50 per cent. in the output as a result of cutting the price to the extent of 5s. a ton. The proceeds will then be, for 27,000 tons at 20s. a ton, £27,000. By reason of the fact that the output is 50 per cent. up, the owner will employ 50 per cent. more men, so that the standard wages, instead of being £10,000, will be £15,000. The costs other than wages would, I suggest, go up by £2,000, and become £9,000. The standard profits to the owner would then be 17 per cent. of 115,000, so that he would get a standard profit of £2,550. Therefore, on this calculation, you have standard wages £15,000, costs other than wages £9,000, and standard profit £2,550, making 126,550, as against £27,000 of proceeds. The surplus is only 1450, of which the owners would take.£76, and the miners 1374. Let me compare that with my original figures. The result of increasing the output by 50 per cent. and reducing the price by 5s. per ton is that the owner takes, in standard profit pins share of surplus, £2,626, as compared with £2,346 previously. He gets more by increasing his output and reducing his price, because his standard profit is calculated on the standard wages.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member has given us no particulars whatever as to the capital expenditure required to produce an increase of 50 per cent. in output, and it may be gigantic.
  Mr. HOLMES: That is absolute nonsense, because at the present time nearly every colliery in the country can give a greater output if it can get the sales.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I suggest that you cannot get greater output without opening up new faces.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member for Mossley kindly to refrain from interrupting.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I beg pardon.
  Mr. HOLMES: The particular colliery about which I am thinking at the present time is only working three days a week, and to suggest that if a colliery works a full week instead of only three days a week it will involve a gigantic amount of capital expenditure is absolute nonsense. I want to point out what has been the result, as regards the miners, of this increase in output and decrease in price. Their share now, in standard wages plus share of surplus, is £15,374, but there are half as many more men engaged in the industry.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: They work twice as many days. If they worked a full week instead of only working three clays a week, they would not need a single additional man.
  Mr. HOLMES: That may be, but it does not alter the point at all. It can be worked out, if desired, in man-shifts, but it does not alter the point; it is a question of additional shifts. This is a fair illustration. To make the figure comparable with the previous one, it must be reduced by one-third, because you have either half as many more men or half as many more shifts. The comparative figure is, that the miners now get £10,250 divided up among them in wages, instead of £13,154, showing a reduction of 22 per cent. on their wages. That is how this agreement is hitting the miners. The more the price is reduced, the more they suffer. That is seen by many of the coalowners, and, as it is in the agreement, it is perfectly legitimate, and they are doing it. They are able to reduce the price of coal, which is good for the community, not at their own expense, but at the expense of the miners' wages, and that is really what requires to be altered in this agreement. It arises because the method of calculating the owner's standard profit is unsound. It is utterly unsound to calculate it as a percentage of standard wages. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the standard profit should be calculated upon the capital employed in the business. After that., the owners should have their share, and the miners theirs.
  I want to point out, before I leave this point, that there is another way in which it pays the owners to cut down the price of their coal, even though they may not
  592
  get quite so much profit. Everything except coal is shut out from this agreement, so far as the miners are concerned. Coke ovens, patent fuel, and everything else is shut out. If the coalowner can cut down the price of his coal, he is able to transfer it to his coke ovens or his patent fuel at a much cheaper price, because the agreement says there shall be fair transfer prices based on current market values, if a coalowner can cut down the price of his coal from 25s. to 20s. per ton, so far as the public is concerned, he can transfer it to his coke ovens at 20s. a ton, and make 5s. a ton more profit for himself. That is the first point. The second point is that there is insufficient incentive to the men to give increased output per man per shift. The two great objects that every business man wants to achieve at the present time are, firstly, to reduce his costs by efficient management and new methods, and, secondly, to get an increased output per man. We have all been preaching, with regard to all trades and industries, the desirability of increased output. Under this agreement there is not that incentive. I worked out one district for the month of January. If the output. per man had been increased by 10 per cent., the surplus would have increased by £200,000, of which £166,000 would have gone to the miners and £34,000 to the owners. It may, perhaps, be said that that is quite satisfactory from the miners' point of view, for it works out at 13 per cent. on their wages, so that the hewer at the coal face who was previously receiving 11s. 9d. per day can take an additional Is. 6d for working 10 per cent. harder, and for everyone else in the colliery working 10 per cent. harder during his seven hours. On the other hand, if the men all round worked 10 per cent. harder in that particular district, the owners, who had not contributed to that increase in output, would receive, as their share of the surplus, a dividend equal to 2½ per cent. on the capital employed.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that an extra dividend of 2½ per cent. on capital employed is too much on that item. There is a psychology about these matters. The hewer at the coal face, spending most of his life underground, does not, perhaps, understand these things, or take such broad views as we do. He finds that he gets 1s. 6d., and he sees the dividend of

  593
  the colliery go up by 2½ per cent. as the result of the additional work that he himself does, and he is rather inclined to say, "I think I will go without my 1s. 6d. and let them go without their 2½ per cent." The method that I would suggest for getting over that is that a direct bonus should be given to the miners as a first charge on the surplus, to be arrived at by fixing a standard output per man per shift for each district, and paying a bonus of 15 per cent. on standard wages for every hundredweight by which the output per man per shift is increased. That would still leave a reasonable share to the owners, and give a reasonable incentive to the men to improve their own position and that of everyone in the industry, and at the same time to assist in bringing down the cost of production of coal.
  My third point is that it has been generally assumed by everyone who read that agreement and who has taken a sort of general interest in the matter that every colliery company takes 17 per cent. of its standard wages as its standard profit, and then afterwards takes its proportion of the owners' 17 per cent. share of the surplus; but nothing of the sort occurs. Collieries differ in their workings, and the effect is that a colliery with difficult workings has to pay a numb higher wage per ton than another may have to do. The squeeze of nature is more in one colliery than in another, more timber is required, and the wages have to be much higher. The effect is that while in each district a number of collieries may be showing a surplus, and the whole district may be showing a surplus, there are many collieries which are showing no surplus at all and many which are being carried on at a toss. The effect of that is that a good colliery is paying less wages than it can afford because it is allowed to be brought in according to the aggregation—wages are settled by the aggregation of the whole district—while the poor collieries are paying more wages than they can afford, and so it happens that, in the first place, the poor collieries may be making no profit, or may be carried on at a loss, while the good colliery is showing a much larger profit than was intended and is keeping it for itself.
  The fear that the poor collieries would be squeezed out was at the bottom of the
  594
  agitation for the pool which the miners carried on 18 months ago—a disastrous agitation as far as they were concerned. I am not going to suggest that profits should he pooled, but the fact remains that, owing to the aggregation of figures by districts, the good collieries are assisted in their wages bill and the bad collieries are penalised. I therefore suggest that in each district there should be a wages equalisation fund, and that after any individual colliery bad received 17 per cent. of its standard wages and 17 per cent. of its surplus, 50 per cent. of any surplus remaining should be paid to this wages equalisation fund. Similarly, any colliery which cannot afford to pay the rate of wage fixed by the district. ascertainment should receive out of the wages equalisation fund a sum equivalent to 50 per cent, of the amount by which its results fall short of the ability to pay the district wage. It might be argued that the good colliery would be holstering up the poor colliery, but the immediate answer to that is that the good colliery derives a great benefit at present in the way of increased profits from the inclusion in the district ascertainment of the poor collieries' results, and consequently a good colliery has to pay a lower rate of wages.
  Those are the three points put to the President of the Board of Trade for consideration before this agreement comes to an end on 30th September next. But above all other things that are required in the coal industry, as I suppose in most industries, is goodwill. As one who has seen a good deal of the way in which this agreement has been carried out, I would appeal to certain coalowners to take a broad-minded view of all matters that come up. I could refer to a good many little things which have been done which are irritating and annoying. I will mention one. It comes about every month that when the standard wage per man is worked out, a good many men have an odd halfpenny in their standard wage per shift. We will say a hewer has 9s. 61d. per shift. There are some colliery owners who go beyond the agreement and are more than generous. They add a halfpenny and make it 9s. 7d. There are some who stand literally by the agreement and give 9s. 61d. per shift, paying the wages to a halfpenny; but there are others who knock the halfpenny off. With

  595
  five shifts at a halfpenny each it is only 2½d. It is annoying and irritating to the men, and it is one of those things that prevent that easy, pleasant feeling between the coalowners and the men that we all want to exist. I think the feeling between the coalowners and the men is much better than it was two years ago in some districts, and if only they will pull together and there is a little avoidance on the part of the owners of these annoying, irritating tiny points, which make no difference to them but a lot of difference to the men, particularly in the confidence they have in the owners, and if an alteration can be made in the agreement to a certain extent on the lines I have suggested, and if not on those lines perhaps I have thrown out some suggestions which it may be possible for others to improve upon, we shall find that a new agreement is drawn up which will immensely improve the position of the miners and at the same time supply coal to the country on an economic basis.
  Mr. ARMITAGE: In the interesting review of the coal industry which the Minister gave, he referred to two Departments of the Ministry upon which I should like to say a few words on the question of safety and the question of health. The first point I should like to draw attention to is the question of the winding enginemen. One of the most responsible duties in a big modern pit is that of the winding enginemen. They can so easily let the cages drop and a large number of men be hurt. I cannot help thinking it would be a very great advantage if these enginemen were medically examined at. certain periods, and they should also have an age limit., because, however well a man may be, sometimes he goes wrong in his heart or nerves, and it is of vital importance that. men doing that work should be in the very best of health, and at present there is no medical examination at all of these men, and that. is a most important thing to look into. The other day the question of lamps was raised, and there was also the question of nystagmus. Attention should he drawn to the facts, which must he known at the Ministry, in regard to pits where they have electric lamps as against pits where they have only oil lamps. May I give an illustration of a pit which I have to do with? In
  596
  1912 there were about 2,400 men employed and the nystagmus cases were 11. The oil lamps were taken out after that year, and while the number of men employed has gone steadily up to 3,000, the nystagmus cases have gone down to three, and we attribute that to a very large extent to the introduction of the electric lamps as against the oil lamps. We have to have an oil lamp to so many electric lamps at the face. The men just hang the oil lamps up in any corner, and leave them there the whole shift. Very often the lamps get hot. No one pays attention to them, and we certainly consider they are a source of danger and not of safety. If there is proper inspection by deputies, the mine will be properly looked after in regard to gas. The other point I wanted to allude to was the question of the safety first. campaign. In a steel works that I have to do with, we have had a great number of these posters put up, and there is no doubt they had a very great effect upon the men. They began to take an interest in little things, which all mount up at the year's end, in regard to small damages and cuts. The last point I should like to allude to is the absolute necessity for first-aid in all collieries, and every man should be made to have it. It is so important that small cuts and damages should be looked after at once and properly attended to and cared for. I am sure that in these ways, with the masters and men working together, a great deal of extra benefit to health will accrue and a great deal less damage to the men.
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: This is to us a very interesting discussion, and I should be very pleased to follow the hon. Member in the discussion as to lamps, but I cannot. We are asked to be very short, and many of us want to take part, although to those who live in mining districts a short speech is pretty difficult, because the feeling is so high among the people who live there that we meet with it every time we go outside the door. The wages are such that a man who is prepared to give his very best work the whole week simply cannot keep things going and cannot make ends meet., and the position of a man like that is one that no one ever ought to be called upon to endure. A man who is prepared to work ought to be able at least to keep himself and his wife and family in respectability and comfort. But that does not

  597
  obtain to-day, and there are plenty of men, the best workmen you can find, who are earning less than the scale allowed by Poor Law authorities to those in receipt of outdoor relief. It never ought to be like that. Coalowners talk about high wages and low production. I should think the low wages and the high production to-day would satisfy even the hon. Member for Cardiff. Production has gone up more than was anticipated. The low wages, of course, are responsible for that, because men are doing their very best to earn all they can.
  The Minister put the point about accidents in mines. He said they were less than in any other country except Belgium. I am not going to dispute that, but I feel that there are accidents even yet which can be prevented. One day this week figures were given about shot firing accidents. I think it was 14 killed and 147 injured. I am not sure that we have a safety appliance which would prevent that, but we think we, have, and there ought to be an opportunity given to test it and to make sure, because if any of these lives could be saved they ought to be saved. The point was put then about safety first. I agree with that, and should like to see it brought about. I know what obtains in collieries to-day, going home every weekend and getting in touch with many of my old friends, as I do. One told me last Saturday about a case where he was in his working place, where there was no timbering put up and he felt it was not safe to go on hewing coal any longer, and when the official came round he said to him, "I cannot work here any longer, it is not safe." The official said, "Please yourself—there is no minimum wage for you —whether you go on working or not." In these circumstances, with the wages that obtain to-day, the men take risks in order to earn all the wages they can, however foolish it may be. We have men in our district who are taking home 36s. and less, and their rent is about 15s. per week in the newer houses. How do these people live? I do not know. I cannot pretend to say how they live. Any industry that is brought down to that condition is in a sorry plight, and something ought to be done to get it out of that condition. The Government have wiped their hands of control. We say that they
  598
  were wrong, and that they were responsible. We claim that if that control had been allowed to go on until the proper time the coalowners would have looked round for orders and markets, and there would not have been the terrible slump that we have experienced. This has been a very interesting week in the House. We had an interesting Division on Tuesday, and I was glad to hear many hon. Members talking about doing what was right, and declaring that it was wrong to break faith with any section of the community. The very same men who went into the Lobby against us, and also opposed us when the agricultural labourer's minimum wage was taken from him, were talking last Tuesday about what was right and honourable to do, and declaring that it would be a shabby thing to break faith with the teachers.
  The Secretary for Mines has been speaking about increased output and export. Export is, in one sense, a very good thing, but when the coal is practically given away it is not a good thing. A reply was given to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) this week, which stated that the coal exported in 1921 was 1,968,078 tons, and that the value of that coal was £5,201,235. In 1922 the export was 4,281,877 tons and the total value was £5,785,310, or only £584,075 for the extra 2,313,799 tons. We have been practically giving away the one great asset that we possess in this country. The export of coal has increased by 54 per cent. between 192/ and 1922, but the amount received was only 10 per cent. higher than in 1921. That means that the extra output only brought in 5s. per ton. Exports on these lines are not much good to us. There was a protest meeting in Cardiff last January at which a number of coalowners protested against other coalowners who were under-selling them to the extent of 3s. and 3s. 6d. per ton. The result was that there was not a con more coal sold than could have been sold at the higher price, and it was a very serious matter in the wages of the workmen. It made all the difference to their wages. We are sending coal to India, delivered, for about 40s. a ton, and sending coal to San Francisco cheaper than the Americans are able to deliver it. Therefore, this larger output has been given away, and has brought no good results to the miners, who had been asked to give increased output. They have been

  599
  working hard and giving an excellent output. The output in South Wales for seven hours per day is practically the same as it was in 1913. Mr. Finlay Gibson, Secretary of the Coalowners' Association, says:
  "There is only one or two industries in the United Kingdom where costs and prices have been reduced as much as they have in the mining industry, and none in which production and export has been so much improved."
  There is general satisfaction with the way the men have worked, and yet the men cannot make both ends meet. That is a very serious matter, and one that ought to be remedied by some means. We were told that if coal was produced all the other trades would start; that the only thing that was wanted was to reduce wages and bring down the price of coal. So far as the miners' wages are concerned the prices cannot come any lower than they are to-day. In South Wales we have had the minimum since last October. The cheapness at which we are sending this extra coal all over the world is of no value to the men who produce it Therefore, other industries can expect nothing from this cheaper coal. There has been no reduction in royalties. The men who toil not, neither do they spin, get the same amount, despite the fact that the men who are willing to work, and able to work, cannot make both ends meet. The royalty owners were paid from July, 1921, to February, 1922, £951,287, or for the whole year practically £1,500,000. There is no help from that quarter for this great industry, and we contend that, with the industry in its present condition, there ought to be some help from that quarter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The royalties were not raised when the price of living went up.
  Mr. EDWARDS: The royalties are the same now as before, and there ought to be some relief from royalties. When a man works and cannot pay his way, surely other people ought to share the burden.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary for Mines does not control mining royalties.
  Mr. EDWARDS: What we want are markets for manufactured goods. It is said that we must get into touch with our undeveloped colonies. There is one
  600
  great country that is partially developed and which wants many manufactured articles. If we could get a part of that trade we should be doing more good than looking for markets where we are practically giving away our coal. I refer to Russia. The Government, through the Prime Minister, ought to act on their own, France or no France, in matters of this kind. We ought to be getting our share of the orders for manufactured articles for which that great country is crying out. To do that would be far more important than looking for markets for the sale of coal where we have to practically give it away.
  Mr. GOULD: There is not one of us who does not appreciate the extraordinarily difficult position in which the miners are placed by reason of the standard of wages existing to-day. There is none of us who does not appreciate to the greatest possible extent the sacrifices which the miners have made, not only in the interests of their own industry but in the interests of other industries in the country. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has suggested that I should be satisfied at the present time with low wages and high production, because I have in the past been a critic of high wages and low production. I think it casts a reflection not only upon myself but upon those for whom I have the honour to speak, and whom I represent in this House. It is a totally false misrepresentation of the point of view which we take of industrial conditions and national necessities. It is no use for us, and we realise it to the full, to expect from the workpeople of this country, or to exact from them a standard of living which makes for discontent and misery, and which is going to cause them to be cast upon the State and to make the State responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. We are by no means anxious to get the standard of living below the level of sustenance, but there are times, and this is one of them, when it becomes imperative in the interests of the nation to get industry on an economic basis on which it can be maintained and sustained, and on a level which will enable other industries in turn to get on an economic basis.
  My hon. Friend made reference to the fact that we were giving coal away for export purposes. It is perfectly true

  601
  that in 1921, at the end of the March quarter, we were exporting coal for bunkers and cargo to the tune of 34,000,000 tons per annum, and it is also true that at the present time we are within 3,000,000 tons per annum of the 1914 export trade in coal. It is also true that the difference in price is between 56s. 2d. a ton in 1921 and 23s. 11d. average price at the present time. What has been the cause of that? My hon. Friend says that we are giving the coal away, and he wants us to maintain higher prices. It was only by the greatest sacrifice that we were able to get our markets back. It was only by sacrifice on the part of the miners and the coalowners that we were able to absorb into the industry in this country 300,000 men who would have been otherwise unemployed. Does my hon. Friend forget that?
  6.0 P.M.
  There was no market for our coal this time last year, but through the combined efforts of the two parties we have regained practically the whole of the trade that had been taken away from us, which we are only holding to-day in competition. When the terms of settlement are reached between the American miners and the American mineowners, we shall again be placed in a very serious position as regards competition. The hon. Member says that this is an artificial something put up by the coalowners as a threat to the miners. We have no threats to make to the miners. We do not want threats, but we must hold out the possibility of coal being sold in Europe from America for 35s. a. ton c.i.f. You cannot get away from that. We have to face it, and we have to look round and find what are the causes which keep the wages at this low level. Take railway rates. In South Wales the miner is producing within. 5 per cent. of 1914, although the number of men is less by 20,000. It is wonderful to see the spirit of co-operation, effort and endeavour put in by the men during the last five or six months. I only hope that it will continue. But we have to consider the prime factors in the cost of coal to-day which are operating against better wages in the mining industry. Take the railway charges. Before the War—and we are particularly hard hit in South Wales —the average in South Wales was about 1s. 6d. per ton; the average to-day is over 4s. What sacrifices have the railway
  602
  companies made comparable to the sacrifices which have been made by the coalowners?
  Sir F. BANBURY: They did not make the profits.
  Mr. GOULD: When they came to distribute the reserves of some of the companies interested in docks in coal mining districts, we find that the shares were pushed up 40 or 50 points. That procedure is still being maintained at the expense of the coal industry in this country. The right hon. Baronet may be able to throw some light on that matter. Not only have we got 4s. per ton charges on coal to-day, and this is for export only, but what about charges on coal for inland transport? We are faced with practically a stoppage of business in the iron and steel trades. They find that they cannot cut their coal costs any more. It takes nearly three tons of coal to make a ton of steel. We cannot expect the coal costs to come down. The only hope of relief we have is in a reduction of railway rates and charges. That does not involve on our part, and we do not ask it, any drastic cut in wages on the part of the railway men, but there has got to be a re-arrangement and a contribution on the part of the other industries similar to the contribution made by the coal owners and the coal miners.
  Take the South Wales industry alone. In five months we have lost 1,000,309 dissipated in reserves, to make up the cost of wages to the standard set by the agreement. Take the month of March alone. The results in that month, which make the basis of the wages for May, show that we lost £171,357. The actual proceeds of the sale in the industry only gave us the 1915 standard plus 16 per cent., and by the agreement we are compelled to pay the 1915 standard plus 28 per cent. In other words—and this I commend to the attention of my mining friends—if the miners had owned the whole of the South Wales pits in the month of March, they would have received less in wages by a sum of £171,000 on the total receipts which the industry brought. That is something which the advocates of nationalisation should remember. I am exceedingly sorry that so far no one on the Labour side has sought to discuss the various matters which at the present moment are causing dissatis-

  603
  faction and trouble in the coalfield from week to week and from day to day. In week-end speeches, and especially on May Day, we heard complaints of victimisation and other things that the coal-owners are doing, and I am sorry that while the Labour party have advocated a day for a discussion of this matter, they have not brought it up in this House. Therefore, I feel it my duty to deal with those matters and to point out exactly what we feel about it and what the truth of the situation is.
  I have given this matter very careful and, I think, impartial and fair consideration, and there is no doubt that it has got to be recognised in the first place that the mine owners are as much wrapped up in the prosperity of the industry as the miners themselves. There is no profit for us until they get a first charge upon the industry. We have sacrificed our profits. We see very little prospect, if we are going to maintain our export market, of increasing our profits to any considerable extent, and we feel that in competition it is essential for us to keep the cost of coal down to the lowest possible level. We do not want unduly to force prices, but we do agree that the great way in which we can improve wages is by further improving the conditions of production by stimulating the export and home markets, and by bringing about, through railway reductions and in other ways, a demand for a bigger consumption. In this way we can considerably increase the wages of the miner. One thing with which we have been brought very much M contact of late is the active agitation in South Wales for a further stoppage. It does seem to me that that agitation has two distinct objects. The first is to bring about conditions whereby those people who have left the Miners Federation through dissatisfaction with its methods should be forced to come back to the Federation, and the second is an attempt by a small section of people who do not want peace in the industry to discredit the agreement which is now in force.
  The agreement has never had a fair trial, though it comes up for revision in a short time. It came into force at a time when the markets of the world were completely gone from us, and in a period of great depression. Despite all the difficulties and obstacles with which we were
  604
  faced, and despite the fact that very few of the countries of the world had the money to buy our goods, they still took coal from us, and we have gone back to the position which we had in 1914. The agreement has worked very satisfactorily with very little profit to either side in a most difficult period. It may be modified by agreement between the two parties, but deliberately to seek to discredit an agreement which has never had a chance of working in normal conditions, is unfair and unjust, not only to the country, but to the miners themselves. I have studied this matter very closely, and it does seem to me that the real reason behind most of this agitation is that the South Wales Mining Federation in particular are more concerned about their domestic inside politics than about the condition of the coal industry. That is a charge which I must deliberately make, and which I am sure is borne out by the conditions with which we are confronted to-day, and in speech after speech made in the coalfields.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) is not here. Sometimes he lacks that sense of humour which is so essential, I think, to all of us. He pleads with the coal-owners on one hand to compel the nonunion men to come into the union, and he uses arguments in the coalfields to persuade the men to come in so that they can fight the coalowners. Do my hon. Friends think that they are going to get the sympathy of either on those grounds? While we are desirous of working in every possible way in peace and harmony, we cannot possibly be expected to place a full degree of reliance on the promises of a leader who on the one hand asks us to help his union, because it will make for harmony, and on the other hand goes to the men and says, "Join the union so that we can have a go at the coalowners." You cannot expect us in conditions like those to place full reliance on the words and promise of leaders, but while we are willing to do all we can, there must be a good spirit and fair play between both parties.
  I will try as briefly as possible to set out the charges with which we have to deal and which are being circulated today. The first charge brought against us is that the men's wages are below subsistence level. That I have more or less

  605
  dealt with. We admit without any dispute or argument that the index figure of the standard of living is considerably higher than the ratio of increase in the miners' wages since 1914, but that has been a matter of necessity, as I have already explained, and we were forced against our will to accept that position if we wanted to continue the operation of the mines at all. The effect has been to stabilise the industry and to enable us to re-absorb a large number of men who otherwise would have been thrown on the guardians of this country or otherwise forced to exist as best they can. I may read a passage which occurred in an article by Mr. Frank Hodges in the "Daily Dispatch" of 24th March. He said:
  "The price of coal can be reduced no more. In many districts the revenue from the sale of coal is absolutely inadequate even to provide a living wage for the men or a reasonable profit for the owners. The British coal trade has re-established itself in the markets of the world, but at a very terrible cost to those engaged in the trade."
  With that we agree, but we do not know how in present conditions we can alter that. If we put prices up to any extraordinary figure, we are going to lose trade. If we lost trade it means unemployment. On the other hand we do not see that we are getting the co-operation from the miners' leaders and my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. Thomas), whom I am glad to see here, could, I think, do far more than any other man in this country to bring about conditions which would be of assistance to the miners. There is no use in maintaining a false condition of prosperity in one industry while another industry is starving. The right hon. Gentleman can, in consultation and negotiation with the railway companies, assist considerably in reducing the railway cost and providing better conditions for the miners.
  Another point which has been raised from time to time, as one of the causes of trouble in the coalfields, is that the irregular reductions which take place in some collieries constitute a breach of the settlement. This is a very important matter. The base rate and the wage rate have been fixed by agreement, but it so happens in many cases that when the collieries are put into operation we find it impossible to keep those collieries going at the standard rates without involving
  606
  the proprietors in very serious loss. Every company is faced with two alternatives in those conditions—the alternative of shutting down and, practically, losing its capital, or carrying on until it becomes bankrupt. It has another alternative—to go direct to the men and say, "This is the condition. What are you going to do about it?" I do not know a single case on record in which the coalowners have enforced a standard of wages outside the terms of the agreement except with the consent of the miners' representatives themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I maintain that is so, and I am prepared to accept the proof of any hon. Member if he can give it. There has been no established case within my knowledge in which rates of pay have been fixed except by agreement. I am not going to say for one moment, that there are not many cases on record in which the standard wages have been reduced. I maintain that it is so, but I am prepared to accept proof to the contrary if it can be given. There has been no definitely established case within my knowledge where rates of pay have been fixed, except by agreement. I do not say that there have not been many cases on record where the standard wage has been reduced and where we refused to agree to the continuance of the minimum wage. You must remember that the coalowner, even in closing a mine, is brought face to face with one great difficulty. The closing of a mine and the maintenance of it closed involves a considerable outlay. If that outlay should exceed the total amount of the loss involved by carrying on, it makes it impossible of continuance. Many pits are being run to-day at a loss which is less than the amount that would be lost to the owners if they closed the pits. They are carrying on in the hope that, by agreement with the men and by development of the markets, they may be able to raise rates and improve conditions in the pit.
  Charges have been made that the standard of wages in some areas is below that of 1914. I can say definitely that in no case does that exist. There may have been reductions on the minimum wage. But you have to remember this: We have been compelled, through the interference of years of control, to add considerably to the number of men employed. The operation of the collieries during the time

  607
  of control was not in the hands of the owners or the men, and every time there was any possibility of dispute or trouble, or any question of under-manning, rather than go into the matter and fight it out, as it would have been fought out and settled in the old days, it was a case of "give way and put the men on." Now we are responsible for the operation of the mines, and after having had five or six years of lack of discipline, we are faced with resentment on the part of the men and disinclination to observe the ordinary discipline to which they agreed in 1914. It is true that when anything happens it falls upon the owners, but it must be admitted that if the mines are to be operated for the joint profit, as they are to-day, the owners must have the right to exercise control and discipline within their own pits.
  There is another matter affecting South Wales. There was a provision in the agreement for the payment of allowances where the wages were below the level of subsistence. That arrangement has been refused because we would not allow it to apply to the single men. We maintain that the single man without any responsibility, if he is earning the same wage as the married man, is infinitely better off than the married man with a family. There is no reason on earth why the position should have been made to apply to the single man and to operate against the married men. The married men were entitled to take it, but it was refused. There is another charge—that we have withdrawn many of the old privileges. What are they? The fact that we resisted a continuous attempt on the part of a large number of men, who found it, convenient during the period of control to work on the minimum wage. As far as I am aware, there has been no other privilege withdrawn from the men. There was a large number of people in the industry who thought it was much more desirable to work on the minimum wage, if it produced a satisfactory sum, rather than to go back to the proper terms of working and to apply the Minimum Wage Act as it was meant to be applied. The minimum wage provides for one thing only. It provides for the adequate payment of a man working in a place where, through no fault of his own, he cannot earn a satisfactory wage. I say to my hon. Friends who represent the miners. "You
  608
  have your own impartial tribunals to ad judicate as to any difference that may arise on the point. There is no reason why you should put forward an excuse to convince the public that the coalowners are endeavouring to break agreements."
  There is the question of victimisation. As to that I say there is no attempt on our part to victimise anyone. We are up against another awkward and difficult position. You say, "Why should these men not be employed, as they were employed in 1914, or 1918, or 1919?" The imperative necessities of economic life under present-day conditions make it incumbent upon us to have the right of selecting which men shall work. Every man must give a fair day's work for his wage. They are doing it; we admit that. But there are some who do not want to do that. We must have the right of selection, and if there is any victimisation, which I do not think is the case, it is because in some cases we have not taken men back to work, and the reason for that is that from experience we have known that they are not capable of giving the same amount of labour as their colleagues who are in work. We are accused of victimisation because we cannot absorb all the redundant labour of the coal fields. My hon. Friends of the Labour party do not tell the House or the country that 40 years ago out of every 100 men employed in the coal industry 60 were producing coal and only 40 were dead labour. Today, out of every 100 men, 35 men only are working on the coal faces and 65 are dependent for a livelihood on those 35. That is making a tremendous difference in the cost of production.
  Another charge against the coalowners, used for the purpose of discrediting this agreement, is that we are in league with the Ministry of Labour on the question of unemployment. It is being said of us that we are deliberately closing down pits in order to throw men back on the Ministry of Labour, and that the Ministry of Labour is refusing to grant allowances because the men are out of work on account of an industrial dispute. Nothing of the kind; it has never occurred to us at all. If we close down a pit, when compelled by circumstances, it is only because it is impossible to continue the operation of that pit without involving ourselves in a very heavy financial loss. If the men will not come to an agreement in these

  609
  circumstances we have absolutely no alternative but to close down, and, if the Ministry of Labour is taking up the point of view suggested, it is something entirely outside our knowledge and certainly not by agreement with any body of employers in the country. Having regard to the way in which this agreement has operated since last July, there is no intention on the part of the coalowners to do anything to destroy the spirit of it or to engender bad feeling between the men and themselves.
  In conclusion let me quote from Mr. Finlay Gibson's circular:
  "The general position in the mining industry itself is, as will have been seen, a much improved one compared with March, 1921. But there is still much to be achieved in the direction of lower costs, higher outputs and reduced rail and dock charges, before the industry can be restored to a sound, economic state, the wages of the men improved, and the industries of the country stimulated by a plentiful supply of coal."
  I commend that statement to members of the Labour party. The miners are not, we know, getting a wage comparable with that paid in other industries. They have been the first to feel the effects of economic circumstances. But so have the employers. It is not the wage that counts so much. It is the fact that you are not able, by circumstances of to-day and because other people have not made the same sacrifice that you have made, to get value for your money. That is the position. You have made your contribution and others are getting the benefit. The coalowners, too, have made their contribution It is up to this Committee to see whether in the coal trade we cannot bring to bear on other industries the same spirit of sacrifice, which will enable us to re-start and in the coal industry to gain the same relative value for money as we are giving others to-day.
  Mr. J. BROWN: We are very much indebted to the Secretary for Mines for the very kind things he says about us, and we gladly acknowledge his assistance and cooperation whenever he found it possible to give them. One hardly knows how to start on a subject like this, because some hon. Members who came here to curse have begun to bless the effort that the Labour party is making to call public attention to the awful state of the miners to-day. One can hardly help traversing ground already covered. But one cannot
  610
  reiterate too often that our men are suffering severe privation. We believe the public do not understand how our men are suffering, and many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House do not understand. The hon. Member who has just spoken talked about discipline and blamed us for lack of discipline. He said that we expected the same conditions to exist to-day as existed during the War, or rather he suggested that we resented going back to the old discipline of the days before the War. Does my hon. Friend understand why this was brought about? Does he remember that there was a War? Does he remember that, at least in the country of which I am speaking—Scotland—30 per cent. of our men went to the War voluntarily, that there was bound to be dislocation, that we were bound to take whatever material we could get, and that after the War there was hound to be a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction throughout the coal fields? He seems to forget that. We do not say that there should be any lack of discipline where discipline can be maintained, but what we want to focus the mind of the public on is the lamentable state of the men who are working in the coal mines to-day.
  Wales has already spoken. One jump over the border and Scotland is now speaking. The same story is true of Scotland as has been told of Wales. Our men there are not able to earn what keeps soul and body together. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) gave a very fine exposition of their grievance and told us a great many things which most of us who have been working with this agreement knew already, but what I am sure was information to many hon. Members. What we want to get back to is the question of how we are to better the conditions of our people. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) suggested we should have an inquiry. We do want an inquiry in order to bring out all the facts to understand exactly where we are. Let us understand exactly to what all this sacrifice, on the part of the miners, and on the part of the mine owners also in many instances, is leading. Is it going to do the country any good? It is certainly to-day putting our men in such a position that they would be far better with the unemployment benefit and infinitely better getting the parish council

  611
  dole. That is a position to which no industry should be brought. It is a position to which none of our people in this country, after standing together shoulder to shoulder and defeating the enemy, should be brought. We should not he in such a situation that our men are hopeless and without heart; that they do not know what is to be done; that they cannot exist; that their families are in starvation; that all their reserves are eaten up; and that they do not know to what side to turn for help.
  Some proposals will be expected from us to remedy this state of affairs. I am afraid in the time at my disposal I am unable to give very many proposals, but I ask the Committee this question. Why have the miners been dealt with in this manner? Everybody admits that this is a basic industry. Everybody admits that the welfare of the nation hangs on the welfare of the coal industry. We have been told that over and over again. Why, then, have the miners been asked to make all these sacrifices, when a little forethought, a little sympathy, and a few of the vast millions which the Government have spent otherwise would have assisted them very materially at the time the dislocation took place? I remember very vividly the closing days of March last year. I remember how we pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates, until the small hours of the morning, for some little assistance. On what did we base that plea? We based it on the fact that during many years of the War the miners were content to be controlled and to have their wages regulated by the cost of living. Anybody who lived in a coal district during those years of the War is bound to know that many of the men themselves said: "Why should we depart from our old Conciliation Board agreements and accept control?" There is no good in anybody telling me that they had to accept control. Everybody knows they had no need to accept it had they been possessed of less patriotism and greater desire to embarrass the Government. The result to the miners was that, while under the old Conciliation Board agreement they could have earned double the wages that they got under control, they accepted control. We had to withstand pressure from our men outside, who told us—and they were true
  612
  prophets—that when the time came no consideration would be given to the miners at all. They were absolutely right in that prophecy. We based our plea to the Secretary for Mines on the fact that we had given way, that we had dropped the old Conciliation Board agreements and accepted control by the Government, because of the necessities of the Empire. Having done so and having incidentally given the Government many hundreds of millions of pounds at the expense of the industry, we surely had a right to expect that some little consideration would be shown to us when the time came to show it.
  I am not pleading for subsidies. I believe, like the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould), that an industry must stand upon its own feet. Sooner or later, the industry decays that is not able to do so. We did not ask for subsidies, all we asked was that something should be given us to tide over the time until an agreement could be made mutually between the owners and ourselves. In the first instance, the owners used to say—I remember some of the bigger colliery owners saying it to meetings of their men and putting it into the public Press—that this was a gross breach of agreement on the part of the Government in relation to the mining industry of the country. That was said during the first few weeks of the trouble. Some of them say so still, but, unfortunately, they did not stand by us when the crisis came, to assist us to get over the difficulty. All we were asking for was some little return on the money which had accrued to the Government during the years of the War through our action. Some hon. Members think there was no breach of agreement at all. I ask them to cast their minds back to the occasion I refer to. Those who are in possession of the agreement know that we considered we could carry on, under it, up to the 31st August.
  Mr. GOULD: "Not later than" 31st August.
  Mr. BROWN: I concede to the hon. Member the words "Not later than." Everybody expected, and I am sure the hon. Member himself expected, that the agreement would he kept, up to the 31st August, but the Government suddenly found itself in a difficulty and said "Here is an opportunity. Here is one of the greatest organisations that the indus-

  613
  trial world has ever seen. They are numerically strong, they are strong in discipline, and they have large funds. We will attack the miner, and, when the miner is successfully dealt with, all other industries can be dealt with in turn." That, I believe, operated in the minds of some hon. and right hon. Members.
  Mr. HURD: A helpful speech, is it not?
  Mr. BROWN: Sometimes it does not help very much to refrain from stating the facts. If the Government even now are prepared to accept our view, we on our side will gladly accept their late repentance, and co-operate with them as far as lies in our power to bring about a better state of things. I would like my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd) to get out of his mind the idea that the officials of miners' trade unions want strikes. Owners who deal with us know we do not want strikes, because strikes do not pay anybody. We would rather settle our differences amicably round a table than go to the arbitrament of war, which is always disastrous, let it turn out how it may. We do not want that at all, and we do want to be helpful. I desire to utter another warning. I ask the Committee whether we are taking the right way to bring about stability in the coal trade? I have heard psychology talked about. Miners are peculiarly susceptible to psychological influences. When they discover all round them men working in other industries not receiving too much, but receiving only that which brings them up to the ordinary cost of living, yet receiving double what the miners are receiving—then, I can assure you, psychology begins to work, and something more than psychology. That is where the difficulty comes in. Everybody wants stability, but do you think you can get it while men consider themselves ill-treated and while they are ill-treated, because from its inception this was ill-treatment and a gross breach of faith. The hon. Member for Cardiff talked about the time coming when the coal trade would have an opportunity of going forward. Do you think it is reasonable to expect, if that time does come, that tens of thousands of men will forget the dire distress they are in to-day, and the manner in which they were met by the Government and by hon. Members of this House when they appealed for some
  614
  little sympathy and support. We are only courting disaster if we do not give them some of that sympathy and consideration which they have a right to expect from the British Parliament. If we do not give them that consideration, then I am afraid the future has not those rosy streaks in it that were depicted by the hon. Member for Cardiff.
  I appeal to the Secretary for Mines to make arrangements for this inquiry and to do so with an open and sympathetic mind—as I know he will—but I ask him also to try and influence his colleagues to give that sympathy which is necessary in this crisis. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Another Sankey Inquiry."] By no means. We were talking about royalties a few moments ago. What was the proposal regarding royalties? It was said: "You cannot have nationalisation but we will give you royalties. The nation will acquire the royalties and thus things will be helped a little bit further." Mr. Justice Sankey said, "We will give you this 2s. a day, not as an increase on the cost of living, but as an increase to bring the condition of the miner up to something like the average of the country." He saw at the inquiry all that had happened, and when you did not grant us nationalisation, as I always knew you would not without a very hard fight for it, you ought at least to have observed the other promises that were made and the other conditions that were given; you ought at least to have kept faith with us in regard to the mining rents and royalties of this country. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said they had not risen any. Well, they have not fallen any, and, as I understand it, in many districts they did rise considerably during the high price of coal. Royalties, like anything else, are now placed on a sliding scale.
  Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: That only applies to an infinitesimal percentage of royalties.
  Mr. BROWN: My hon. and gallant Friend surely was not listening to me. I did not say it applied to all. I would be very foolish to say that, knowing the facts as I do. I said in many cases; it may be more correct to say only in a few cases, but it is growing every day. I implore the Minister in charge to get his colleagues to assist him in getting this in-

  615
  quiry set up, if he wants any permanent stability in the coal trade and that peace and contentment that must come, if any industry is to be worked profitably and without dispute.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I understand the question before us is that of the salary and expenses of the Minister of Mines, and there are one or two points I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman which appear on the Vote. He gave us some account of what is being done in welfare work with the levy of a penny a ton on the whole of the output in the coal mines, a levy which is to be devoted to the welfare of the miners. Surely now it is time for us to consider whether we cannot properly and justly make some little alteration in the administration of that fund, for it seems to me rather pathetic that in districts like many in Lancashire, where the position of the miner at the present time is worse, I believe, than the position in the district of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Brown), who has just spoken—it seems to me rather absurd that we should be making parks and recreation grounds, and so on, when the men themselves can hardly find enough to keep themselves alive, and therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is possible to do it without legislation, to see whether he cannot make some arrangement by which the welfare fund might be applied otherwise.
  Mr. BROWNIs the hon. Member aware that that has been applied for in certain districts, and refused?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: That is exactly what I said. I said that if it can be done without legislation, if it can be done by any Order, by all means let us have it. It is rather absurd that men should be waiting for these benefits, which will only mature in the far future, when they themselves are in this sad plight to-day. The second point is this. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be too much impressed by certain questions which have been put to him in the last few weeks on the subject of shot-firing apparatus. We all know very well that it is very desirable that shot-firing should be carried out by the most modern methods; but do not let us press the right hon. Gentleman to commit himself, and his Department, and
  616
  every body in this country to certain specified forms of shot-firing plant. There are plenty of good and safe shot-firers to be obtained, and it is not in the interests of the industry, of the miners, or of the country as a whole that any monopoly should be given to any particular kind. Let us have free competition in the case of shot-firing apparatus, and then we shall get some invention of greater safety and utility than we have to-day.
  The third point is this—and here I am criticising an actual expenditure of the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman has said—and I think we all agree—that the Ministry has been extremely economical It has kept well within the amount that was estimated for its expenditure, but there is one item of that expenditure which I think many of us here can only pass with very great regret, indeed. The Ministry keeps, as one of its highest paid officials, what is termed a Labour Adviser to the Ministry. I ask the Committee, and especially those hon. Members who are engaged in the industry, if there is anything which that Labour Adviser can do in the Ministry that could not be equally well done by any miner's agent in the country or by any pay-clerk in any colliery. It is perfectly ludicrous to he paying a gigantic salary in these days to a right hon. gentleman, an admirable gentleman in every way, but a luxury which we cannot afford, and it is particularly incongruous in the case of a Ministry, which is so economical in every other way, as is the Ministry of Mines. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  There is one other point that I may address to hon. Members opposite which I think they might take into consideration, but I hope they will not think I am attempting to dictate in this matter. I hope hon. Members opposite representing miners' unions will consider whether it is desirable to insist at the present time upon the continuation of a seven-hours' day. I ask that particularly, because it is a matter that comes under my notice every week at the present time. In my own village at home, within a few hundred yards of my own cottage, there is a very large pit which has been shut down for many months past. The main reason why that pit cannot work at a profit is that the vast proportion of the available coal —and good coal too—is at such a distance

  617
  from the pit bottom that it is a practical impossibility to work that coal at a profit with a seven-hours' day. The only alternative to that would be to spend very large sums of money on the roads, so that men could be travelled under power at a high speed and in safety. I have gone carefully into the figures, and the capital expenditure involved would be such as completely to prevent, the working of the coal at a profit. Therefore, while I do not, as I say, wish to dictate, I do hope hon. Members representing miners' unions will take that into consideration, will examine cases in their own districts, and see whether it would not be desirable to press the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the necessary legislation to put aside for the time being the seven-hours' day. Many people—and I think they believed what they were saying—said that the seven-hours' day would result in a large diminution of the output, but, as a matter of actual fact, their fears have not been realised, and there is no question at all that the average output has not deteriorated to any large extent—only by a very small percentage—but the case I am putting is the case of a large number particularly of old pits that simply cannot be worked, because the men get coal at long distances away from the pit bottom, with only a seven-hours' clay. I make that suggestion to the hon. Members opposite for them to deal with.
  Mr. SUTTON: May I say that I know something of this colliery to which the hon. Member refers, because it comes under my jurisdiction, and when the workings were near the shaft this colliery has never paid for years and years, because the Manchester Corporation has prevented it from getting the best seams, so it is not the short working day that is responsible?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: What the hon. Member has said exactly proves my case. The coal which remains to be got is beyond the reservoir coal. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has suggested that the condition of the collier might be improved if the State were to take over royalties. I ask hon. Members to consider calmly whether it would make the faintest difference to the position of the colliers if the State took over the royalties or not. If they take them over,
  618
  they have got to issue Government stocks returning an equal income to the former royalty owners, with the result that things would be left exactly as they are at the present time. There might be a certain convenience in certain districts in having royalties all in the possession of one owner, but that is rather the exception than the rule.
  It is admitted, in spite of what the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) said, that on the average, throughout the whole of the districts, it is very probable that the miners' position is worse now than it was in 1914. In my own district it is much worse; possibly in some districts in the Midlands it is better; but, taking the whole of the districts of this country together, I feel that at the present time the position is probably worse now than in 1914, and it is quite possible that it may get a little worse still, but not much. We are faced with that position. It is no use hon. Members opposite—if I may say so with all due respect—painting us this picture of the privations of the colliers. We know it, and really it does touch us as much as it does them. I think the country as a whole knows it, at any rate, in the colliery districts. But the question before us is whether we can in this Debate in any way help to make that condition better. That is the whole question. Those districts that are suffering worse than any ethers are the districts where it is impossible to get rid of the inferior qualities of coal, the slacks and small coal, which, during the trade prosperity, when the cotton industry and the steel industry were on full time, could be got rid of with considerable ease and at reasonable prices. In my own county of Lancashire at the present time, and in some other counties, they have vast stocks of small coal and slacks which can hardly be sold at the very lowest prices. Cases have come to my notice in the last month where slacks have been offered at the pit mouth at half-a-crown a ton, and there have been no offers for them.
  The real reason of that is, as hon. Members opposite know, the depression in other trades. In Lancashire that position, so far as the cotton trade is concerned, is getting very much better at the present time. The cotton operatives, probably the most highly organised workers in this country, having leaders with a thorough appreciation of the economic facts under-

  619
  lying the present position, have made agreements and accepted cuts in wages of an enormous amount, and thereby the cotton trade is beginning to recover its prosperity. It will be a slow business, but they are on the right course. That, of course, has given an outlet for our slacks and inferior coals in Lancashire, and to a certain extent for the Yorkshire and Midland slacks and inferior coals, but the real trouble is the present condition of the shipbuilding industry and of the steel industry. Hon. Members opposite will correct me if I am wrong, but the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) painted a picture of East Scotland and the Fifcshire coalfield which was pathetic in the extreme, and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire painted a similar picture of West Scotland. The condition of the Fife coalfield and the Lothians is very much better than the position in West Scotland, I believe, and I take this to be the reason, that in the main it is the export trade of East. Scotland that saves the position there, and it is the depression in the shipbuilding and steel trades that makes the position in West Scotland so much worse than it is in East Scotland. Therefore, it is our duty—
  Mr. ADAMSON: We are earning exactly the same wages in East Scotland as they are in West Scotland.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes, but they are working more time.
  Mr. ADAMSON: No.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I will not put my views against those of the right hon. Gentleman, of course.
  Mr. ADAMSON: They are short working in East Scotland, just as in West Scotland.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I must, of course, accept the right hon. Member's explanation. At any rate, the industry is in a very bad position in West Scotland, and that very bad position is caused in the main by the extreme depression in the shipbuilding industry. There, again, to my mind, that depression—and here I must ask the attention of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas)— is due in a large degree to railway rates.
  620
  We have this position now in the Midlands, that rails, heavy sections, and steel bars are getting very nearly to pre-War prices. They have had to come to this because foreign competition from Belgium, and through Belgium from Germany, and it may be in future from France, forces dealers to sell at these very low prices. Upon a section now quoted at £10 10s. per ton, which is a low rate at present, some 20s. to 30s. is probably due to railway charges. It is a bitter thing to say, and I say it with no intention of scoring a point—because, after all, the state of the coal industry is such that it is no subject for debating points in this House, and the precarious position of the railway men, again, is such, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will bear me out in that, that it is no subject for debating points here—but owing very largely to his efforts, for which, I think, his followers may congratulate him, he has got his own men into a position of momentary security, a security which no other workers in the country have obtained. He has got their wages on a purely artificial basis, on a sliding scale which must endure for two years yet, and which is based on the cost of living. Owing to his exertions and pressure on the Government, he has got his followers into that delightful position, while the miners'—
  Mr. THOMAS: There was no pressure on the Government. The agreement to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was made with the railway general managers, without pressure or any interference on the part of the Government at all. In addition to that, over £1 has come off the railwaymen's wages in 15 months. Instead of condemning me, I think it ought to be appreciated that when I made the agreement everybody condemned me—employers, labour, and everybody. Surely, if I made a good agreement, you would not ask me to break it now.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman's followers might well congratulate themselves on his leadership, but I do not think that the followers of other hon. Gentlemen opposite can congratulate themselves. What is actually happening? I say, without any intention of hurting anyone's feelings, that it is a fact that part of the precarious position of the colliery at

  621
  the present time is due to the security of the railwaymen, and to nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby knows that. This is another example of what is commonly termed the solidarity of labour.
  The question is, what is to be done under these conditions. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould) gave us a number of examples of the difficulty in South Wales, but he did not point out that while in South Wales the average profits on steam coal have fallen from 1s. 2d. a ton to about 10d. a ton at pit bank, the average price free on board for steam coal has gone up to a very much greater extent than has been the fall in the profits. We find that the average difference between the price at the pit mouth and free on board now is 2s. more, than the difference between those two prices in 1913–14. What does that indicate? It is perfectly obvious that the coal shipper in Cardiff at the present time is not making more profit than in 1914, but that he is making less. These figures give an indication that at least 2s. a ton free on board is put on to this price by railway rates. I think that would be borne out in the case of the district of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. If he goes into the question of free on board prices at the ports, he will find the same condition of things, and that as soon as the coal gets on rail, 2s. a ton goes on to the price. It never used to go on to that extent.
  I am not exaggerating at all when I say the right hon. Member for Derby, by his extremely skilful settlement of the railwaymen's difficulty, has caused even greater difficulty for the unfortunate miner. The position this time last year was this—let us be quite open about it, we are friends here—that the miners were bringing great pressure to bear on the Government to cause them to tax the railwaymen, the transport workers, and the workers in every other industry to form a national pool and subsidy for the mining industry in order to keep up their wages to a reasonable level. Just at the critical moment, the railwaymen and transport workers began to understand what was in the wind, and were not having any. The position at the present day is exactly reversed. It is the railwaymen who are getting their own back on the miners at the present time. There, I take it, the
  622
  right hon. Member for Derby may congratulate himself that in statesmanship and in fitness to rule—perhaps not this Empire, but, at any rate, the industry in which he is concerned—he has shown himself enormously superior to the leaders of the, Miners' Federation.
  Mr. F. HALL: We listened just now to the usual lecture from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). When he was trying his very best to set one trade organisation against another many hon. Members opposite smiled at the conclusions he drew from the position in which we and the railway men are. I have no intention of replying to any suggestion the hon. Member has made, except to say that we take about as much notice of the lectures which he gives us as he takes of the arguments which the Labour party adduce from time to time. I have spent more than 15 years in the coal industry, and I claim to have some little knowledge of it. I am not one of the leaders referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould). Strikes I detest, and I am glad that so many hon. Members this afternoon have agreed in the statement that strikes or lock-outs are no good either to the trade and industry of this country or to the workmen themselves. My purpose in rising is to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Mines Department to what was probably an omission from the agreement with the miners, under which they are working at the present time. That agreement was made and signed by the two parties really interested in the matter and, if I may put it so, it was countersigned by the Government. The agreement, on the face of it, may have been perfectly fair. The miners accepted it and are working under it, with the result that the position in which they find themselves to-day is absolutely the worst that I can remember in all my personal experience. It has been said that a number of the districts are dawn as low as in 1914. I am glad to say that in Yorkshire we are not at that level at the present moment; but I am afraid we are getting very near it.
  That is not my complaint. It. is that the agreement did not contain words making it compulsory upon the owners to carry out the agreement as loyally as have the workers. There is nothing of that here. I heard one hon. Member

  623
  make a statement to the effect that no one had as yet been reduced below the basic rate of 1914. I can give the hon. Member a case or two in point, and I daresay that my hon. Friends from their district can quote him other instances. My complaint is that not only have the owners declined to carry out their part of the bargain, but the moment they have declined they have thrown open their pits. Directly the pits have been thrown open the workmen have found themselves unable to recover the unemployed benefit for which they have been paying, because of the decision of the Ministry of Labour. The statement I have just made applies to six large collieries in the county of Yorkshire, including one of the largest in the country. Reductions have taken place month after month, in accordance with the agreement, but, notwithstanding those reductions, the management of the various collieries have placed notices at the pithead stating that on and after a certain date the colliery will be closed. When that notice has expired the same management have said to the men, "If you will agree in some cases to 6d. a ton reduction from the basic rate of 1914, then the collieries can work." The men have refused to accept 6d. a ton reduction in the price, and the Ministry of Labour has said to them, "It is a trade dispute, and therefore we cannot pay," and to-day in Yorkshire these collieries are closed. Thousands of men are out of employment, and unable to get the unemployment benefit to which they are entitled, and for which they have paid. That is the point I want the Ministry to consider. The men have carried out their part of the agreement. They suffered the reductions, and they are prepared to work on with those reductions, but because they will not accept a further reduction in a tonnage rate which, in some instances, was fixed 30 years ago, they are not entitled to this benefit, according to the Ministry of Labour, although they have contributed to it while in employment. That is the position as it exists to-day in Yorkshire and in the whole coalfield.
  Let me give one other case. We have thousands of men still unemployed in the coal trade in Yorkshire, and if you are wanting output, surely employment can be found for them. I do hope that, whether or not it is by a revision of the
  624
  agreement, something will be done. The position is bad, and is getting worse day after day. Instead of having a good feeling existing between employers and employed, they are drifting further apart, and starvation is staring men as well as their families in the face. I would deplore it, but you can take it for granted that the last straw will break the camel's back, and, unless some inquiry be made, and some remedy suggested, there will be a stoppage, because there will be no alternative owing to the starving state of the people.
  Mr. R. McLAREN: In the course of the few remarks I wish to make, I do not desire to enter into the Debate that has gone on as to the profits of the owners, except to say that in my own district it is very appalling that the men just now are taking very poor wages, and I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff that if he and others like him were a little more human, I think the matter might very well be settled. It puts heart into a man if he knows the owner of the colliery has some sympathy with him, and does not want him to work for a wage which cannot sustain him. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman very heartily upon his very fine statement this afternoon. It must be satisfactory to the Committee that, so far as he is concerned in his Department, he is trying his best to economise, and I would like to suggest, following upon the hint of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), that perhaps he might economise in another way in connection with the Labour Adviser. I have never been able to see what is the good of a Labour Adviser in the Mines Department, and I hope next year the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that he has done away with that office.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the question of quarterly statements. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman really is aware of the extra work which is entailed upon the clerical people at collieries to compile these quarterly statements; and, after all, what good does it do? It was quite enough in times gone by to give a statement every year, and it was looked upon as a statement of some value; but there is very little value in a statement given quarterly. The right hon. Gentleman said something

  625
  about the Welfare Committee. Scotland has led the van, as it always does, in some of these schemes. It has had a sanatorium for some years for miners in South Ayrshire. With regard to the experimental stations, I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman meant stations where experiments were to be made in connection with coal-dust. Many years ago large experiments were made in Yorkshire in regard to coal-dust. After those experiments were made, I took the opportunity of making some in Scotland in connection with stone-dust mixed with coal-dust to see what proportion would be proper to keep down explosions of coal-dust.
  I hope in these experiments the right hon. Gentleman will go a bit further in this matter, and find out if anything can be done to stop the deplorable accidents which occur in some of the English and Welsh mines, but especially I would ask him to see that in these experiments the question of explosion by blasting should be fully gone into. There are very many cases where explosions by blasting might be very well prevented and on this question of safety appliances for shot-firing, I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mossley was a very wise one. I think before any safety appliance is recommended, the Mines Department ought to satisfy themselves entirely that the appliance to be given to the miners for shot-firing is one to be depended upon, and to give real safety. He might also make experiments into the important subject of fires by spontaneous combustion underground. There is nothing underground, I think, more deplorable than spontaneous combustion, where fire begins in a coal seam, and gas is given off, and men very often are gassed before they are aware. Very much good might be done in that respect by experimental stations.
  Much has been said lately on the question of lamps. My hon. Friend opposite talked about oil safety lamps and electric lamps. So far as Scotland is concerned, we have few cases indeed of nystagmus. I have examined many men for it, and only found one or two cases in Scotland. The reason is that we use open oil lamps. As to the electric lamp, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to find some means by which the miner may see the condition of the atmosphere in which he works. I believe there is now an invention whereby, through the ring-
  626
  ing of a bell in connection with an instrument, you can tell how much fire-damp is present. Many years ago I myself helped largely to get an instrument which gave the same results, but, unfortunately, it was too delicate, and there is no use in giving miners a delicate instrument underground, especially in connection with a safety lamp. In that matter, therefore, I think it would be a good thing if you could find out some method of attaching some sort of instrument to the side of the electric lamp, so that the miner could discover whether the atmosphere was safe.
  I wish to speak also on the matter of the Mines Department from one or two points of view, first of all upon administration. It may interest the Committee to know that in respect to mining legislation since 1872, no less than 15 Acts have been passed dealing directly or indirectly with mining matters, and when it is realised that every Act means some new regulation, it means the keeping back of development work very often. Many of the regulations seem to be very uncertain, and I speak not only for the mine managers and the owners, but also for the men in this matter. At the present time, under the sanitary regulations, sanitary pails must be put at certain parts of the mines, and the miner very often must either go a long distance to those parts which he finds he cannot reach in time to relieve himself. It is an absurd regulation which is not, and cannot be, strictly carried out. I can remember the time when there was the scare about ankylostomiasis, the miner's worm disease, and men were told that they must see that everything was dry around them before relieving themselves. That was an utter impossibility. There is also the case of shot-firing. Working with a naked light, if a man bores a hole he must wait for a fireman to give him a detonator to put into the hole, and often time is wasted and the man does not get the output he would otherwise. In olden times the man found his own detonator, which he kept in a locked box apart from other explosives, and he could take it when he wanted it. There are other things in connection with the Mines which seem to show that many of these regulations are absurd and useless.
  The question of prices has been raised to-day. Having gone into the matter recently, I find that coal to-day costs at least four to five shillings

  627
  a ton more than it otherwise would, owing to the legislation for mines.
  This is a very serious matter indeed, and one which. I think ought to be considered. I quite admit that it is not possible to carry on the mines without considerations of safety, but I go to this length, and say that a very large number of the mining Acts of Parliament had better be scrapped, and only those Acts concerned with questions of safety and health brought into operation. Time was, many years ago, when the inspectors of mines connected with the administration of the Acts were allowed some latitude in reference to the questions submitted to them and I think that ought to be so now. They were looked upon in those days as officers certainly, but helpful ones, and in many cases they helped the management very considerably. How does the thing stand now? If there is anything in a mine which an inspector has to go into, no inspector dare suggest to the manager how best to remedy the matter. He must first consult the authorities in London. The old relationship seems to have gone. I trust something will be done to bring back something like the old times when the inspectors instead of being looked upon as policemen and inspectors, were looked upon as the friends alike of the owners, managers, and workmen; when their advice was sought and given, and I feel sure will be given again.
  Take, next, the question of the death-rate. We all want to find out some means of reducing accidents in mines, and it ought to be the object not only of the managers and the owners, but of every miner as well to help in this matter. I am glad my right hon. Friend in the course of his observations went into a certain idea in this connection similar to what struck me some time ago as to the best method of finding out exactly what is the death-rate. The method employed hitherto has been a most ineffective method. We can never get to know exactly the number of persons employed and the figures as to death-rate are misleading to the public. I have taken the trouble to look into the figures for the last ten years, and I find that for 1903–12 that the death-rate per thousand was 1·33, while in 1920 it showed a reduction of 33 per cent. But when we come to look at the question of output in relation to the death-rate, we find that whereas the
  628
  output in 1903–12 was 213,000 tons, in 1910 it was 222,000 tons. In the one case you get a reduction of 33 per cent., whereas in the case of the output per person killed you only get a reduction of 4½ per cent. Surely there is something wrong in these figures. One can note the difference between the two points. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the new method of finding out the death-rate per man per shift.
  On the question of economy there is an important matter to put before the House. While I quite admit that much has been done in the way of economy in connection with the Mines Department, I think a great deal more might be done. I have been looking into the question of the inspectorate. What is the case now and what was the case some years ago? I find that in 1908, before the new scheme of divisional inspectors came into operation, there were 42 inspectors of mining, whose salaries were £33,000, with clerical assistance costing £3,730. In 1909 there were the same number of inspectors, and practically the same amount paid for them, for travelling expenses, and for clerical assistance. In 1910 salaries had been raised somewhat, while in 1920–21–22 we have increased the number of inspectors to 93, while salaries and travelling expenses amounted to—salaries alone—237,727 (bonus not included), while expenses for travelling came to £24,550. The main comparison is between £64,000 odd now and £33,000 odd in 1909. What does that mean? If there had been more inspections I could have understood the difference, or if we had got double inspections. But one thing I do know is that the divisional inspectors are not able to get down the mines as they used to do, and I say it would be far better to go back to the old system.
  I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman a case which came before me recently, and which I trust he will look into. When the Act of 1911 was passed it was stated in one of the Clauses that before any man could undertake a survey underground he must have a certificate that he was qualified so to do. What was done in the case of the 1872 Act was that managers were given the power to make underground surveys. In the case to which I refer a gentleman had had 15 years' experience in connection with surveying, and he made application at the end of 1918 to get his certificate endorsed.

  629
  He was unable to produce all his certificates, but produced all but one. Of this one he produced a copy. Time was going on, and the time of the application is limited in the Act of 1918. Subsequently the time had gone, and he did not get his certificate endorsed. Since then he has got an appointment in connection with surveying, but he cannot take up that position because his certificate has not been endorsed. It is quite true the inspector looked into the matter, and was not satisfied that he had all the certificates, but I am glad to say that since that time the proof has been got and the old certificate found. Application has been made to the Mines Department for the endorsement of this man's certificate, and in view of all the circumstances I think perhaps a point might be stretched so that this man may be allowed to take up his appointment. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, whose many kindnesses in connection with miners we all know, to look into this matter.
  Mr. CASEY: I want to deal with one or two matters suggested by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Armitage), who I am sorry is not now in his place. He suggested to the Secretary for Mines that it would be a good thing for the coal industry that the winding enginemen should undergo a compulsory medical examination and that there should be an age limit set for them. I should have been very interested to hear the reasons for those suggestions. The hon. Gentleman moreover gave no reasons whatever to support the suggestion that this course should be taken. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the. Secretary for Mines stating at the conclusion of his admirable speech that he hoped that in the immediate future there would be peace and harmony in the coal industry. Everyone, of course, hopes the same, but I can imagine nothing worse or that would create more unrest and bring about a definite stoppage of the coal industry than for these two suggestions to which I have referred to be put into operation. What do they mean? I know there are several managers in the country who are considering about putting that kind of thing into operation. As the only representative of the winding enginemen in this House I strongly protest against any suggestion of the sort, for it would take these appointments
  630
  out of the hands of the colliery managers also their rights to decide as to who they shall put in as winding enginemen, and would put this power into the hands of the medical profession.
  Under present circumstances the managers of the collieries are most careful and very considerate in their selection of these men. In fact I am sure hon. Members opposite, and particularly those representing mining, will agree with me when I say that we have not a finer, more steady, or more respectable class of men in the whole of the country than the winding enginemen. I could understand the suggestion of the hon. Member if there had been cases of serious and fatal accident resulting from physical inability and old age of the engine winders. As a matter of fact, the surprise of all who understand anything of the responsibility of these men is that we have so few accidents. There is no body of men in the country who have a greater responsibility, and who have the miners' lives in their hands, more than the winding enginemen, and yet who have so few fatal accidents. I understand that the hon. Member suggested that the colliery owners should agree to a time-limit when they should scrap these men. If they were at the same time provided with substantial superannuation pay there might be something in it. But, after having got the steel out of them in past services, it is not a happy thought that these men should be thrown upon the scrap heap. In the interests of those men who have taken the men up and down the shaft, and as a winder of more than twenty years' experience, I say that the best and most safe winders are not necessarily the young men, but men of middle age and men whom some would call of advanced age. They are the most reliable and are experienced and take less risks. Therefore I trust the Secretary for Mines will never undertake to bring forward the suggestion that there should be a medical examination or that there should be an age-limit. I would challenge any hon. Member to bring forward a single case where there has been any serious accident resulting from physical disability on the part of an engine winder, or because of old age. If, therefore, there is no record of any injury or accident arising from that, surely there is no reason whatever why a suggestion of this sort should be put forward.

  631
  I want to say another word in regard to over-winding. I have pointed out on previous occasions that the winding law makes it compulsory that a winding apparatus should be put on the winding engines where shafts are more than 100 feet in depth. I know that there is some over-winding apparatus that is absolutely of no use whatever. It is either not adjusted or neglected, and is seldom tested. I urge upon the Minister in charge of this Vote the necessity of the inspectors being given definite instructions to see that these machines are tested. We should not trust merely to the winding engine man, but we should put some trust in the over-winding apparatus to prevent accidents.
  Quite a number of our over-winding arrangements are not set right and they are of no use for preventing accidents. Moreover, there are collieries where the managers refuse to allow a test to be made of these machines simply because they say the whole winding machinery is so delicate and weak that it would not stand a sudden application of the brake power. If the drum sides will not stand a sudden application of this apparatus to prevent serious accidents to life and limb, then the machinery ought to be scrapped. I submit that a definite inspection should be made of these machines, and that the inspector should be allowed to go where he likes and tell the engine man to put on the brake while he was running in the shaft. In some cases they would find that unless the engine man takes control the winding apparatus will not pull up the engine.
  There are more than 50 per cent. of the collieries of this country fitted with inefficient visual signal machines. There are machines for this purpose which are efficient, and yet so long as the colliery company puts in one kind of machine that seems to meet the requirements of the law. It is the same with the over-winding apparatus. There are efficient machines capable of doing the work, the use of which makes it impossible for an over-winding accident to take place, but they must be properly adjusted and attended to. I remember on a previous occasion I was told that the responsibility rested with the managers and engineers to see that these machines are kept in order.
  632
  I am aware that the engineer has to sign the books, but, as a matter of fact, there are times when he cannot see them from one week-end to another. I suggest that a test should be made of every machine in every colliery, so that the men who have to risk their lives and trust the man in charge of the winding machine should have full confidence that there is a trustworthy arrangement to prevent over-winding. I think this should be inquired into, not only in the interest of the winding engine men, but also for the sake of the men who travel up and down the shaft, and we should know the result of such investigations. Such tests should be made regularly in every colliery in the country. That would give a great deal more confidence to the men who have to travel up and down the shaft, and it would enhance the high tradition of the Home Office for doing everything it can to give security for life and limb in the mining industry.
  Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: This Debate has taken a very interesting turn, and some very good practical suggestions have been made. Those of us on this side of the Committee who represent the miners feel that the men are suffering intense poverty through no fault of their own. At the present time the miners are working under an agreement which the Prime Minister described as the greatest profit-sharing scheme the world has ever seen. We look back with very little satisfaction to the application of this agreement to the people concerned, and it has not done what it was expected to do. It has not brought any satisfaction to the workers connected with that particular industry. On the contrary, we find that our people are getting deeper and deeper into poverty. They are not receiving any help, and there is very little hope of their position improving. While the discussion has been going on I have been wondering whether by airing the circumstances of the miner's life we shall do anything which will tend to improve their condition.
  Looking back to the agreement, we must realise that we cannot live on past regrets, but we must try and make things brighter for the future, and although we have passed through a very hard time we must nevertheless do all we possibly can to obtain a higher standard of life in order to make the lot of these men tolerable. Heavy reductions of wages have

  633
  reduced our people to a very low state of life. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) suggested in this Debate that the profits of the industry are not apportioned between employers and employed as they should be, and therefore we are not getting that measure of satisfaction which ought to be given to both sides of the industry. He pointed out that the bigger wage bill always means greater profits to employers, and not necessarily higher wages, because a larger number of people employed at a lower rate would bring the same result. As a result of this agreement, the confidence between employers and workmen is not very great, and feeling is rather embittered.
  The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) stated that there was no desire to reduce the standard of living below the level of subsistence for the ordinary workers, but when they are living below the poverty line it is not expected that they can be physically fit to perform the task which they have to perform. The hon. Member for Cardiff also made a great point about coal being sold at the lowest possible price, and he said that prices had tumbled down during the last 12 months with great rapidity. I would like to have asked the hon. Member why the cost of materials in the industry has not also tumbled clown in the same way, because such materials still maintain a high level though market prices have fallen very much. So long as the selling price of coal in the market is weakening, we find rather a tightening than a weakening in the cost of the materials and commodities required in the industry.
  We find also a great disparity existing between the rates of wages and the cost of living. One of our highest authorities says that the average difference over the whole of the mining community, taking into consideration the cost of living and the reduction of wages, as compared with 1914, is something like 60 per cent. I am not prepared to argue that, but it is sufficient to know that our people are now very considerably worse off than ever they have been since 1914, and for a long time before that year. We have also to look at this fact that a large number of our people are very badly off, and many of them have never worked since the great stoppage in March, 1921. The cost of living now stands at 81 per cent. over 1914, whilst in Lancashire wages stand
  634
  at about 42 per cent. over what they were in 1914. We find there are some people who have never had an opportunity of being employed since the strike, and as a consequence their families are now in the deepest depths of poverty.
  It would be wise for us to look for a moment or two at the number of people employed in this industry during the last two years, because it is only by making comparisons of this kind that we are able to realise what is going on. In the December quarter of 1921 there were 1,206,215 persons employed as compared with the 1,062,400 in the December quarter of 1921, showing a decrease of 143,815. In the quarter ending March, 1921, there were employed 1,213,204, the number in 1921 being 1,070,000, showing a decrease of 143,204. This shows that there are a large number of people unemployed. Probably they are people who have spent the whole of their lives in the mining industry and people who have always been willing to undertake any kind of labour they are able to get.
  8.0 P.m.
  At the same time we find that the number of people working in and about the mines receiving unemployment. benefit from the State at the end of March were 107,327, which leaves a margin of nearly 36,000 people who are unemployed in connection with the mining industry who are not receiving any benefits from the State. This may have been brought about by many causes. One of the causes has been mentioned this afternoon, and that is the high-handed manner in which some of the managers of collieries perform their work. They do not show either sympathy with or confidence in the workmen in their dire necessity, and, as a consequence, we find the breach is widening, and widening very quickly indeed. I will now pass on to the outlook. The hon. Member for Cardiff believes that the men in South Wales have done better in the last six months than ever before. If we take the first two months of this year we shall find that the output for those months is approximately 230 tons per person employed, and in one month the output actually exceeded the output per person employed in 1913, although they only worked seven hours as against eight hours per day. The hon. Member for Mosley suggested that the miners should go back to the eight-hour day, but while we find that a sufficient

  635
  output can be maintained comparable with the period when eight hours a day was worked, I do not see any need to raise the question of going back to the eight-hour day. The output is gradually increasing, and has been doing so for several months, notwithstanding the decrease in the number of people employed.
  The hon. Member who spoke last referred to fatal accidents in mines. That is one of our chief points. We say that the well-being of our people should be the first consideration. Not only in regard to the mining industry but in regard to workers in any industry that ought to be our first care. We find that per 1,000 people employed in 1919 the average number of fatal accidents in coalmines was ·94, in 1920 it was ·88, in the first quarter of 1921 it was ·76, in the last quarter of 1921 it was ·96, and in the first quarter of 1922 it was ·93. Speaking generally, the Mines Department has really little to take great credit for on the ground that the rate of fatal accidents is going down. It is not falling as it should do, bearing in mind the great advance made by science and the great research work which has been going on in recent years, work which ought materially to have reduced the rate of accidents. We do not, however, find much improvement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff speaks strongly about the export trade. The export trade certainly has gone up. We do not doubt that; but if the exports are carefully examined it will be found that many countries, which were our best customers before the War, are now taking no coal from us. While the export trade is improving all round, and very rapidly so, it is up to us to do all we possibly can to get back the trade of our former customers, with a view to improving our position in the markets of the world.
  While this is taking place, it is not really bringing any employment for the men who are day after day to be seen walking about the streets. Anyone passing through a mining constituency or a mining district will see large numbers of these people still unable to find employment, their condition being one of physical deterioration. That is one of the things we want to stop. We want an appreciable improvement in the condition of our working men. We want to
  636
  feel that they are not being physically depreciated, so that when trade increases and they get their opportunity they will have the power to fulfil the arduous functions which coal-mining entails. Today they are living in poverty. Many have no wages and others are working short time. I think I am justified in saying that nearly one-third of the minces in Lancashire to-day are taking home less than an average wage of 30s. per week. No Member of this House will suggest that that is anything like a sufficient wage, and while they have to live on such a miserable pittance we can only expect physical deterioration, not only in the parents, but in the children who are attending the elementary day schools.
  In the light of all these hard circumstances, we do not find that employers are showing that sympathy towards the men which ought to be shown. Some of them are quite harsh. Why they sould be, I do not know. Their interests are to a large extent bound up with those of the miners in the industry. They are doing better than the miners, but. we find that they are treating their employés harshly. That is one of the things which is making for less confidence between employer and employed and bringing about the growth of a very ugly spirit in the men. One of the speakers this afternoon suggested that there was likely to come an outburst. There will be. an outburst, unless something is done to relieve the present position. I would like to quote one case in order to confirm the statement I have just made. As a miners' official during last week I had cause to visit a colliery where the managing director had posted up a notice to close the colliery the following Friday. I met him on the Wednesday with a deputation of the men. He never stated why he was closing down the colliery. I wired him from hero asking him to give me another meeting. I met the men and I found he wanted 8¼d. per ton reduction in the coal-getting price. That is a very considerable reduction. I told him I was not prepared to come to any agreement at all, but would meet my men and report to him later. I asked him for another meeting and he promised to give me either Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday this week. I had a meeting with the men on Monday. They would not agree to accept the price he offered. I went to the colliery on Tuesday morning and told the manager that

  637
  the men could not see their way to accept the price which had been offered them by the managing director. That did not preclude a re-opening of the negotiations or considering a fresh offer, or making suggestions. Of course, the manager had no power to do anything, but I asked him to let me know as early as possible because, I wanted to meet the managing director on other questions. Yesterday morning I received the following telegram:
  "My manager informs me result of meeting. Regret cannot arrange meeting for Friday. Matter closed and mine will stop after Friday next.
  (Signed) Managing Director."
  That is one of the influences which is bringing about the cleavage and destroying that goodwill of which so much was said when the miners went to the assistance of their country in such large numbers to fight its battles. When they come back they are faced with difficulties like this. Is it, a matter for surprise that they should become Bolshevists or Communists or something of that kind? Why, the very seeds are being sown in their nature for such development by the treatment which they are receiving at the hands of employers, and that treatment is making these men unmanageable from any point of view. I should like to urge upon every Member of this House and upon every coalowner in the House the desirability of being as sympathetic as possible with the men and of giving them fair conditions of employment. After all, if we are not going to live together in amity we are going to live at variance. The men have been struggling on from year to year and if there is a desire to bring goodwill into the industry it is up to the right hon. Gentleman's Department to do something to tell employers, if they are not treating their workmen as they ought to do, and likewise if it is found that the workmen are not treating their employers as they should do, then the right hon. Gentleman should interfere. Something must be done to relieve the poverty which is existing among our people and to enable them to live a life worth living.
  Mr. ACLAND: In the few minutes left to me before, by arrangement, hon. Members pass on to another subject, I want to say a word or two about the present position in the Cornish tin-mining fields. As the Committee knows, the miners there
  638
  have had to learn an even more difficult lesson than that which the coalminers unfortunately are now learning in many parts of the coalmining industry. The Cornish mines depend for their success on the price both of coal and of tin. There is terrible destitution in the industry, but it is being borne with patience and endurance. Up to the present there is very little sign of a revival in the industry on which so many thousands of families depend for their livelihood. Within the last few days a ray of light has descended into the tin-mining fields because the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee have granted a small sum to South Crofty mine. I want to ask my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply on this Vote, to make a short statement as to what the position is likely to be in the future. The policy of the Advisory Committee I have referred to has been, I think, to try and get the mining interests down there to do something in the nature of pooling their interests, and working some scheme of joint management with the joint use of power and of pumping arrangements. I think from the point of view of the Government that policy has a good deal to recommend it, because clearly, if they can get the mines working on one scheme, it will not be possible for any particular mine to go to the Government and say, "You have the wrong scheme, ours is a mine on which you ought to have tried your policy." I am afraid, however, that not much has been done to bring the different interests together for a common policy. Still, now that this grant has been made to one of the mines individually, I want to ask what it means, and if other mines may also hope to get grants from the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee. I want to ask particularly, is there any hope for the proposition of which my hon. Friend must have heard a good deal and which seems to depend for its success on the price of tin coming back to something like £200 per ton. There is general agreement that the mines could be worked profitably if that were to happen. But there does not seem to be very much hope that it is happening. I know my hon. Friend sympathises with these miners and is doing all he can on their behalf. I trust, therefore, he will fell us what the position is with regard to the policy of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee and whether they have temporarily,

  639
  at any rate, abandoned their idea of trying to get the mines to pool their arrangements and their management. Is it proposed that the grants shall depend on the price of tin which I have mentioned being reached, and is there any sort of hope for the mines? A statement from my right hon. Friend would clear the air, at any rate. It is better to face the ills you have than to have a quite indefinite future, and not know where you are.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    JARROW EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL. (By ORDER.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
    In moving this Amendment I am placed in a very difficult position, for, with myself, no Member of this House has any knowledge of what Jarrow would have to say for itself if it had to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Even the Minister of Health does not know anything of the interests at stake in connection with this Measure, for Jarrow has taken care—because, I believe, of its very bad case—not to proceed by Provisional Order, but to proceed by Bill. Therefore, whatever may be the decision of the House on this question, at least the Minister of Health must not be held to be to blame. I consider this Bill to be a very stupid thing, for there is no community of interest whatever between Jarrow itself and the outlying population. The borough of Jarrow covers some 780 acres, and it sets out to incorporate an additional area of 4,354 acres. It is, therefore, practically seeking to make its area five times greater than it is. Jarrow is the execration of all the surrounding areas. One might hear some stories of
    640
    what the people round about Jarrow think of it. Indeed, if by any chance two people fall out, and the one is desirous of sending his opponent to a place where the punishment would be of the most severe character, the exclamation is, "Gan to Jarrow!" Jarrow has done nothing whatever even for itself. It has neither tram nor water nor gas nor any sort of amenity to offer to any people outside its bounds. Between Jarrow and the outlying districts there is no communication whatever, except some very bad roads. If any borough has done anything for those outlying districts, it is the borough of South Shields.
    I object to the Second Reading of this Bill also because of what it is going to cost those other districts in fighting it upstairs. Last year, the South Shields Rural District Council, which forms part of my division, were put to an expense amounting to £4,000 in fighting South Shields, which was then seeking extension, and, on account of the high rates and unemployment, they perforce had to come to the Minister of Health and beg to be allowed to borrow money for the purpose of fighting that Bill. If this Bill goes upstairs, we shall again be taxed to the tune, probably, of £3,000; while another borough, the Borough of Sunderland, is threatening to make incursions into the area next year. I feel sure that the House will have sympathy with these rural district councils. I further object to the Bill because there are so many petitions against it, and, indeed, I shall be more than surprised if a solitary voice is raised in this House in favour of Jarrow to-night. I do not think that any hon. Member who knows Jarrow as we know it would come to this House and state that Jarrow had any claim whatever to any further extension of its boundaries. Let Jarrow legislate so that it may make its town fit for decent people, not to live in, but to walk through. When they have commenced to do that they will have some claim to seek to extend outside.
    I know that they have now dropped, or say they have dropped, the inclusion of the urban district council of Hebburn, but they have taken pretty good care to say in their message to their opponents that it is only for this Session. There will be no need even for that, because if they get what they are asking under

    641
    this Bill, as their proposal now stands, Hebburn would be forced to go to Jarrow. On the one side you have the river Tyne, and for Hebburn the only road out is back to the parish of Monkton; and they seek to take all the land of Monkton bordering on Jarrow and Hebburn right up to the Felling Rural District Council border. If they, get what they are now seeking, Hebburn will be completely hemmed in, and, for the sake of its future, it will have to go to Jarrow, because there is no other road out. It therefore makes little difference to the position of the Hebburn people whether they are dropped now or not, if Jarrow is allowed to do exactly what it seeks to do under this Bill. I remember that in the discussion on the Leeds and Bradford Bill the other night, the House was reminded that any extension of borough boundaries ought to be in accordance with the will of the people whom it is sought to incorporate. In the case of Liverpool, that was the finding of the Committee, and also, quite recently, in the case of Birkenhead. On that basis, what hope is there for Jarrow? In the parish of Monkton 97 per cent. of the people have voted dead against any part of their area being included in the borough of Jarrow. Every soul in Hebburn and in Boldon Colliery have declared their intention that no part of their area shall go in. Four thousand of the inhabitants of Hebburn itself voted against any inclusion in the borough of Jarrow, and only seven voters in Hebburn whom they approached were willing to go inside Therefore we may take it that at least 99 per cent. of the people whom it was sought to include within the boundaries of Jarrow in February last absolutely refused to have anything to do with it. On that ground we claim that we have a very strong case. As I have said, there is no community of interests whatever. The property in Jarrow is not fit to be set beside some of the property in these outside places. In Boldon Colliery, for instance, the business premises are vastly superior to thoes in Jarrow, and yet they are seeking to take away the only hobby that some people have of trying to be consistent in administering their own affairs. If these people get their way Monkton, Hebburn and Boldon will become but units of Jarrow, and we are asking, in the interests of good government, that
    642
    every inducement ought to be given to people to manage their own affairs in their own locality. In 1888, rightly or wrongly, Parliament passed an Act giving county government. The counties have done their best to carry it out faithfully and well, and have done everything in their power to redress matters and to make the land fit for people to live in. It is not in my judgment for development that Jarrow is seeking to take any of these additional areas. It is purely a case of grab, and of taking away from other areas the right and the opportunity of doing something for themselves. Jarrow has a rateable value of £141,00, equal to £3 19s. 7¾d. per head. Hebburn has a rateable value of £113,000, or £4 13s. 6d. per head, and Monkton a rateable value of nearly £44,000, but it is worth £31 16s. 8d. per head, so that you can see well enough why Jarrow is coming along. They propose to take away from Monkton to the extent of £24 15s. per head of its present population for what they are seeking to give them. That would be a very serious matter, not only for the South Shields rural district council, but indeed for the Durham County Council. Surely county government is difficult enough without taking away practically the only source of income that they have. Boroughs seem to think that when rateable value has accrued on their borders it is their business to go and seek it and get it at the expense of county government.
    There are other people who are very deeply opposed to this Bill going through. In Hebburn they have petitioned against it, and I will quote some of their words:
    "The increased financial burden will inevitably seriously handicap your petitioners in carrying on their industry and in developing their property, and may entirely arrest the extension of their works and the development of their property. So heavy will the additional rates and other financial burdens be that the inclusion of Hebburn within the Borough of Jarrow will make all the difference as to whether your petitioners can continue to carry on their present industry."
    That in these days is a very servious matter. Surely there is enough unemployment without adding anything to it by Bills like this. One has a right to respect what they say and, if this is true, the House should pause and think twice before they give any sort of help to the people of Jarrow in what they are seeking. I

    643
    plead with the House that this is not the time for these Bills. The rates are heavy enough. Five years from now Jarrow will be in no worse position than it is in to-day. Jarrow has never attempted to make itself a borough worthy of the name of a borough. Its object is to incorporate and force Hebburn in with a view to becoming a county borough. We have it all here. Notices have been sent out to people to attend meetings from the County Borough Committee, so we can be quite sure that they are seeking aggrandisement in the belief that a county borough is something greater than an ordinary borough. Let me advise Jarrow to do something more with the borough they have to make it a place which it will be safe for people to go to. Let them cleanse Jarrow. When they have done it I feel sure the opposition I am offering to-day will be very modified.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think my hon. Friend has shown, and it will be borne out by the facts, that this attempt to extend the boundaries of Jarrow is not based on civic grounds, but rather on the ground of financial importance to Jarrow itself. We labour under very great difficulty because we do not know exactly what the present position is, except in so far as we know that Jarrow intends, whatever modification there has been in its original proposals, to hold to that part of its proposal in which there are going to be industrial ventures which will effect them financially. Originally they proposed to take in Hebburn, Boldon and Monkton. I know the ground very well. I have spent the greater part of my life in Boldon, and I know that there was a very great gulf between Boldon and Jarrow. We used to think we were making quite a journey when we went from Boldon to Jarrow. If there is any expansion at all, it is in the direction of the other towns. I do not think Jarrow seriously meant to have incorporated Boldon when it began its scheme originally, for the whole tendency of Boldon, its business, its roads, its traffic and transport, is in the direction of Sunderland and Shields rather than in the direction of Jarrow.
    Therefore, I do not believe that. Jarrow thought for one moment that they would be able to take in Boldon because of the
    644
    direction in which its developments were tending. Then there comes the question of Hebburn. They were ready to give up Hebburn in discussion, and one wonders again whether they really meant to take in Hebburn as well as Boldon. Finally, I understand that they have come down to Monkton, and they say: "We do not want the whole of Monkton; we only want a part." There were those who thought that Jarrow did not want very much, and that they simply wanted to extend, in order to give their population a chance. It has come to this, that. Jarrow is prepared to give up Hebburn and Boldon, and that part of Monkton which will not improve much in the future; but they claim that section of Monkton where there is a prospect of the development of certain chemical industries. Finally, when it comes to a discussion with Hebburn over two or three acres, it is discovered that there is a prospect of mines being sunk upon those two or three acres, and that is a vital matter to Jarrow.
    I have followed the whole of these developments. I know the area, and I can take a somewhat unbiassed view of the situation. From the point of view of their original proposal and the gradual retreat that Jarrow has made, the concessions which they have been prepared to offer, and the ground which they intend to hold, it has made it clear that they are not concerned about civic matters so much as getting hold of part of the county which has a considerable rateable value, and which will be more valuable still, because of prospective industrial development. This House ought to repeat the emphasis which it gave last week in connection with the Leeds and Bradford Bill. It ought to tell Jarrow, and any other town, that if they are coming to this House to ask for extension with the idea of prospective commercial or industrial value, rather than upon civic grounds, this House is not prepared even to let them have a Second Reading of their Bill, and to incur the expense of dealing with a question of this kind upstairs.
    I do not execrate Jarrow in the terms that my hon. Friend has execrated it. It is true that a great historical character spent the greater part of his life there. I refer to the venerable Bede. We remember that fact with pride, but the modern town of Jarrow is scarcely worthy of that

    645
    great tradition. There is a story that a child was in a train which stopped at Hebburn and heard the porter shouting "Hebburn! Hebburn!"; whereupon it asked its mother if the porter was calling out "heaven." "No," said the mother, "we are too near Jarrow for it to be heaven." That indicates the general view. The only grounds that have led Jarrow to seek this extension is that they may get hold of an area which is going to become valuable. The Jarrow people have told some of us in conversation that they will guarantee not to ask for county borough powers for fifteen years. What is that in the life of a town? It is nothing. It may be that they may be after Hebburn in the next few years. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, because the Bill is based upon pure financial grounds. Already a considerable expense has been incurred by Durham County, and the areas involved, and further great expense will be incurred if this Bill goes forward. This is not a matter of civic importance so far as Jarrow is concerned, but it is so far as Durham is concerned.
    Mr. GALBRAITH: I have difficulty in rising, and it would be easier for me to resume my seat; but I feel that I must say a few words against this Bill. I ask this honourable House to do with this Bill what they did with the Leeds and Bradford Bill. It is a still-born Bill, and I want hon. Members to give it a respectable burial, and make it impossible for its resurrection. Jarrow is a non-county borough, and I ask hon. Members to cogitate as to the motive which has led Jarrow to promote this Bill. They are a little non-county borough, and their motive is to acquire a little more fame and wealth at the expense of our people. That is what we all decry. That is what we say is wrong. I wish to use no hard words, for although hard words break no bones, they do betimes break hearts. A wound seared by a hot iron may heal again, but a wound burned in by the tongue seldom heals. I know the minds of the county council in this matter. I have been a member of that body from its inception. They are absolutely opposed to this extension. The present acreage of the borough of Jarrow is 783 acres, and the area which they propose to take in is 4,354 acres, so that they are seeking to annex an area five times as
    646
    great as that of the existing borough. We all know what the ideal of extension meant to the German people. It did not come off. I only hope that this will not come off.
    The Durham County Council made a liberal offer which, for reasons best known to themselves, the Jarrow Corporation refused. I should be charged with the want of justice and fairplay if I did not acknowledge that Jarrow has become wise after the event. It is willing now to settle on the understanding that it will leave out Hebburn and half of Monkton, but it is not necessary to lengthen this Debate. I feel that the Bill is dead already. The people concerned object to being brought in, and if you are to use force to compel people to accept what they do not want, what then becomes of the principle of self-determination in government? It is a matter of serious concern to the Durham County Council and the other local authorities and bodies who have petitioned against this Bill. Take the case of Monkton, which they had intended to take in. The rateable value is £37,472, which works out at £5 16s. 2½d. per head. In Boldon, which they want to take in, the rateable value is almost equal to that. I do ask this House to see that this injustice is not done. The county of Durham has all the agencies and machinery for the efficient discharge of its duty and obligations, and I trust that the House will reject this Bill.
    Mr. HOLMAN GREGORY: Personally, I have no interest in Jarrow, but having listened to this Debate and having glanced at the Bill and some of the literature that has been circulated during the last few days, I think that we shall make a mistake if we; do not consider the position of Jarrow. As I understand the speeches delivered so far, their chief point is that Jarrow to-day is in a bad condition, and ought to put its own affairs in good order. The main object of the Bill which we are asked to throw out is to make provision for putting Jarrow in good order, because it consists of nine parts. Eight of them deal with finance, street improvement, sanitary improvements, and various things of that, sort, and one small part, part II, deals with an extension of the boundaries. Hon. Members who have spoken appear to agree that Jarrow ought to have the Bill so far as the eight parts are

    647
    concerned, but they ask the House to reject the whole and prevent Jarrow from making improvements because of this issue of the extension of its boundaries. As originally deposited, the Bill proposed to take in three places, Hebburn, Monkton, and Boldon colliery. There was great opposition to that, According to the information before me, Jarrow has not extended her boundaries since 1884. It has a very small acreage of 783 acres with a population of nearly 36,000 which represents a density of about 45 persons to the acre. This is a very dense population, so dense that it speaks for itself. That some extension is necessary I understand, provision has been made outside for its housing scheme, in this very district of Monkton. I further understand from the documents circulated that the promoters of this Bill have stated to those who are opposing that they are willing to undertake not to proceed with it so far as the extension is to cover Hebburn and Boldon colliery. With regard to Monkton, they are prepared to meet representatives of Hebburn and discuss what they fear, that is that Hebburn will not be able to expand and grow if the whole of Monkton is taken. There was a suggestion that the promoters of the Bill should meet those who represent Hebburn and see if they could not come to some arrangement.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: They have met and cannot come to an agreement.
    Mr. GREGORY: I will deal with that in a moment. The House has to face this position. You have a borough which has not had an extension since 1884. It is a borough with a dense and growing population, and on the face of it it seems that some extension ought to be granted. I understand from the hon. Member who spoke last that there is more or less an admission that some extension ought to be permitted, and the question is what that extension should be. But the floor of this House is not the place to fight out that issue. The proper thing to do is to let the Bill go to a Committee, and the Committee will say whether the extension ought to be granted, and to what extent. In the Committee room, or outside it, there need be no difficulty, if the parties are inclined
    648
    to meet each other, in coming to an arrangement. If they cannot come to an arrangement then the Committee will decide.
    I do not think anyone will deny, upon the facts mentioned in this House, in fact I challenge anyone to deny, that, Jarrow, with a density of population such as exists there to-day, does require some extension of its boundaries. Surely it is wrong to hold up the proposed improvements of Jarrow, which are dealt with in the eight parts of the Bill to which I have referred, when the whole matter in dispute between the county council, the rural district council of South Shields, and Jarrow, can be dealt with in Committee in a day or a day and a half. My submission to hon. Members who have placed the matter with such ability before the House is that this is not a case of the Leeds and Bradford Bill over again. It is quite a different situation, and there is no reason at all why this Bill should not in the ordinary course get a Second Reading, and be sent upstairs to a Committee.
    9.0 P.M.
    Colonel BURDON: I would like to add my assent very strongly to what has been said by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. E. Richardson), and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). To my mind this Bill is much worse than the Bill which was before the House a day or two ago, in reference to Leeds and Bradford. There is no possibility of coming to any reasonable understanding between Jarrow and the parts of the county Jarrow wishes to appropriate. Jarrow, itself, is less than one-fifth of the total area which it hopes to absorb. The population of Hebburn, which is next door to it, is very nearly equivalent to that. of Jarrow, and it might have been argued that Hebburn should have absorbed Jarrow instead of Jarrow absorbing Hebburn. Instead of holding an inquiry before coming to this House, Jarrow has taken the extraordinary course of shouldering an inquiry and coming straight to the House with this Bill.
    It is true that there are eight parts of the Bill out of nine dealing with the condition of Jarrow itself, but it is that ninth part which is the vital part of the Bill. That vital part occupies only one page of

    649
    the Bill. I put it honestly to the House that I think the entire abject of that arrangement is that Members of the House should not realise that what is being asked for is a thing which the House ought not to give. What the exact position is may be quite easily seen by looking at the rating per head of the different districts of Jarrow, Hebburn, Monkton and Boldon. The rates in Jarrow at the moment are 19s. 8d. in the pound; next door, at Hebburn, they are 18s. At Monkton, by far the largest part to be taken in, they are 15s. 7d., and at Boldon 19s. 7d. It stands to reason that, Jarrow must, as far as its own population is concerned, be very much the gainer by adding the district mentioned, and that the extension scheme would be very much to the detriment of inhabitants of the remainder of the district. I hope the House realises what the case is with regard to the ground proposed to he added to the borough of Jarrow. I know the land quite well. I have no axe to grind in the matter, because neither Jarrow nor Monkton nor Boldon has anything to do with me. I pass through Monkton on the railway in going to Newcastle. The whole of the ground is fairly good agricultural ground. But underneath lies the coal. The coal will in the ordinary course be worked to the Hebburn pit.
    You may be quite sure that, whatever Jarrow may say, Jarrow will not leave Hebburn alone, but will in future try to absorb it in order to get the benefit of the machinery and the pits which are working the coal. In the area of Monk-ton, which it is proposed to add to Jarrow, are eight different seams of coal. It is on these that Jarrow has its eye. In the county of Durham coal has a rateable value and bears rates in the same way as other property. From first to last, as far as Jarrow is concerned, this is simply a matter of adding to Jarrow's rateable value at the expense of those who do not want to be included in the borough of Jarrow. I do not see that there can possibly be any other view of the subject, in spite of what was said by the last speaker. Surely it is rather a large order that a borough of the size of Jarrow, whether it be well looked after internally or not, should ask for powers to add to itself a very valuable property which does not want to be included, and in size is five times its own area. I sincerely hope
    650
    that the House will in no circumstances allow a Bill of this description to pass.
    Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: Almost all the facts have been put plainly before the House, more especially in regard to the position of the area which Jarrow proposes to absorb. We are entitled to ask again why this expansion of Jarrow is suddenly necessary. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. H. Gregory), because I thought we were to get some information on the subject. As I understood his remarks, Jarrow has a very dense population, and therefore considers that she ought to have more room to accommodate her surplus population, for which, judging from the speeches we have heard, she is unable to provide sanitary facilities at the present time. Surely the obvious answer to that is, "If Jarrow has a surplus population, let it settle outside." When it is shown that it is the Jarrow population which is settled in these outside areas, then Jarrow might have a case. They, might say, "Here are all our people settled outside and it is up to us to secure facilities for bringing all these people within Jarrow"; but to say that just because there is, at the present time, a large population in Jarrow, therefore Jarrow should take in surrounding areas, appears, to my mind, to be putting the cart before the horse. Only a week ago we had an example in the ease of Leeds and Bradford, where it was laid down by this House that, while quite prepared in certain circumstances to give these extensions, the House was equally decided that a really good reason must be found before boroughs came to this House asking for extensions of this kind. In this ease no real reason has been shown. The entire principle underlying the granting of these extensions will be negatived if we are going to grant an extension in a case like this, and if a small, and I think I may say insignificant, place is going to get an extension such as is being asked for here. As was pointed out by the last speaker, the extension, if agreed to, would make Jarrow four or five times its present size. I may be asked why I object to this Bill. I am indirectly connected with this area, because I am connected with the railway which runs right through it, and the railway company and all the

    651
    districts surrounding Jarrow are bitterly opposed to the extension, for very much the same reasons as those which have already been given. Everybody is against the proposal, and, as we have heard, there has been no local inquiry to find out what are the views of the inhabitants of the districts concerned. So far as those views can be expressed by anybody or have been expressed by anybody in these districts, they are entirely antagonistic, and I hope the House will agree that this is not a case in which to grant a Second Reading.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I intervene in a matter of this kind with great reluctance. I should not intervene at all, if any great principle were involved in this Bill, which the House as a whole ought to determine, or if any matter of public controversy were concerned and had to be fought out on the floor of the House. With regard to the merits of the case, not only am I bound by my office to be impartial, but I have no final interest in the matter. With all due regard to the County of Durham and the Borough of Jarrow, I do not care in the least what the ultimate upshot of this controversy may be. What I do care for are the principles upon which the House of Commons approaches the consideration of private Bills, and it is solely on that ground that I feel it my duty to offer some observations to the House. I do not think there is any possible principle involved in this case which the House as a whole should determine. It is a local question and must be determined by local considerations. There is no possible relevance between this controversy and the Leeds and Bradford controversy. In the first place, Jarrow is not a county borough, and whatever area it may seek to take in, will not be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Durham County Council, whereas in the Yorkshire case, the areas concerned would have been withdrawn from the county council. Further, this is not purely an extension Bill. It is an omnibus Bill for all sorts of purposes within the borough of Jarrow. I find there are no less than 143 Clauses and of these only some 44 deal with extension. There are practically 100 Clauses which deal with other matters. I submit to the House that the evil in the smaller number of Clauses
    652
    must be very great to prevent the remaining 100 Clauses from going in the natural way before a Committee upstairs. Is the proposal made by Jarrow primâ facie such that the House ought to reject it? A good deal has been said about the acquisitiveness of the borough of Jarrow in wishing to annex these areas. That criticism might have been relevant to the Bill in its original form, but I do not think it is so relevant to the Bill in its present form. One or two speakers referred to the fact that Jarrow wished to annex the whole of the Hebburn area. I have a document before me in which it is distinctly stated formally that the promoters have entirely dropped that part of the Bill.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: For the present.
    Mr. HOPE: It is for Parliament to deal with the Bill as it comes before Parliament. If the promoters come before Parliament in some future year with another Bill, Parliament will deal with that Bill on its merits. In the present scheme the promoters have entirely dropped the proposal to annex the district of Hebburn. This is a very much more modest proposal than was contained in the Bill as first presented. A statement has been circulated—and has, of course, been impugned by hon. Members on the ground that the figures are wrong —which is to the effect that in the proposals now before the House, Jarrow seeks only to annex an area of 1,000 acres, which is less than its present area; that the population to be annexed is not more than 700, as against the 35,000 which Jarrow has at present, and that the rateable value sought to be annexed is £6,500, as against £142,000. There are also other figures dealing with the poor rate and the municipal rate.
    The borough of Jarrow is in a peculiar position. Its population is very dense, and it has very small opportunity of expansion. On the north is the River Tyne, on the north-east are mud flats, on the east is the borough of South Shields and on the west is Hebhurn, which it is not now seeking to annex. Therefore expansion can only be to the south, and it is to the south they now seek to expand. I do not prejudge, for a moment, questions as to whether even now they may not be asking for too much or whether they ought to extend south or south-west or if in so doing they

    653
    might curtail Hebburn in the future, but I do say these are matters of which it is impossible for the House as a whole to take cognisance. The very object of the system of Committees to which private Bills are sent, is that matters of detail are to be threshed out in them. It is impossible for the House as a whole to consider these matters in detail. To sum up, this, first of all, is a Bill for many purposes and not merely for extension. In the second place, it is not comparable with the Leeds and Bradford case, because Jarrow is not a County borough. In the third place, there is on the face of it a case for expansion. On those three grounds, and owing to the fact that Committees have been created for this very purpose of discussing these matters of detail, I do say, in virtue of
    my office as Chairman of Committees, without pre-judging the ultimate issue, that this is a case which ought not to be decided by the House as a whole., but is eminently a case which ought to go to a Committee. If this House decides on judging questions like this on the Floor of the House and not in Committee, I fear that the whole structure of our Private Bill legislation will be very seriously impaired, and it is on that account, and with no possible interest, official or otherwise, as to the merits of the case, that I personally feel it my duty to advise the House to send this Bill to a Committee in the ordinary course.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 59 Noes, 91.

    Division No. 108]

    AYES.

    [9.18 p m.

    Amnion, Charles George

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Armitage, Robert

    Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Coins)

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sexton, James

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Hancock, John George

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sutton, John Edward

    Cairns, John

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill

    Cape, Thomas

    Insk p, Thomas Walker H.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Irving, Dan

    Wallace, J.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Davles, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

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

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Finney, Samuel

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Foot, Isaac

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Mr. T. Davies (Circencester) and

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Mr. Holman Gregory.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Lawson, John James

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Gardiner, James

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Gillis, William

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Lunn, William

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gr tten, W. G. Howard

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Grundy, T. W,

    Macqu sten, F. A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Halls, Walter

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hayward, Evan

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Perring, William George

    Casey, T. w.

    Hinds, John

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hirst, G. H.

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ra burn, Sir William H.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwe lty)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Roes, Capt, J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Farquharson, Major A, C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Robertson, John

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Forrest, Walter

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Spencer, George A.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Waddington, R.

    Wise, Frederick

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

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

    Wignall, James

    Thomas, sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Colonel Burdon and Mr. Swan.

    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

    Words added.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    SUPPLY.
    Again considered in Committee.
    [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

    SUPPLY.
      CLASS II.

        MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
        Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £95,284, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."
        Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £95,184, he granted for the said Service."
        Mr. LAWSON: The intruduction of this Vote has given hon. Members representing the mining elements an opportunity of uttering a warning which is certainly justified by the facts of the situation at the present time. I can assure the Committee that the average miners' representative is by no means desirous of seeing any trouble in the mining areas at any time, but I think the language which has been used to-day by various hon. Members on the Labour Benches is certainly justified by the facts of the present situation in the coalfields. I represent an area which can be described as one of the most moderate areas in the British coalfields, yet I feel that conditions obtain there which, if allowed to continue much longer, will certainly have serious developments. I believe in what I should describe as a fearless reliance upon reason and goodwill in industrial affairs. Any trouble in the mining areas will be to the detriment
        656
        of the miners themselves, but at the same time there are prevailing facts which I shall describe to the Committee, of which the Committee and the country ought to be aware and which afford grounds for very serious consideration.
        I have here a book which gives the minimum wage and the average wage of the various classes in Durham. I believe that no particular wages have been given this afternoon. I find, for instance, that the class called the "shifters," the labourers in the mines, are now down to a minimum wage of 6s. 2d. per day. On an average of five days a week, which is the usual estimate of the coalowners for the purposes of compensation, these men are left with something like 30s. 10d. a week if they go the whole of the five days. A man working at the coal face has a minimum wage of 7s. 9d. a day, and a county average of 8s. 8d. a day. That means that if he does not make sufficient at the piece rates, he receives under £2 a week unless the owners refuse to pay that minimum. If he gets the county average he gets a little over £2 a week.
        As a matter of fact, there are large numbers of very good men indeed who are not receiving even the minimum wage. The facts which I have here speak for themselves, and I have gone to the trouble to get the pay notes of some very good workmen in the mines. It will be discovered that in case after case they have gone down from £3 a week to £2 a week and even below that sum. In the particular collieries from which these pay checks are taken the men have increased their output in a remarkable way from month to month. The net result of that increase of output, has been that they have merely reduced their own wages. In the county I represent it is a remarkable fact that the only result of the increase of output has been a reduction of prices to a point which makes it impossible for the men to make anything very much above the minimum wage.
        While I agree that in a number of cases in my own county the coalowners have made a genuine attempt to meet the situation, there are other instances in which the owners are taking up a line of

        657
        action which can have only one result, the destruction of incentive. This line of action will leave the men in the position of saying. "It does not matter what we do, the increased output and the increased energy expressed simply result in lowering our prices and in bringing us back to the minimum all the time." I know that that has taken place. The coalowners in such cases are forgetting all the admissions that they made, in common with other employers, to the effect that the cutting down of prices when output was increased was a suicidal thing. The result of that line of action must certainly be detrimental to themselves. I was talking to a man not very long ago who told me that he was in a worse position now than he had been for 25 years. I know the man very well. He is a strong man, who gives of his best when he is at work, and he is there every day when he is in good physical condition. He said, "At the present time we can manage to get food, we can manage to get a roof over our heads, but we cannot buy clothes." That is the position of a strong man who has brought his family up. What most be the position of a man who has to bring home wages to maintain a small family?
        The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) put forward a request this afternoon for an inquiry into the coal mining industry. There is abundant ground for such inquiry, and I do not think it would be without avail. Even the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has said that he agrees that this is not exactly an ideal state of things. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) seemed to think it was a regrettable thing, but that all we could do was to bring other workers into the same position in which these workmen were. We will resist any step which means bringing the workers in the other industries down to the same point where the miners are at the present time. The position is so terrible to our people now, that we will not help forward by any means an attempt to bring other workers to the same position. But there is ground for an inquiry.
        The position, for instance, of the royalty rents ought to be borne in mind as a burden upon the industry of this country. Here is a Board of Trade Report which tells us that for one quarter
        658
        alone the net results from the British coalfield were £1,547,835 as a burden on the industry. I say that, in the light of present-day facts, the industry cannot stand a burden of that kind. What is the situation? I represent a Division in which there is a colliery where a certain person was receiving a royalty of something like 3s. There was an attempt to compromise, and when it was refused steps were taken to close the seam. Had it not been for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing them to something like a normal state of mind it is almost certain that that seam would have been closed because of the royalty question. Why should those who do not even have the virtue of living in.the mining area continue to he doing very well out of that particular industry, while men are starving and their wives and children can scarcely make ends meet from week to week. In one case I could mention, something like £50 a day is going to the person concerned when the pit is working, and in that particular case when the output is increased there is an increase to the person who takes the royalty rents, while on the other hand you have a man who is working hard at the coal face getting something under £2 a week with which to meet the facts of living to-day.
        I say that there is ground for an inquiry into the various burdens upon the industry. Take the other facts in the cost of production. It is a remarkable fact that in the Federation generally, as the wages have gone down, the cost of production has gone up. In my own county, wages have gone down by hundreds of thousands a quarter, and I think the last ascertained figures show that the cost of production has gone up by £91,000 for the quarter, that is, the cost of production and all the rest of it has increased. I am not one of those who believe there is anything in what the hon. Member for Mossley suggested, I think, that the increasing of the hours from 7 to 8 was a possible line of advance. I do not think it has any vital effect at all upon the industry.
        Mr. HOPKINSON: I said I thought it would have very little effect upon the output.
        Mr. LAWSON: In individual cases there may be ground for reconsideration,

        659
        but you have to consider the matter as a whole. I come from an area where we have always had seven hours, and I should say that was sufficient. Is a matter of fact, we have gone from 6½ hours to seven hours in most collieries in order to make the thing uniform. I believe there is ground for really serious inquiry, not only upon the facts of the increased cost of production and the facts of the royalties and other matters of that kind, but upon the realities of the situation in the mining areas at the present time. I do not believe there is any body of men in this country who could, or would, stand what the miners are standing at the present time, and I do not believe they can stand it much longer. They have not the will to make trouble. There are bits of disturbances here and there, but in my own county, which is a moderate one, I know there is no desire to make any trouble. But I do know that there is a great danger of this country of an upheaval which is born of despair. Therefore, I want the Secretary for Mines to take this matter very seriously. We want to avoid, and will use our influence to avoid, anything of the kind occurring, but unless there is a tendency on the part of this House to take the situation seriously—and they can take it seriously in the form of an inquiry which will bring out the real facts, and help us to diagnose what is the real disease with which we have got to deal —unless we do that, I believe we are running a very great danger indeed.
        Mr. FOOT: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes in asking the Secretary for Mines to have regard to the appeal which was made just now by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), especially having regard to what is the altogether distressing position of those who are connected with the mining industry in Cornwall. The position there at present is desperate beyond any of the circumstances that have previously obtained. There was a meeting of the unemployment committee held yesterday, and reported in this morning's paper, where it was stated that at the end of the present week there would be between 1,000 and 1,500 miners of Cornwall who would be reaching the five weeks'
        660
        interval when they would be receiving absolutely no relief whatever. The miners for whom I want to make an appeal are not in the division I represent, but they are associated with the county, and upon that county there has fallen a very dreadful calamity. The miners there, in asking for relief, do not consider that they occupy the position of an ordinary uneconomic industry which is asking for Government support. Hon. Members will know that not long ago a Committee was appointed by the Government—the Non-ferrous Mines Committee—under the Chairmanship of a Member of this House, and a very close and exhaustive inquiry was made, extending over several months. At the end of the inquiry, it was recommended that there should be some Government support to help these mines, and that there were factors which made the claim a special one upon the consideration of the Government. The position at the present time is that the guardians in that part of the county are at their wit's end, the relief committees have expended something like £40,000 contributed by charitably-disposed people, and the mines are practically derelict. The industry is one of the oldest in the country, existing before the coming of Julius Cesar—and therefore probably is the oldest industry —is threatened with absolute extinction. When that takes place the mines in Cornwall will become useless. There will be no tin available for this country nearer than Nigeria. If the tin mines are closed the associated products of wolfram and arsenic will not be available either.
        The people concerned are an independent people absolutely, and as virile and self-reliant as there are in the whole country. They have always been known for their enterprise and initiative; from generation to generation they have gone into different parts of the world. It is positively heartbreaking to see the condition in which they are at the present moment placed. It is not so much a question of public money being spent upon the mining industry as the diversion of money that is now being spent upon the maintenance of people in enforced idleness to the maintenance of the mines themselves. As a result of certain questions that I have put to several Ministers within the last few weeks, it has been ascertained that something like over

        661
        £250,000 has been paid since the mines were closed in unemployment benefit, and in benefit to dependants. I myself think the figure is probably nearer £300,000 since the armistice than £250,000. If I remember rightly, it was a sum of £200,000 that was asked for by the competent authorities in order that the industry might be maintained. Beyond the £250,000 that has gone in unemployment benefit, over £40,000 has been raised and paid out in private charity. The guardians in the different parts of the county have distributed many thousands, so that the total sum raised from one source and another, while these people have been kept in enforced idleness since these mines have become derelict, is probably much beyond £300,000.
        Hopes were raised in the county and in the industry, following upon the Report presented more than 12 months ago; and I want to ask the Secretary for Mines to consider in consultation with his colleagues whether they can suggest any scheme to follow up that proposal. If it is complained that the miners to-day are not united and cannot present a considered and united scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman make proposals so that the responsibility will then rest upon those concerned with the industry in Cornwall? If there is a blank refusal it means simply that upon that part of the county sentence of death is pronounced, and that the industry must pass out of existence. I am sure that is not what the Secretary for Mines desires. I know his interest and sympathy in this matter. I hope, therefore, he will be able to tell us as to the announcement made, I think, a week or two ago, that help might be forthcoming from the Trade Facilities Fund—that that help might be extended in other directions, so that, at any rate, some message of hope may be sent to these distressed people.
        Mr. CAPE: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). I may say, at the same time, that I was very much interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines. There was one sentence in the closing stages of it which struck me as rather significant. The right hon. Gentleman said something like this: "If we could have a year without stoppages of work or strikes, we could get on deal-
        662
        ing with the questions of safety and health in the mines." I want to say that those two things are two very essential things in relation to the life of the miner. We all agree that safety ought to be an indispensable condition in every industry. Several hon. Members, in the course of the afternoon and evening, have dealt with the question of safety in mines, and it is not my intention to deal with that point now. I want to deal with the part relating to health. I may assume that it is the intention of the Ministry of Mines to go into questions such as adequate ventilation and the conditions necessary to make life better below ground than it is, so that health may be maintained. I frankly admit that these are very good things indeed, things which ought to have the attention of the Mines Department. Vet there is another thing which also is very essential, and that is the question of under-feeding.
        I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines that one of the things which is most detrimental to the health of the miner to-day is the inability of the miner to obtain food sufficient to strengthen him for his work underground. That is due to the wage that he earns under existing circumstances. Wages have been quoted from several counties, and several important mining areas. I represent a district that cannot be said to be an important mining area.; still what we think about ourselves I am not going to tell the House. But it must be said that when it comes down to a matter of the individual that the individual in a small district is quite as much affected as an individual in A big district by matters of this sort. Therefore, let me point out the wages that have been earned by men in the district that I represent. If a pit-top labourer can follow his occupation and obtain 5½ days per week, at the end of the week he will receive the magnificent sum of £1 15s. 9d. The next scale of wages is that of the mechanics working at the pits. The mechanic receives somewhere about £2 4s. or £2 5s. It may be asked: "Why does he stay there?" I am coming to that later. The next grade underground is the adult worker, and assuming he makes five days on an average per week, he will take home—or rather there will be on his pay-note—the sum of £1 14s. 4d. Then we come to the coal-getter.

        663
        In debates of this sort the hon. Member for Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) interjects various remarks, which is one of his habits. So far as we on these Benches are concerned while we listen attentively, we are perhaps like the rustics mentioned in "The Deserted Village," of whom it was said:
        "Still they gazed, and still the wonder grew, That one small head could carry all he knew."
        There is not much difference between the minimum wage and the average wage of the coal-getter in some counties. The average or minimum wage in the county which I represent is, for a hewer working five days a, week, £2 0s. 5d. The coal-getter working on piecework will probably earn slightly more than that. It will be seen that that is something which must be detrimental to the mining community in that particular area. It is not only detrimental to the miner but to his children as well, and the miner's wife has also to suffer, and help to bear a share of the burden. Schoolmasters and school teachers in this district tell me that they have seen a big decline in the physical condition of the children during the last 12 months. These children do not get sufficient nutritious food to make them grow into strong and healthy men and women.
        It may be asked what has the Government to do with this? I want to point out that the Government are somewhat to blame for this state of affairs in the mining industry. The Sankey Commission made some startling revelations, and the whole country stood aghast at them. One of the things we said that we were entitled to was an advance of 30 per cent. not in respect of the cost of living. The Sankey Commission said. "You cannot have 30 per cent.; but we are satisfied that you have proved a case in which you are entitled to 2s. to raise your standard of life above 1914." That implied that the standard of life in 1914 had not been adequate. The Leader of the House at that time said that the Government were prepared to accept the Sankey Commission's findings both in spirit and in the letter, but in two or three important points they have thrown those recommendations to the winds. When the battle came last year and wages had to be ruthlessly cut down, the Government never interfered to prevent
        664
        this 2s. being taken from us. In that respect they did not carry out the Sankey Award. We have had a speech to-day from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) in which he set out certain weaknesses which he contended were embodied in the present agreement under which we are working. One thing which struck me in his statement was that in certain districts where a very small surplus was shown, and sometimes none at all, there were certain collieries still showing a reasonable profit while the other collieries were going to the bad.
        10.0 P.M.
        What happens in districts like this is that the employers with the bad collieries say, "We are going to stop working the colliery," and then either by letter or by notice they give the union officials or the men an intimation that the colliery is going to be stopped. The natural consequence is that when this intimation comes to the miners' agent or their representatives, they immediately inquire why the colliery is going to he stopped. The owner replies, "It cannot be worked because we are losing money, and we shall have to stop the colliery." The miners' representatives then ask if anything can be done, and the owner replies, "Yes; if you will give us a reduction of the tonnage rates the colliery can go on." The result is that the colliery closes, and the men sign on at the Employment Exchange. There they are told, "This is a trade dispute, and therefore you are not entitled to unemployment benefit." The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) says that is not the fault of the employers, but I would remind him that when a man makes a claim at the Employment Exchange it is forwarded to the owner for whom he has been working, and the owner has to make a statement as to why the man is out of work, and invariably the reply is that the man has left his work owing to a trade dispute, and the consequence is that the men remain idle.
        I want to say to the Secretary for Mines that the men are not desirous of causing any stoppage, and they cannot be accused of causing a stoppage when it is the employer who stops them from working. I want the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to utilise the different district Conciliation Boards more frequently. In

        665
        my county the miners have got quite tired of being asked to submit to a reduction of wages, and the owners are now turning in other directions. The last notice we had from one owner, who has already got the reduction of the standard rates, was to the effect that he could not work his pit because he was losing money. We asked the owner why the pit could not be worked, and he replied that the only condition on which the pit could be worked was that for every ton of coal brought up the shaft the man must weigh in 1 cwt. less than the weigh-beam indicates. I submitted that that was a breach of the Coal Mines Act with regard to weighing. The men employed Previously at this pit went to the Employment Exchange, and they were told that in this case it was a trade dispute. In face of such evidence as this, we have come to the conclusion in my county that the Ministry of Labour is using the Unemployment Insurance Act to force down the wages of miners and make the conditions intolerable. It may be said that there is peace and quietness in the coalfield, but let me assure hon. Members that although there is quietness, that is not always an indication of peace. I know there is silence amongst them, and that speaks volumes for the Britisher, and the miners are Britishers, hut they are often most dangerous when silent. The state of things cannot go on, because the men cannot bear the strain much more.
        I stated when the Bill decontrolling the mines was placed on the Statute Book that there would be chaos and disorder throughout the length and breadth of the land, and that result certainly followed. I should be one of the last to use a threat, but I know the psychology of the men I go amongst, and I want to say that it would not surprise me at any time to find this silence broken and industry in this country again thrown into chaos. One cannot wonder at it at all. The men are hungry. They have a natural desire to see the development of the industry, as we all have, but when they find that it is not to be obtained then there is nothing else but for them to express their feeling in some other way. I want to join in asking the Minister of Mines if it is not possible to introduce some form of inquiry—not another Sankey Commission —hut some form of inquiry into the whole
        666
        condition of the industry from the point of view of the employer as well as of the workmen. If that were done it might lead us to some avenues whereby something might be done to put the coal trade in a better position than it is to-day. That would be beneficial not only to the mine-owners and the miners, but to the whole country. In the mining districts, not merely the miners, but business men and municipalities, are crying out because the miners have no money to spend, and the tradesmen therefore cannot sell their goods. Everything is in a state of chaos, and people are wondering what is going to occur. It is essential, therefore, to have an inquiry into the whole of this great and vital industry in the interests of all concerned.
        Captain COOTE: I think the Secretary for Mines may consider himself fortunate in one respect in that his Department has not come in for much personal criticism. I want to say one or two things about his Department, but before doing so I will touch upon the speeches that have already been made. I agree that there is unfortunately, at the present moment, a grave prospect that the agreement under which the late coal dispute terminated will be in danger. The reasons for that have been stated by hon. Members on the Labour benches, but that leads me to ask them, What is the use of an inquiry at the present moment? The conditions are admitted. Everybody deplores them. But hon. Members themselves will agree that in the vast majority of instances at any rate there is a common purpose and a common desire on the part of both owners and men to produce better conditions which will lead to a resumption of that agreement which many of us hoped would be the beginning of better days for this great industry. The reasons why the condition of the miners is as deplorable as has been described are patent to every-body. How is an inquiry to set that right? The facts have been admitted all round, and what is wanted at the present time is not an inquiry but rather suggestions as to how the conditions may be bettered. There are many suggestions that could be put forward. However that may be, we all, I think, ought to admit that the condition of the miners is deplorable, and we ought to be willing to do our best to improve those conditions.

        667
        May I turn to the Minister and his Department? Something has been said as to the Labour Adviser, who occupies in the Ministry a position which I can only describe as a sinecure. What does this gentleman do for the large salary he receives? So far as I know, he has practically nothing to do. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will acquit me of any intention to make a personal attack on him when I ask what he himself is doing in the Department? The work that is being done there at the present time is largely what one may call police work—work connected with security and safety and such like matters. That work, I suggest, should be discharged, not by a separate Ministry, but by a Department of the Home Office. That is a small economy which, although one would regret to see the right hon. Gentleman leaving the office he adorns, should not be neglected at the present time. I know that the Geddes Committee gives support on the whole to the work which is being done by the Department, especially in the matter of clearing up the Coal Account, but surely in the pie-sent condition of national affairs we do not need a separate Ministry to do that work, and I do suggest therefore that consideration should be given to the question of handing it over to a Department of the Home Office.
        May I repeat what I said at the beginning. I do not think that hon. Members opposite have made out a case for an inquiry, because the facts which they have put forward are admitted facts. As to the deplorable condition of the industry we should he glad to hear from them suggestions for a remedy rather than a description of the position. What is needed at the moment is for those engaged in the industry outside this House to get together and see how they can secure better conditions for the men engaged in it. The hon. Member who spoke last said quite truly that, in certain instances, colliery owners were threatening to close down collieries which did not pay their way, and when the men asked the reason for closing down they were told that it was because the collieries did not pay, and could only continue if the men would accept lower rates of wages. That is quite true, but the whole purpose of the agreement was, if possible, to put the
        668
        coal mining industry upon an economic basis. It was deliberately intended that the bad mines, the uneconomic mines, should be closed down, because their existence adversely affected the general run of the mining industry. I do not think that that will be denied. The agreement, however, has not had that effect, and that has been its weakness. It is also exceedingly bad luck that this period of trade depression should have occurred just on the morrow of the conclusion of this agreement, because it has not had a fair chance. It is almost impossible now to range over the wide variety of subjects that have been referred to in this Debate, but I hope that when the Secretary for Mines comes to reply, he will say something upon the point which I have raised as to the continuance of his Department. That is a practical matter affecting the Estimate, and I hope that, sorry as we should be to lose the right hon. Gentleman, he will be able to give better reasons than appear on the face of it for his staying.
        Mr. S. WALSH: The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last stated that the miners' Members had mainly been reciting admitted facts, and that it would have been better had they suggested some means of removing those facts and replacing them by better conditions. I think that that betokens, on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, a little lack of that sense of responsibility which rests upon this House and upon himself as one of its Members. After all, it is this House that is directly responsible for the condition in which the mining industry finds itself to-day. It is easy to say that we are all willing to do our best to get it out of the difficulty. What is the attitude that the hon. and gallant Member is prepared to take? We told you 12 months ago and more that, if any settlement such as this was forced upon the men, the men would be driven to such a state of starvation as would be disgraceful to the country itself; and every hon. Member who took part in the Division against the miners' Members on that occasion is to that degree responsible for the conditions now prevailing.
        The facts are these. A system of Government control had been established, with the full consent of this House, and it was quite right that control should be established during the period of the War. But, consequent upon that system of control, a chaotic set of conditions

        669
        resulted, than which no hon. Member can imagine anything worse outside Bedlam. Midlands coal, to the amount of hundreds of thousands of tons was sent to Newcastle; South Wales coal ships were sent to Mersey ports; Lancashire coal was sent down to South Wales. A set of conditions resulted which, as I have said, could not be conceived outside Bedlam. The Government quite rightly controlled wages, and here let me say that, well within 12 months of the outbreak of War, the miners' Members suggested that the Government should control wages and prices, and we said we would not put in for any advances in wages. I am speaking of that which I know, because I was a member of the Coal Mining Organisation Committee of the Home Office at the time, and Mr. Robert Smillie, the present hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), and myself suggested that we ought not to be allowed to fleece the public on either side, that we ought not to be allowed to charge extortionate prices, and that the men would undertake not to put in for advances in wages if the Government would control the selling price. That was in May, 1915—seven years ago.
        That agreement was faithfully carried out. Then control came on, at the end of 1916, in South Wales, and at the beginning of 1917 in the rest of the United Kingdom, and these conditions resulted to which I have just referred. It was the control which was forced upon the Government by the necessities of the War that resulted in those conditions. The British Government, therefore, was responsible for doing its very best to remove those conditions before they removed control. But they left both employers and workmen in a more chaotic and disgraceful state than any honourable Government with due regard to its pledges would ever have done. We said, "Give us a chance," those of us who were miners' agents in our areas as well as Members of Parliament, "to get down to our areas and tell them what are the actual facts." We admit that there ought to be an attempt on the part of the two sides in the industry to get down as early as they possibly could to normal conditions. "No," they said "It is true that in the -Mining Industry Act, 1920, we have guaranteed control until 31st August, 1921." [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I say Yes. You took power
        670
        to extend it to February, 1922. You took no power to diminish the time. You took power to extend it. You brought in a new Act to break down the old one and that is disgraceful. You promised the men and the employers in that Act of Parliament to continue control until 31st August, 1921, and you took power in the same Act to extend the period for six months longer. That is the case, and it can be found in your own Act, of Parliament. We took no part in it. The responsibility is yours. We said, "We do not want an Act of Parliament that is going to break up the mining kingdom into districts and introduce a provision which must be fatal both to employers and workmen," and we took no part in your Debates. You yourselves passed the Act of Parliament, and it is you who have brought the industry into this chaotic condition. Upon you rests the responsibility.
        Let us carry this a little further. In the Committee Room and in this House I, myself, appealed time after time, "Give us one month." "No," said the rigid economists of that time." "It will cost £5,000,000. It would have cost nothing like £5,000,000, but the possibility induced the Government and their supporters to de-control the industry under the most chaotic conditions the mind of man could conceive. And that is statesmanship' It is true the employers themselves said the Act was a breach of faith with them and with the men, and at that very time the Lancashire coalowners had agreed with the miners' representatives to come to London and urge this breach of faith but the Bill was brought in to guarantee to the owners 50 per cent. of their pre-War standard of profit. I suppose money talks, and it talked so effectively that it bought off the employers' opposition. The purchasing power of the men's wages to-day is less than it was 50 years ago. I remember just before the settlement was imposed upon the men certain words spoken by the Prime Minister:
        "The main feature of the permanent scheme is that it fixes a system by which the workman shares with the employer the profits of the industry. I think it will ensure peace for a very long period, and not only will it ensure peace, but, I think, will ensure peace on a very satisfactory basis"
        A satisfactory basis, when tens of thousands of workmen, honestly desirous of doing their best, men of irreproach-

        671
        able records, have to go, week after week, to the guardians, to have their wages supplemented, because the wages they can earn are insufficient to maintain soul and body. This is the "satisfactory basis." The Prime Minister went on to say:
        "I believe that no such large and scientific application of the theory of profit-sharing has ever taken place in any industry in any country, certainly not in this country."
        If it is a scientific application, it is certainly most remorseless in its effects. Up to now, taking the aggregate profits, the employers have not done at all badly. Certainly more than one half of the whole mining population are placed to-day upon wages which have not been equalled in meagreness during the last 50 years. How is it that there is such a state of things in this great industry? I am not going to claim any credit for the industry greater than any other industry, hut can any hon. Members point to any industry in this or any other country where reductions on such a tremendous scale have taken place? It is true that the textile industry is depressed, that shipbuilding is depressed, that engineering is depressed, and that all these industries are passing through a more or less heavy state of depression, but is there one industry in the whole country, or in any land of which we have knowledge, which has undergone such tribulation and depression and such heavy reductions of wages as the coal mining industry?
        It is all because this House has settled it "upon a scientific basis." Greater cant was never spoken by the Prime Minister. I say that he possessed no knowledge of what he was talking about. He read from a document prepared for him. He knew nothing at all about its contents. He said that twice or thrice in this House, and twice or thrice at the meetings at 10, Downing Street, and he admitted his complete ignorance of the particular profit-sharing scheme he was submitting. Yet he comes to this House and reads from a document that this was the greatest profit-sharing scheme that had ever been applied in this country. The House supported him. It is because hon. Members are willing to be doped with this kind of ignorance that this House acted in the way it did. At any rate, on account of that ignorance the mining industry is reduced to its present condition. I
        672
        do not intend to go into small details and to compare one with the other. The fact is that the vast mass of the mining population to-day are in a state of semi-starvation, they and their children, and that really implies the greatest possible dishonour upon this House for the work it did. If that is the condition, and it cannot be disputed, it is for the Members of this House to say: "We committed a great wrong; but we acted in ignorance. We did not know the facts. We were honourable party men, and were bound to go into the lobby that was properly marked out for us. We never thought that things would come to their present position, but now that we do know the facts, now that there have been nearly 12 months' trial of this profit-sharing scheme, which has reduced the workmen in this great industry to their present condition, we will try to atone for our faults. We will try and see what are the real causes of this deplorable state of things, and we will take part in an inquiry having for its purpose the lifting of the workmen out of this condition." That is what Members ought to say to themselves and not taunt us with making complaints without suggesting remedies. Even if we suggest remedies we should be treated with contempt.
        There is a great deal more levity about anything affecting the miners than about any other industry in the kingdom. The House has been empty nearly all the night, and Members have been laughing and talking with each other. Even when Members know the facts, they find cause for laughter. That is not the attitude in which Members should approach a consideration of this question. It is an attitude exactly similar to that which was shown in March of last year in this House. We are bound to speak with feeling in this matter. It is said that we have made peace. We have heard of people in the olden times who made a solitude, and called it peace. It is true, as one of my hon. Friends has said, that there is peace, but it is the peace of semi-despair, of people who know not where to turn, of people who have been law-abiding in the past, of fathers and mothers who gave their sons by hundreds of thousands to maintain the honour of this land, of people who are driven to despair, who are counselled by their leaders to maintain peace, and not to rush into frenzied action of any kind, but to appeal to Parliament and

        673
        to the good sense of the nation to see if something cannot be done to raise them from this terrible morass in which they find themselves.
        Do not let hon. Members believe that miners are going to remain for ever peaceable in these conditions. They cannot even if they wish. It would be dishonourable for them to do so. We appeal even now that these conditions should be fully inquired into. We desire to act as self-respecting members of a great community, and to imbue our own people with the same feeling, but we cannot for ever go on crying peace when there is no real peace, but poverty and semi-starvation, and when hundreds of thousands of homes are going through an agony which it is impossible to describe. That is why we have taken part in the discussion of this miners' question. It is the most serious condition of things that I have ever known personally or from history. We are going back to a condition of things even worse than that which prevailed during the Napoleonic wars, when the poor rates had to supplement the wages of the people. That is what is being done now on a larger scale than ever, and when we are told that we ought to do something more than complain, and ought to put forward constructive proposals, it is they who destroyed the previously existing conditions, despite all warning, upon whom rests the responsibility of reconstruction. It is upon them rests the responsibility of building again where they have destroyed and giving to the miners that degree of satisfaction to which they are entitled.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are one or two minor points with which I wish to deal before coming to the main question raised in the Debate. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) made several suggestions about altering the agreement. I was glad to hear him say that, in substance, the agreement was sound, though it required several variations. His observations will be studied by those responsible for the agreement and for continuing or abrogating it when the time comes. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Casey) raised an interesting question about the testing of safety appliances against over-winding. I would be glad if he would communicate with my Department so that we may get a little more information from him on
        674
        the subject, and see whether anything can be done towards carrying out his suggestion, which seemed to me to be a very reasonable one. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) spoke about the Cornish mines. I entirely agree with them in their expressions of sympathy with the Cornish tin miners. I do not know anything that can put that industry again on its feet except a marked revival of trade. They asked me two direct questions. One was about the South Crofty mine and the treatment it received from the Trade Facilities Committee. That Committee is not under my Department, but I understand that a guarantee of £30,000 was given to the South Crofty mine to carry out certain operations. I am afraid I can say no more as to the policy of the Trade Facilities Committee. Such questions must be asked of the Treasury, who are responsible.
        On the whole I may congratulate myself and my Department that the criticisms directed against us to-day have been slight. Some were complimentary and others not. At any rate, they do not form such a formidable attack as would justify me in taking up much of the time of the Committee in replying to them. One point was raised with regard to the position of the Labour Adviser. It was suggested that his services were not required. I cannot admit that. A man of lifelong experience in the mining industry, he knows the whole question from A to Z, and especially the question as it presents itself to the trade union mind; and he cannot fail to be of immense value in the saving of time, by putting us very often on the right lines on a subject which might occupy many days if we worked it out ourselves. His value has been recognised for the Government of South Africa has asked for him to be sent out to serve on a special Commission to inquire into the Johannesburg strike. That in itself is sufficient testimony to his value to a Department like ours. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) suggested that the Department would be better off if I were no longer there. Some people may be, alone, the judges of their own value; I prefer to leave the judgment to others. If it is thought that in the public interest the work which I do, and which may or may not be of any value, could be better

        675
        done by somebody else who is already occupied, I will never complain. All I will say is, I do not quite see what the saving is going to be in attaching the Mines Department to the Home Office, or in splitting up its work among the different Departments from which it was evolved. A question was raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. F. Hall) as to whether unemployment benefit was refused to men who had gone out of employment because they could not agree to terms offered by owners, which were below the standard fixed by the settlement. That point, it seems to me, should be inquired into. It rests, I understand, with the Umpire, and not with the Labour Department, but I can, at any rate, say I will discuss with the Minister of Labour the point which has been raised, in order that I may be able more fully to understand it and point out to him what appears to me to be the hardships involved.
        The main purport of this Debate was not, I think, to criticise the Estimate of the Mines Department, but to let the public know, if they do not know already, the very unhappy state in which the mining industry is in many parts of the country. I am sorry that some speakers thought it necessary to rake up old controversies about decontrol and the part the Government took at that time in order to try to prove that the whole of the present difficulties are due to the action of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is!"] That has been said by more than one hon. Member to-night and I am not going to argue the question all over again. I will say this—I do not admit for one moment, there was any breach of faith. The mining industry—both owners and men—was warned that decontrol might take place before 31st August. Owners and men were asked to sit together and come to some arrangement to carry on after control came to an end. They had four months in which to do it and at the end of that time they had come to no agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The owners and the men—I know what I am talking about.
        Mr. G. BARKER: And we know what we are suffering.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We all know what the suffering is, but I am not going to
        676
        admit it is due to any action on the part of the Government. Everybody is entitled to his own opinions. But I would like to go further than that, and say that, so far from the Government having been deaf to the entreaties of the mining industry, £25,000,000 of money were spent out of the public purse at the beginning of the year in order to keep up wages during those three months to the point at which they were, and not only that, but since then £7,000,000 have been spent in order to allow the decline to be more gradual, and I should like to ask hon. Members opposite whether any other industry has received from the taxpayers of this country so much assistance as the mining industry has.
        Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it not a fact that most of the £25,000,000 was spent, not to keep wages up to their point, but to enable all the other industries in the country to have coal below the cost of production—and the Navy too? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the same thing."]
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They were spent in the period when the trade slump began and to prevent the miners receiving too severe cuts in their wages, but what I would say is this—[Interruption]—I am surely entitled, when an attack has been made on the Government by several speakers, to point out to the Committee what the position of the Government is, and nobody can dispute what I have said. I have stated what are the plain and unvarnished facts. What the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) tried to prove was that all the trouble was due to the settlement, which he said was a very bad one, and that, so far from being a profit-sharing arrangement, it had been a loss-sharing arrangement. Surely every profit-sharing arrangement must also be a loss-sharing arrangement, according to the circumstances of the time. This particular arrangement has not only been a loss sharing, but it has been an arrangement under which the owners have in many cases made no profits at all, and I do not admit for a moment that the agreement is a bad one. I say it is a very good one on general principles. I do not say it is not capable of being amended.
        Mr. HARTSHORN: It is all wrong.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I disagree. I think it is a good arrangement, and what is more, I have considerable support for

        677
        my view in the opinion of the Secretary of the Miners' Federation. At that time, on the 27th June, 1921, when the settlement was made, Mr. Frank Hodges said:
        "With a settlement of this description before us, I think the nation will be glad to give what assistance is necessary to help us on to our feet again…"
        That is when he asked for the £10,000,000:
        "In this agreement, Mr. Prime Minister, we have a principle to which I attach the greatest importance—the first principle that we have ever had in the history of our trade which gives the workmen and the owners well-defined shares in its prosperity. It is not a question of the fluctuation of prices any longer; it is not a question of having wages fixed at a maximum point and the owners having profits indefinitely above that maximum point; it is a question of knowing to a penny what the trade will bear and what our respective shares will be. If this does not bring peace into the trade under private enterprise, there is nothing that can, and I am convinced that there is during the lifetime of this agreement a period of peace which the nation will welcome and which the nation is dying to witness and experience."
        If you read your "Daily Herald" for to-day, you will see that he still says, and he is quite right, that the agreement in principle is a good one. I cannot imagine any greater folly than that those who have such terms as the miners have under this agreement should try to get out, of the agreement because, at the moment, they happen to be at the bottom of the scale. It is like trying to sell your shares when they are at the lowest possible point. The moment industry improves wages will improve also.
        Mr. LAWSON: What good does that do if it does not pay the grocer's and the butcher's budget?
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Surely you can more easily pay the grocer's and the butcher's budget if wages have risen by 30s. or 35s. than if wages have not risen at all.
        Mr. LAWSON: They cannot pay them at all.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be an act of extreme folly to back out of the agreement when things are at their very worst, because then the miners would have had no benefit out of it and would lose the chance of the certain benefits they would get if things improved. What is it that we are asked to do? We are asked to have an inquiry. An inquiry about what?
        Mr. SUTTON: About starvation.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: An inquiry into the state of the industry which, I think, is known to every hon. Member of this Committee. What possible new fact can be gained by an inquiry No single hon. Member opposite has offered a single suggestion for improvement.
        Mr. BARKER: It is in the Sankey Report.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the first suggestion we have had. [HON. MEMBERS: "The question of royalties!"] The question of royalties was considered at one time, and an offer was made by the Prime Minister in conjunction with other conditions, and that was turned down. What is it that we should get from an inquiry?
        Mr. WALSH: Certain proposals were laid before, Parliament, and we were promised that they should be transformed into law without delay. One of those proposals was that the ownership of the royalties should come into the hands of the nation. Who turned that proposal down? The right hon. Gentleman said it was turned down will he tell us who turned it down?
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It was offered at the time of the dispute as part of another settlement. It was turned down at the moment and has not been offered since. How this proposal to buy out the royalty owners would be of any benefit at this moment, I do not know. All it would mean would be that the trade would pay the royalty to the State instead of to the mineowners.
        Mr. WALSH: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can answer the question who turned the proposal down?
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already answered that it was put before the Miners' Federation as part of a settlement offered by the Prime Minister.
        Mr. WALSH: It was offered to this House. Was it turned down by this House?
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not speaking about this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
        Mr. WALSH: It is not a question of Order simply, but a question for the right hon. Gentleman to answer.
        The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members to let the right hon. Gentleman continue, as there are only five minutes left.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already said three times that it was not turned down by the House.
        Mr. WALSH: It was left to this House.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Whether it was left to this House or not, it would do no good at this moment merely to transfer the payment of royalties from the present owners to the State. It would be very easy indeed for me to say that I would have an inquiry. Perhaps it would be the easiest way out of it, but would it not be rather a deception? I do not know what we are going to inquire into. Nobody knows what would be the result of an inquiry. It might tide over difficulties for me and other people in the next three or four weeks to say we are having an inquiry, but what possible good could come out of it? What hon. Members opposite want is some financial aid to the industry—that is the long and short. of it. Are you prepared to go to the other industries in this country some of whom are in as bad a position as you are yourselves, and when we have got nearly 2,000,000 people out of employment in this country—are you able to go to the country and say that the other industries and the taxpayers have got to find some more money for the mining industry, or are you not? I do not think that that is what you would ever dream at this moment of asking, and, if that be so, I really think that an inquiry can be of very little use. It is money that is wanted. Nobody can deplore the state of the industry more than I do, but sympathy is not of very much value. For what it is worth, I think the mining industry has the sympathy of the whole House. But what you want is money.
        Mr. WALSH: Could it not be made a subject of inquiry by the right hon.
        Gentleman's Department how it is that there is in an industry such as this, a consecutive series of reductions greater than ever known in the history of the industry, and never having taken place in any other industry? Could that not be made a subject of inquiry?
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: An inquiry of that sort would be an inquiry into the course of the economic laws, and I say it would be a very easy and simple way out of it in deluding anybody, but no good could come out of it. Therefore, although, of course, the proposal will no doubt be considered by those in higher authority than I am, I cannot myself see what possible good an inquiry could do. It seems a hard thing to say, but my own view is that the only thing for the industry to do is to go on and grin and bear it for a bit longer in the hope, and with some reasonable hope, that an improvement in trade will bring—
        Mr. WALSH: We have just got to stew in our own juice.
        Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The mining industry is not the only industry in this country in trouble. I am more interested in the mining industry than any other, and therefore I would rather do anything to help that industry than any other, but one thing I want to avoid is cant and humbug. Therefore, I venture to say, knowing as we do in this House the trouble in which the mining industry is, we have admired the courage with which they have borne their troubles up to now, and we feel confident in their endurance to bear those troubles for a little longer in the hope that a revival in trade will bring to them and to other people in this country the relief they so much desire.
        Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £95,184 be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 53: Noes, 146.

        Division No. 109.]

        AYES.

        [11.0 p.m.

        Adamson, Hi Hon. William

        Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

        Grundy, T. W.

        Amnion, Charles George

        Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

        Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

        Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Halls, Walter

        Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Hancock, John George

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Finney, Samuel

        Hartshorn, Vernon

        Bromfield, William

        Foot, Isaac

        Hayday, Arthur

        Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Hayward, Evan

        Cairns, John

        Gills, William

        Hirst, G. H.

        Cape, Thomas

        Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

        Holmes, J. Stanley

        Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

        Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Kennedy, Thomas

        Newbould, Alfred Ernest

        Tillett, Benjamin

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

        Kiley, James Daniel

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

        Lawson, John James

        Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

        Wignall, James

        Lunn, William

        Robertson, John

        Wilson, James (Dudley)

        Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

        Sexton, James

        Mills, John Edmund

        Spencer, George A.

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

        Sutton, John Edward

        Mr. W. Smith and Mr. T. Griffiths.

        Naylor, Thomas Ellis

        Swan, J. E.

        NOES.

        Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

        Fraser, Major Sir Keith

        Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

        Armltage, Robert

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

        Armstrong, Henry Bruce

        Gange, E. Stanley

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

        Atkey, A. R.

        Ganzonl, Sir John

        Perring, William George

        Baird, Sir John Lawrence

        Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

        Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Gould, James C.

        Purchase, H. G.

        Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

        Grant, James Augustus

        Raeburn, Sir William H.

        Barker, Major Robert H.

        Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

        Randles, Sir John Scurrah

        Barlow, Sir Montague

        Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

        Barnett, Major Richard W.

        Gregory, Holman

        Remer, J. R.

        Barnston, Major Harry

        Gretton, Colonel John

        Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

        Barrand, A. R.

        Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

        Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

        Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

        Betterton, Henry B.

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

        Rounded, Colonel R. F.

        Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

        Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

        Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

        Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)

        Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

        Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

        Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

        Breese, Major Charles E.

        Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

        Seddon, J. A.

        Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

        Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

        Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

        Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

        Hinds, John

        Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

        Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

        Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard

        Stanley, Major Hon, G. (Preston)

        Burdon, Colonel Rowland

        Hopkins, John W. W.

        Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

        Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

        Sturrock, J. Long

        Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

        Howard, Major S. G.

        Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

        Carr, W. Theodore

        Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

        Sutherland, Sir William

        Casey, T. W.

        Jodrell, Neville Paul

        Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

        Cautley, Henry Strother

        Johnson, Sir Stanley

        Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

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

        Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

        Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

        Coats, Sir Stuart

        Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

        Tryon, Major George Clement

        Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

        Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

        Waddington, R.

        Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

        King, Captain Henry Douglas

        Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Lindsay, William Arthur

        Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

        Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

        Lloyd, George Butler

        Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

        Cope, Major William

        Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

        Watson, Captain John Bertrand

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

        Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

        Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

        Lort-Williams, J.

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

        Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

        Macquisten, F. A.

        Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Manville, Edward

        Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

        Doyle, N. Grattan

        Mitchell, Sir William Lane

        Winterton, Earl

        Edge, Captain Sir William

        Molson, Major John Elsdale

        Wise, Frederick

        Elveden, Viscount

        Morden, Col. W. Grant

        Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

        Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

        Morrison, Hugh

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

        Evans, Ernest

        Neal, Arthur

        Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

        Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

        Worsfold, T. Cato

        Flides, Henry

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

        Young, E. H. (Norwich)

        Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

        Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

        Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

        Ford, Patrick Johnston

        Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

        Forestier-Walker, L.

        Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Forrest, Walter

        Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

        Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

        Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

        Parker, James

        McCurdy.

        Original Question put.
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 49.

        Division No. 110.]

        AYES.

        [11.10 p.m.

        Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

        Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Armltage, Robert

        Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

        Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

        Armstrong, Henry Bruce

        Breese, Major Charles E.

        Cope, Major William

        Atkey, A. R.

        Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

        Baird, Sir John Lawrence

        Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

        Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

        Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

        Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

        Burdon, Colonel Rowland

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Barker, Major Robert H.

        Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel w. R.

        Doyle, N. Grattan

        Barlow, Sir Montague

        Carr, W. Theodore

        Edge, Captain Sir William

        Barnett, Major Richard W.

        Casey, T. W.

        Elveden, viscount

        Barnston, Major Harry

        Cautley, Henry Strother

        Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

        Barrand, A. R.

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

        Evans, Ernest

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

        Coats, Sir Stuart

        Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

        Betterton, Henry B.

        Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

        Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

        Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

        Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

        Ford, Patrick Johnston

        Forestier-Walker, L.

        Lloyd, George Butler

        Seddon, J. A.

        Forrest, waiter

        Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

        Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

        Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

        Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

        Lort-Williams, J.

        Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

        Gange, E. Stanley

        Macquisten, F. A.

        Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

        Ganzonl, Sir John

        Manville, Edward

        Strauss, Edward Anthony

        Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

        Mitchell, Sir William Lane

        Sturrock, J. Long

        Gould, James C.

        Molson, Major John Elsdale

        Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

        Grant, James Augustus

        Morden, Col. W. Grant

        Sutherland, Sir William

        Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

        Morrison, Hugh

        Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

        Greenwood, William (Stockport)

        Neal, Arthur

        Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

        Gregory, Holman

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

        Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

        Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

        Tryon, Major George Clement

        Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

        Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

        Waddington, R.

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

        Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

        Walters, Rt. Hon. sir John Tudor

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

        Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

        Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

        Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col- Sir John

        Watson, Captain John Bertrand

        Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

        Parker, James

        Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

        Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)

        Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

        Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

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

        Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

        Hinds, John

        Perring, William George

        Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

        Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

        Pollock, Rt. Hon. sir Ernest Murray

        Wise, Frederick

        Hopkins, John W. W.

        Purchase, H. G.

        Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

        Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

        Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

        Howard, Major S. G.

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

        Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

        Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

        Remer, J. R.

        Worsfold, T. Cato

        Jodrell, Neville Paul

        Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

        Young, E. H. (Norwich)

        Johnson, Sir Stanley

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

        Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

        Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

        Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

        Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

        Roundell, Colonel R. F.

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

        Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

        Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

        King, Captain Henry Douglas

        Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

        McCurdy.

        Lindsay, William Arthur

        Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

        NOES.

        Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

        Ammon, Charles George

        Gillis, William

        Mills, John Edmund

        Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

        Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

        Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

        Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

        Grundy, T. W.

        Naylor, Thomas Ellis

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Bromfield, William

        Halls, Walter

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

        Hancock, John George

        Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

        Cairns, John

        Hartshorn, Vernon

        Robertson, John

        Cape, Thomas

        Hayday, Arthur

        Sexton, James

        Carter, w. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

        Hayward, Evan

        Spencer, George A.

        Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

        Hirst, G. H.

        Sutton, John Edward

        Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

        Holmes, J. Stanley

        Swan, J. E.

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Tillett, Benjamin

        Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Kennedy, Thomas

        Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

        Flldes, Henry

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Wilson, James (Dudley)

        Finney, Samuel

        Lawson, John James

        Foot, Isaac

        Lunn, William

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Mr. W. Smith and Mr. T. Griffiths.

        Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 22nd May.
        Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    TEACHERS IN GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether in fixing the present scales of salaries for teachers in grant-aided schools any undertaking by the Government or Parliament was given or implied that the provisions of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1918, should not- be altered while these scales remained in force."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (22nd May).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  COAL MINES (SAFETY APPLIANCES).
  COAL MINES (SAFETY APPLIANCES).
  INDIA (GERMAN INSULATORS).
  INDIA (GERMAN INSULATORS).
  ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC.
  ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFIC.
  IRAQ.
  IRAQ.
  CHEMICALS (IMPORTS).
  CHEMICALS (IMPORTS).
  TEA DUTY.
  TEA DUTY.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION, LANCASHIRE.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION, LANCASHIRE.
  COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, IRLAM (ARBITRATOR'S AWARDS).
  COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, IRLAM (ARBITRATOR'S AWARDS).
  AGRICULTURE (RABBITS).
  AGRICULTURE (RABBITS).
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA (AIR SERVICE).
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA (AIR SERVICE).
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS (WOMEN).
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS (WOMEN).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  WOMEN.
  WOMEN.
  CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT (RESIGNATIONS).
  CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT (RESIGNATIONS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed and sent to the Commons.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had given Notice, on the Motion, "That this House do now resolve itself into Committee," to move to leave out "now" and to add at the end of the Motion "this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, after one of his most amusing speeches, which are always very much welcomed by your Lordships, Lord Newton last week was fortunate enough to obtain, without a Division, the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope, after the few observations I feel bound to make, and the observations which other noble Lords will make, that the noble Lord will be sufficiently satisfied with the victory he gained last week to agree to the Amendment which I now propose. I do not intend to go into any details in connection with this Bill. We had a long discussion last year when the matter was thoroughly thrashed out. It is well reported in our OFFICIAL REPORT; and, moreover, we had last Thursday the debate at the conclusion of which my noble friend succeeded in getting the Second Reading. I propose, therefore, to condense my observations.
There are many reasons why the Bill should not be proceeded with further. The Second Reading of a similar Bill, after full discussion, in which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack took a most important part, last session,

519
was negatived without a Division. The local authorities have already more powers than they exercise. Those powers enable them adequately to deal with the protection of the public and the amenities of the landscape. In the debate last year, to which I have referred, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a very clear statement upon that point, and I desire to remind your Lordships of what he said. The noble Earl then stated—
"The present law with regard to advertisements is governed by the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, by which a local authority has power to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings when they exceed 12 feet in height, and has power to regulate or restrict and prevent the exhibition of advertisements which injuriously affect the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or destroy the natural beauty of the landscape."
I do not know what other powers it is necessary for local authorities to have. Some local authorities have exercised those powers, and have issued by-laws. Everything that a reasonably-minded man could wish to be done in the way of protecting scenery and anything else can already be clone under the existing laws.
I should like to point out that the Bill now before the House is not promoted by the local authorities but by a society whose object, I think we must all believe, is to do away with advertisements altogether. The Bill is vigorously objected to by the whole of the commercial and trading interests of the country. The London Chamber of Commerce, whose advertisement committee is composed of a large number of business men representative of every branch of advertising, has worked strenuously against it. The Federation of British Industries and a number of Chambers of Commerce are opposed to it in any form, on the ground that it is a grave interference with the development of trade. I enlarged upon this point last year and it is not necessary for me therefore to go into it further to-day.
Moreover, the Bill is not supported by the Government, and any progress in the House of Commons later is therefore impossible. We do not want to waste the time of this House in dealing with the details of a measure which, when it gets to the House of Commons, will only mean the waste of further public time when Parliament ought to be engaged on more important things. With reference to the Amendment down in the name of Lord
520
Lambourne to the effect that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to the exhibition of advertisements on or approaching any railway station, yard or platform, I appeal to him to withdraw it and support the Amendment I am now moving. His Amendment is not at all complete, to say nothing about granting special privileges to railway companies which are denied to other traders. If you give a preference to one there will be a great outcry throughout the country on the part of those who are denied any preference.
In this matter I ask your Lordships to listen to business men, and to be guided by them in the votes you give. If this Bill becomes law it will mean further unemployment, and will retard any improvement in trade and commerce. I do not propose to occupy any more of your Lordships' time, but I move my Amendment in the hope that you will realise that this is not a little fad on the part of any individual, but that the whole business and commercial world are opposed to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Southwark.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think most of your Lordships must have regarded this Amendment with some curiosity. The Second Reading of this Bill was taken after a very full speech by the noble Lord in charge of the measure, and there was practically no opposition to it at all.
LORD SOUTHWARK: There was nobody here.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Lord says there was nobody here; but he tells us that the whole trade of the country is alarmed at what is taking place. There was a full announcement of the fact that the Second Reading was going to be moved, and they were so anxious about their interests, which are to be harassed by this measure, that there was no one here when the Second Reading took place to suggest that there was any reason why the Bill should not pass. The procedure of your Lordships' House no doubt permits of many opportunities to impede the progress of a Bill, and I am not prepared to say that the procedure has not been justified in many cases; but to ask upon a

521
Motion that the Bill should go into Committee that the House should resolve to do what is the normal course when the Bill is read a second time, is something that cannot recommend itself to your Lordships either by precedent or by expediency.
And what was the reason why the noble Lord suggested this course? It was that your Lordships should not occupy the time of this House in discussing the Bill in Committee, as it might perhaps not meet with success in another place. The only Amendment down in Committee on this Bill is the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, suggests should be withdrawn. In other words, if he had not interfered this Bill would have been through Committee by this time, and the time of your Lordships' House would not have been occupied by the measure at all. I remain quite unmoved by the appeal the noble Lord has made. No one desires to interfere with business, but there are other things in life besides business.
A NOBLE LORD: Pleasure.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Not pleasure at all, but the delight in some of the beauties of nature which is one of the highest and purest pleasures man can enjoy. If you let business men have their way they would indeed paint the rainbow with advertisements, and implore Heaven to buy their pills and tonics. There is not a single place in this earth, however beautiful it may be, that they would not defile with their abominable advertisements if they had the power. I remember a passage, in one of Jeremy Taylor's works, I think, in which the writer said that it has never yet been revealed that God delighted in ugliness, and I see no reason why this House should prevent the effort of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill to redeem some of the most beautiful places in our land from the defiling abominations of enterprising traders.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, for two intelligent reasons I desire to support the Amendment of Lord Southwark. The first is that there is no public demand for the Bill, and the second is that if the Bill is proceeded with and goes to another place, my experience leads me to believe that it has not what one would call the ghost of a chance of getting on the Statute Book. It is, of course, rather a peremptory way of dealing with a Bill to suggest
522
that your Lordships should not consider it. What is the object of the measure? It is, in reality, to extend or enlarge the provisions of the Act of 1907, which has been in operation for fifteen years. That Bill gives power to local authorities, municipal and county, to deal with these advertisements, and yet during the whole of those fifteen years, out of scores of municipal authorities throughout the country, scarcely any action has been taken. If they have taken no action up to the present it seems altogether unnecessary to pass a Bill enlarging their powers.
I am sure the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment is in sympathy with Lord Newton. He desires, no doubt, to remove smile of the hideous advertisements that we see throughout the country. But we also have to look at this from a practical point of view. Unfortunately, this world is not the home of æstheticism. If we could all have the world as we wished it, we certainly would admit nothing that would offend any of our senses, but, unfortunately, it is a workaday world, where the majority of the inhabitants have to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. That fact must conic before æstheticism, at any rate in this case.
Looking at the question from a business point of view, what do we see? It is said by some that advertisement is not necessary to business. If that were so, surely municipal authorities would have taken some steps to deal with these advertisements. But, on the contrary, the majority of these bodies, although they have the powers, have failed to exercise them, because in many instances advertisements assist the rates, and they realise that their constituents would not support them if they attempted to abolish advertisements which tended to diminish the rates. We find the greatest authority on these matters, the London Chamber of Commerce, unanimously voting against this Bill. We know that during the last twenty or thirty years large businesses have been built up in this country solely by advertisement.
I think it was urged by one noble Lord that advertisement assisted only those who advertise largely, and those in competition in any particular business, who, if they did not succeed in building up the business, would find their competitors doing so. That is not the experience of men who have spent their lives in business. Not only does widespread advertising

523
assist almost all the industries in the country, but it greatly helps the export trade. In addition to that, we know that there are many businesses which would never have been called into existence had it not been for advertisement. An individual may have a most valuable commodity, but if he cannot bring it before the public, and the public do not know of its existence, there will be no demand for that particular article. Even the Government itself is driven to advertise. It is perfectly well known throughout the country that men are required for the various branches of both the naval and military Services. Notwithstanding that fact, the Government are compelled to advertise not inconsiderably in order to secure the men they require.
Let me go a step further. I contend that not only would you injure many other businesses by this Bill, but you would injure what is a great trade in itself, for the advertising trade is a very large one indeed. There are numbers of men employed, not only directly but indirectly, in connection with this trade. You have colour merchants, ink merchants, paper makers, the printing trade, which is a vast trade, and over and above that, you have those connected with night advertisements, you have mechanics—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And paste merchants.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: Paste merchants, if you will. You have a large trade. There are not only hundreds of thousands but millions of pounds already invested in this trade. Lastly, I should like to say that the Bill which the noble Lord has brought forward does not and cannot achieve what he requires. The Bill already in existence has failed to have any effect. For all these reasons, therefore—namely, that the Bill is not loudly called for; that it is not likely to pass into law; and that if it did so pass it would not achieve what those of us who desire to see these advertisements diminished really wish—I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I must confess that I have seldom experienced a greater sense of astonishment than when I saw this particular Amendment on the Paper, and I have not yet recovered from my bewilderment. I always looked upon my
524
noble friend beside me as a solid and serious person, as befits a pillar of the London Chamber of Commerce, and of the trade and industry of the country. I recognise in him at this moment a practical joker of an irresponsible disposition. He is like a man who goes to church prepared to object to the banns, whose courage fails him at the critical moment, and who, after the nuptials have been consummated, comes forward and says that the marriage ought to be annulled because he does not approve of it. Both the two noble Lords have made Second Reading speeches upon this occasion. It is hardly necessary, and it would be hardly becoming, for me to dwell upon the usual practice of Parliamentary procedure, more especially as the noble Lord beside me was in former days a Whip, and is probably conversant with every form of Parliamentary guile.
Everybody must realise, however, that when once the Second Reading of a Bill is carried, more especially if it be carried without discussion and without a Division, the principle is admitted, and there is nothing to do but to amend the Bill, if necessary, in Committee. With regard to the lurid statements made by the two noble Lords in the course of the discussion, if it be true that the country will go rapidly to the dogs in consequence of the passing of this Bill, because a few field posts will have disappeared, because the horny-handed sons of toil will no longer be able to gain their bread by the sweat of their brow, because sky signs or something of that kind have vanished, let me ask why was not something said on this point on the Second Reading? Where was the noble Lord? Where were the soap Lords? Where were the whisky Lords? Above all, I may ask, where were the newspaper Lords? Why were they not here? If there were anything in the contention of these two noble Lords, we should have had Lord Northcliffe, Lord Rothermere, and other noble Lords whose names will occur to you, pleading in broken-hearted accents and with tears streaming down their cheeks pointing out that they were going to be ruined under the operation of this Bill.
I feel some difficulty in speaking with due respect with regard to this particular Amendment. It seems to me one of the most idle and frivolous character. If there is any real and serious opposition to this Bill, these objections ought to have been pointed out long ago. As a matter of fact, I have been extremely generous. Not

525
only is the Bill of the mildest possible character, so that any monstrosity which my noble friend may put up will have five years lease of life if it is erected before a by-law has been passed, but I have given noble Lords a whole fortnight's Notice to enable them to put down Amendments. One noble Lord has put down an Amendment, and even that is objected to because it does not go far enough. I sincerely hope that what I can only term the dilatory and frivolous Motion of my noble friend will receive scant respect at the hands of the House, and that it will be rejected practically with general assent.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not entertain this Amendment. I submit that it is of the most irregular character. The Bill has been read a second time, and then, when it is put down for Committee, a Motion is made that the date should be delayed for six months. That is an attempt to renew the opposition which collapsed upon the Second Reading. If there was any ground for opposing the Bill on principle, the Second Reading was the stage when it should have been attempted, but when the principle has once been decided, I submit that it would be pessimi exempli if any encouragement were given to renew the Second Reading opposition on the Motion to go into Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, personally I regard this Bill, as I have previously said, as a most futile and unnecessary one, that imposes upon local authorities jurisdiction which they do not seek, which they have never asked for, and which they will undoubtedly, judging by the experience of the last few years, fail to use when they have obtained it. But I was not present on the Second Reading—unfortunately, I was not back in this country—or I should have endeavoured to impress those views on your Lordships. On the last occasion when a Second Reading was sought for the Bill the House refused to give it, and I think a Division was not even challenged by the promoters, but I feel the force of what Lord Finlay has said, that the House quite recently gave a Second Reading to this Bill. I do not think there is any prospect that facilities will be afforded to it—so I am informed—but I think probably your Lordships, having given it so recently a Second Reading, will not be disposed now to
526
adopt a course which would be practically negativing that which you have already decided.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extended powers of making by-laws.
1.—(1) The powers of a local authority under section two of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall include powers to make by-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places, in such manner and by such means as to—

(a) affect injuriously the amenities or disfigure the aspect of a town, village or street, or of any historic or public building or monument or any place frequented by the public on account of its beauty or historic interest; or

(b) disfigure the aspect of landscape or interfere with the view of rural scenery from a road or railway, or from any public place or water.

(2) In section two of the principal Act the words "when they exceed twelve feet in height" and "or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape" are hereby repealed.
LORD LAMBOURNE LORD LAMBOURNE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) This section shall not apply to the exhibition of advertisements on or upon any railway station, yard, platform or railway approach belonging to a railway company."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move my Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend will accept it.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, I accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lambourne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill has been introduced by the Government on behalf of the four Universities of Scotland.

527
Under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, the University Courts of the four Universities have the power to make, alter or revoke Ordinances. The present Bill extends this power and enables the University Courts to make Ordinances for the following purposes:—(1) To impose age limits upon the tenure of office of any principal or professor; (2) to institute new pension systems for principals or professors in addition to, or instead of, any existing system; and, (3) to provide for the admission of lecturers or readers to the Senatus Academicus. In accordance with the procedure under the Act of 1889, which is applied in this Bill, any of these Ordinances will require the approval of His Majesty in Council before they become operative.
Any principalship or professorship of which the Crown has the patronage, can only be affected by any new Ordinance prescribing limits of tenure with the consent of the Crown. The rights of principals and professors already holding office are also duly safeguarded. The Bill also provides for the admission of lecturers or readers to the General Council of the University during their tenure of office. It frequently happens that graduates of other Universities occupy the position of lecturers. At present they are not entitled to the rights of members of the Council of the University in which they are serving. This is recognised to be a defect and the Bill proposes to remove it. The Bill has been carefully considered by the governing and consultative bodies concerned, and the proposals which it contains are put forward with the approval of all the Universities. I may add that the Bill throws no burden upon the Exchequer, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Stanmore.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have looked into this Bill, and I think it is a very valuable one. It is necessary because of the somewhat narrow terms of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889. What this Bill does is simply to put the Scottish chairs on what is practically the same footing as all the English chairs. I think it is a good Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MAINTENANCE OF ROADS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to move to resolve; "That the user of roads, both those which, as regards width, are not suitable, as well as those which are suitable for heavy motor vehicles, has become so great, and the financial burden thrown on ratepayers in rural parishes, owing to the increased cost of making roads sufficiently strong for such heavy vehicles, has become so serious, that the subject is deserving of inquiry by a Committee of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing this matter before your Lordships for the third time this year. On the last occasion that I did so the noble Earl who was leading the House encouraged me to show him whether my arguments were sufficiently strong to justify my suggestion that this matter was of sufficient importance to be referred to a Parliamentary Committee rather than to a Departmental Committee, which up to now has considered part of the question. On the first occasion that I brought forward the subject your Lordships agreed with me that a grievance did exist as regards the schedule of licence fees, in that if the licence fees imposed on light vehicles are fair, then those imposed on the heavier class of vehicle, which does the greater damage to the roads, ought to be higher than they are.
Your Lordships agreed to that proposition, and I then communicated with the Department and asked whether the Government were disposed to refer the subject to a Parliamentary Committee. They replied that the matter would be under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. Well, the Departmental Committee has examined this matter, and has given its decision, and I am very doubtful whether. if it goes into the matter again, we shall get such an examination of the whole subject as I think it deserves, and whether in the end there will be very much difference in the schedule. Therefore, I then asked the Government whether they were disposed to refer the matter to a Parliamentary Committee. My noble friend, who was leading the House on that occasion, thought—no doubt it was my fault—that

529
I was making a suggestion that there should be a Parliamentary Inquiry into local taxation generally, but when he saw that he had misunderstood me he said that if I could bring forward arguments to justify my suggestion, consideration would be given to it. I am here to-day to justify, if I can, my suggestion that this matter is of sufficient importance to deserve an Inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee.
In the first place, as regards the schedule of rates, I am not going to detain your Lordships by going into the rates at any length, but I will illustrate them by one case. A motor charabanc or omnibus carrying, I think, up to twelve people, pays no more than a light Ford car carrying five or six. That seems to me to be inequitable. As regards the effect—I do not want to be misunderstood—I am not suggesting that there is a grievance against the Department. The Department, I believe, has been doing its very best to get a system of taxation on the right lines so that those who use the roads should pay for them. I have no doubt that it made the best struggle it could as regards the schedule of rates.
I think, too, that it recognised and carried through this very important point, that the Department is the authority which decides whether a local body has a grievance or not. In that way an obstructive local authority interfering in a line of route is got rid of. That, I admit, is a great advantage, because we do not want to interfere with the people who seek to get out of the metropolis, or any other great urban centre, into rural places or to the seaside. We are only too glad to think that it is possible. Of course, a not very important local authority which is obstructive, say a district council, might interfere very considerably with the enjoyment of a large number of people who wish to get out of the urban areas. That may be looked at from another aspect with which I will deal directly. Therefore, I say that I do not think we have any serious grievance against the Department.
Let me illustrate what has happened by a case which came before my notice yesterday. At the meeting of the Kent County Council yesterday, a report of the roads committee came up, which stated that there is a real grievance in some of the highway districts by reason of some of the minor district roads (especially in tourist districts) which are not classified, and therefore not
530
in receipt of any grant from the Ministry of Transport, being largely used by heavy motor coaches during the summer season. The surface of such roads, they say, is not strong enough for such traffic, and cannot be made so except at great expense, which the district councils naturally consider should be defrayed from grants derived from the fund specially formed from the Duties charged. This fund, they add, is already allocated to the roads as classified, and if a wider classification is to be made the fund must be enlarged by increasing the Duties. And they conclude by saying that the matter is one which demands investigation.
That is what the committee reported, and the County Council then passed a resolution unanimously stating—
"The Council requests the County Councils Association to approach the Ministry of Transport with a view to a reconsideration of the whole question both of the relative rates of taxation of the different classes of motor vehicles, and the user by such vehicles of classified and unclassified roads; and is of opinion that the subject is of such importance as to be deserving of Parliamentary Inquiry."
As an illustration of the point made by the roads committee of that County Council, I will take the district of Sevenoaks. That district has a long length of district roads to maintain. In the last twelve months it spent £23,000 in maintaining its roads. What was the contribution which it received from the fund administered by the Ministry of Transport? £300 ! £300 towards an expenditure of £23,000 upon roads, many of which are being used by these heavy vehicles. That, I think, shows the grievance.
I submit that an Inquiry by Parliament is justified for this reason, that the necessity of centralisation, which has been forced upon the Ministry of Transport, is absolutely contrary to the principle of local self-government as laid down in the Act of 1888—I think that is the date. My noble friend, Lord Long, is here. He has a great knowledge of local self-government and will correct me if I am wrong in the view I entertain that it was the intention of Parliament then that such matters as these should be left to county councils. It is a fact that no parish council, no district council, and no county council has any scrap of authority, either as regards the route taken by an omnibus company or by a trading company owning lorries. During the war the county council had a power. It had a power to refuse a licence

531
to a line of route or a line of transport—I really forget which it was. That power has been taken away. I submit that the Ministry of Transport could not help themselves; they had to centralise. But it is contrary to the principle of local self-government. Therefore, on that ground also, there is sufficient justification for having this matter inquired into by Parliament.
It is quite obvious that as these bodies have no power of resistance a constitutional grievance is created, and there will continue to be agitation until an Inquiry of a superior kind is made. The district councils (I am not sure about the parish councils) have the remedy that they can present a petition to the Department to inquire into the legitimacy of the use of this or that particular road by heavy transport. Then, I think, the procedure is that the Department asks whether the district council has consulted the county council. If the county council agrees with the district council a local inquiry is set up, and the matter is investigated on the spot. But, obviously, that procedure must take a very long time. And that is the only remedy, so far as I know.
I have given two grounds upon which I submit that a Parliamentary Inquiry is desirable rather than a Departmental Inquiry. Here is the third. Your Lordships must have seen that the railways are not going to be quiescent under this competition; they see that the conveyance of goods by road is eating into their business, and they are now bringing Bills before Parliament to enable them to put their lorries on to the roads. That means a considerable increase in the number of transport vehicles, a considerable increase in the wear and tear of the roads, and eventually, unless very great care is taken, it means such an additional burden on the shoulders of the ratepayer that there may be a serious danger of what is very common in these days—namely, a strike; a strike of the ratepayers against burdens which they regard as unfair and insupportable.
I submit to your Lordships that something novel has arisen, which only began in the first years of the war. A new kind of transport has sprung into existence, and is making use of the ordinary means of getting about the country—the roads—which were never intended for that kind of vehicle. In those circumstances the proper procedure is for the promoters to come to Parliament,
532
just as the railways had to do when they wanted to get about the country originally. At this very moment, if a railway company wants to obtain running powers over the line of another railway company it has to come to Parliament, and I submit that the position of this new means of transport all over the country—very desirable, very necessary, very useful, but still novel, and doing a good deal of damage to the roads—is somewhat similar, and ought to be inquired into by Parliament.
A suggestion was made to me yesterday—which, of course, is only conjecture—that it is very possible that some day or other, in order to overcome the obstruction of a small local authority, the roads which are classified as able to bear this heavy traffic might be put under the management of the county, just as the main roads were put under the county in the past. Your Lordships know, of course, that where a district road grew very important and became a heavier charge on the local ratepayers than they thought was fair, they appealed to the old Quarter Sessions and, subsequently, to the county council to classify that piece of road as a main road, which then became a charge upon the county instead of upon the district. Very possibly that might be a way out of the difficulty of obstruction by a local authority. As I said before, it is merely a conjecture of mine, though I do not think it is unsound, because it is based upon the old principle of the county maintaining the through routes. In the case of the particular traffic we are discussing, it would be necessary to classify the roads as fit to carry it, and that would be a county business.
I will detain your Lordships no longer. I have submitted my arguments in support of the contention that this subject is worthy of inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee rather than a Departmental Committee. I do not know what were the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee, but I should doubt whether they included this question of whether or not what has been done is not an infraction of the intention of Parliament as regards local self-government. I should also think those terms of reference did not include the consideration of this very important question as to whether these heavy vehicles which are run by every kind of company ought to be allowed to travel upon any road whatsoever until some local authority finds the courage and is prepared to meet the expense of a local inquiry. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, "That the user of roads, both those which, as regards width, are not suitable as well as those which are suitable for heavy motor vehicles, has become so great, and the financial burden thrown on ratepayers in rural parishes, owing to the increased cost of making roads sufficiently strong for such heavy vehicles, has become so serious, that the subject is deserving of inquiry by a Committee of Parliament."—(Lord Harris.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I think it will be agreed that the noble Lord has made out his case as to the desirability, indeed the necessity, of a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter of heavy motor traffic and of all motor traffic on the roads. It must be the experience of every member of your Lordships' House that it is essential that something should be done to regularise this traffic and to place on those who use the roads a greater share than they now bear of the heavy expenditure incurred. As the noble Lord said, our roads were never constructed for, and it was never contemplated that they would have to carry, such traffic as now moves along them. It is perfectly unreasonable in these days, when we are told that motor traffic is only in its infancy and that what we see to-day is nothing to what is going to happen in the very near future in regard to goods and commodities that will be carried along our roads and also in regard to increased passenger traffic.
I had a proof sent me of a paper which is to be read to-morrow at the Institute of Transport, and I have no doubt your Lordships have also received copies. In this proof it is stated that a ton of goods passing by rail from Liverpool to Manchester pays in respect of the provision, upkeep and renewal of the line upon which it travels twopence to threepence per mile; that is the cost to the railway company after carrying a ton of goods. A ton of goods performing the same journey in a motor lorry upon the highway from Liverpool to Manchester pays less than a farthing per mile. That seems to be grossly unfair. It is a matter of pure chance that our present motor traffic has become the user of our roads which were never intended for the purpose. When our roads were developed from mere bridle paths to carriage roads they were at first insufferably bad. It was in 1833 that Sir Henry Parnell pointed out, in a treatise on the subject, that the improvement of our roads at that time had
534
been so marked in comparison with the roads in other countries, solely due to the fact that those who used then had to pay for the upkeep under a system of tolls. We all know that we cannot have tolls in our day in regard to motor traffic, but I contend that what is essential is that heavy and fast-going motor traffic should construct their own main trunk roads and then allow the local authorities to determine what are main, branch, and third-class roads.
Two estimates have been given as to what would be the cost of putting 36,000 miles of classified roads into a fit condition to bear this heavy motor traffic. One estimate was £198,000,000 and the other £500,000,000. Obviously, if you are going to impose on the ratepayer even half of the lesser sum, it will be a burden which he will be totally unable to bear. At the present time I believe many local authorities ask the Ministry of Transport that their roads shall be closed to motor traffic because the burden has become so heavy. In regard to Scotland, I was talking with OUT road surveyor a little while ago and he agreed that the only fair thing to do was that the big main trunk roads should be paid for by those who are going to use them. That seemed to me to be a not unreasonable suggestion to make. The railways were built at great expense, and to put our main roads into a fit condition to bear this heavy traffic would require the enormous amount of money I have already mentioned.
I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will recognise the extreme reasonableness of the Motion made by the noble Lord. Not, only in the interest of the ratepayers and the taxpayers, but also in that of those who want to use the roads for heavy motor traffic, the roads should be put into proper condition for carrying that traffic. At the present time the roads are absolutely incapable of carrying very heavy lorries—which, we are told, will in all probability be made heavier and will increase both in numbers and in size—or all the very fast traffic, which means that the wear and tear of the roads will become greater so that the present method of financing their upkeep will be rendered impracticable in the future.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies on behalf of the Government I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to a

535
decision of this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, which was given a few weeks ago, and which has not yet been reported. The noble Lord can get a copy of the judgment from the Judicial Office. It is the case of the Weston-super-Mare local authority. It does not cover the whole ground, or nearly the whole ground, to which the noble Lord has adverted, but it did decide this. There are Highway Acts which provide that when there is brought over a road traffic of a heavier kind than that for which the road has been designed, or to which it has been accustomed, the local authority is entitled to recover from those who use it the expense of repairs which the local authority has been put to because of the heavy traffic. In the case of a great main road, it has to be made suitable for whatever traffic would in the ordinary course pass over it, but there are a great many roads which have not been made up to that standard, and they are not the only roads.
What was decided by this House was that the mere fact that the traffic owners have been accustomed for some time past to carry heavy traffic over the weaker kind of roads is no ground for their resisting the provision imposed on them by the Highway Acts, which enable the road authority to recover from them the cost to which they have been put in repairing the roads and keeping them up to the mark. It is worth while referring to that decision to see what the nature of the burden is. I agree that it does not cover the whole, or nearly the whole, of the subject to which the noble Lord has adverted, but it is certainly a consideration to be taken into account in any inquiry which is made.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I ask leave to support my noble friend, Lord Harris, in the Motion which he has made, and I would direct the few remarks that I propose to offer to your Lordships not so much to prove that there are existing grievances—nay, more than grievances, evils—.which call loudly for remedy, but to emphasise what is the essence of the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Harris—namely, that the Inquiry should be by a Parliamentary and not by a Departmental Committee. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has referred to a decision of which I know nothing, not having seen it. He has told your Lordships that there is a means of recovery—which, I understand, has been emphasised by this recent decision
536
—where the traffic is extraordinary, or where certain circumstances of a special character would appear to justify the local authority in seeking redress. That power, in one form, has existed, as your Lordships know who are familiar with this complicated highway question, for many years. But that power is not satisfactory. It is too cumbersome, and does not really meet the difficulty.
This case demands Parliamentary Inquiry for this reason. It is not a mere question of traffic; it is not a mere question of the person who uses the roads paying for them; it is not a mere question of the character of the vehicles which pass over the roads. It is not one of those questions, each of which involves a variety of other subjects. It is a question so large, and one that opens up so many branches of inquiry into so many matters, that in my view it is only by a Parliamentary Inquiry that you can get the sort of investigation and Report that you require. Most of your Lordships are familiar with Departmental Inquiries. They are very admirable ways of getting a certain class of information. I have been responsible, in probably every Department with which I have been associated in a long career, for the appointment of a great many Departmental Committees, but they have not the authority, and they cannot have the authority, that is necessary if you are going to inquire into this question.
Speaking I am sure for all of us, Lord Harris said that he desired an amendment of the existing condition of things, and that nobody desires to stop the heavy charabanc or motor conveyance which conveys people from the towns to the country. We do not want to place any improper impediment in their way, but we do desire that that kind of traffic should be regularised, and we want to be satisfied that those who use the roads for this purpose are, at all events, paying their fair share. There is another kind of heavy motor traffic, and that is the charabancs which are used locally. To them I attach far more importance than I do to the charabancs which convey holiday people from Bristol to Salisbury City to see our beautiful cathedral, or down to Southampton. I do not want to stop that traffic, but I attach the very greatest importance to that new institution, the local charabanc, which is a blessing to the people of country districts, enabling them to get in and out of the town cheaply and easily. I should

537
be very sorry to think that anything was to be done—certainly I would do nothing—to interfere with or check that new development.
But it is not in the interests of these heavy charabancs, conveying either through or local passengers, that the roads of our country districts have been made, or are rapidly being made, imitations of the London streets. Enormous sums of money have been spent in making roads with a surface like glass. That is a branch of the subject into which this Parliamentary Committee would enquire. Those who are making roads of that kind are doing it under pressure. Force majeure is compelling them to do it. As Lord Harris has pointed out, they have no means of checking the traffic. It is their duty to provide the road, and they must provide a road as strong and as smooth of surface as is possible, and in order to do that at anything like a reasonable cost they are making roads which are unsafe for horses and cattle. This raises another branch of inquiry. Anyone who chooses to traverse our country roads which now have this glassy surface cannot fail to see often on those roads the marks of the suffering of dumb animals which have fallen there, and in their struggles to get up have been badly injured. It may be necessary to have such roads, but if it be necessary I submit that it is necessary also to make some provision for the passage both of horses and cattle of every kind.
I am satisfied from my own experience that a Departmental Inquiry is useless for the purpose which we have at heart. This road question is a very serious one. I have referred to the cruelty—for it is nothing else—practised upon dumb animals as a result of the present kind of road in many parts of the country. But there is another danger. Some of the charabancs are so broadly constructed that they occupy much more than their proper share of the road, and they make the passage by them of other vehicles, which are just as much entitled to the road as they are, not only difficult, but often very dangerous.
The difficulty does not stop there. Anybody now traversing our country roads—I am not talking of the main roads, but of the non-scheduled roads—can see for himself what is taking place. Only the other day I saw an incident in a narrow country road. I came round the corner,
538
and I found an immense engine, as big as one you would see on one of our main lines, and there were four trucks behind it. It was, in fact, a train, and not a lorry or a motor vehicle. Here was what I can only call a train travelling along this narrow country road, and in going round one of the corners it had got into the side of the ditch, and there it was stuck. No one could get past it. Everyone had to go round another way until these unfortunate people had extracted their train from the ditch. That is an aspect of the subject which ought to be inquired into. Are our roads to be used for the passage of trains? That is what it amounts to at the present time. It is not merely an ordinary vehicle; it is an engine drawing several vehicles.
These are only some of the questions that require investigation. It is not merely the difference between rates and taxes. Yesterday we were debating the salaries and pensions of County Territorial Associations' secretaries, and the noble Earl who leads the House told us that it involved a great expenditure. The question we are discussing to-day involves no expenditure by the Government. What we ask is the appointment of a really strong Parliamentary Committee, which can cover all the ground and make a Report under these different heads. It is necessary in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A most vicious system has grown up by degrees. It has been my business to follow these questions in Parliament, but I do not know how on earth this system of Grants-in-aid has grown to its present proportions. All I know is that Parliament votes the money and the ratepayer finds the money, and there is no one, not even the most experienced chairman of a county council or a finance committee who knows the proportions under which the expenditure is borne by Parliament and the local authorities. Immense sums are being squandered which could be saved if you had a wise decision as to the kind of roads we are to have, what the traffic is to be, and under what conditions that traffic is to be allowed to travel.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me whether his statement regarding local government was correct. So far as my knowledge goes, it is absolutely correct. The present system is absolutely flying in the teeth of all we have been preaching in this country for the last forty years—namely, that there are certain questions

539
which should be left to local authorities to decide. They have no power at all. They are compelled to provide roads for a traffic which has grown up rapidly, since the war or just before the war, and it amounts to a public scandal—I say it deliberately—and calls for urgent redress, not merely in the interests of the taxpayer and the ratepayer, but also in the interests of the safety and convenience of the public, and for the protection of dumb animals now exposed to sufferings to which they ought never to be exposed. In my judgment you will only get a proper inquiry from a Parliamentary Committee, and in the interests of the public, those who have to use the roads and pay for them, and in the interests of the Exchequer, I hope the Government will accede to the request.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the speeches of noble Lords who have put forward very fairly the great grievance of ratepayers on this question. I share that grievance. Long ago I came to the conclusion that the present system by which our roads are maintained cannot go on much longer. At the present moment, while the rateable value has increased by a few millions, the expenditure of county councils and district councils has gone up, in some cases, to as much as three times what it was before the war. Lately, I have had the fortune to be in the County of Kent, and I have noticed there, as elsewhere, the great hardship in regard to the third-class road—which is the greatest hardship of all—where a small local authority, with a small rateable value, has to keep its roads up to a standard far in excess of local requirements because they happen to have in their district roads which are used by heavy vehicles which smash them up. These small local authorities control about 140,000 miles of road, about two-thirds of the whole mileage, and they are feeling the effect of this heavy traffic more than any other body.
I am aware that ratepayers are becoming alarmed. There is hardly a county council in England in which the ratepayers have not lately put forward strong representations on this point. The rise of rates has been remarkable. I have pointed out before how great it has been. Between 1914 and 1921 rates have risen from £71,000,000 to £149,000,000, or more than double, while the rateable value has only increased from £211,000,000 to
540
£223,000,000. There is also a great disparity in the charges of different districts. In Herefordshire, for instance, the charge is 3s. 11 d. for highway purposes, as compared with 7½d. that Lancashire spends on its highway rates. Therefore, it is clear that there is great injustice in some cases, and no equality in the way rates are levied for highway purposes. On that ground I support an Inquiry; I think the whole question wants revision and reconsideration.
We have now, in addition, a new element which requires some attention. Lord Harris and other noble Lords have alluded to the fact that before long the railway companies may come on to the roads with a large number of vehicles. That will add greatly to the strain on them. The railway companies plead that they are large ratepayers, contribute largely to the highway rates, and therefore should have the right to come on to the roads. That question is still under consideration in another place, and I will say nothing further about it than this, that if it is allowed we shall have to pay for a much greater use of our roads.
I think it is hardly realised by the Ministry of Transport how much damage the heavy motor vehicle does to the roads as compared with the lighter motor vehicle. As far as I can get them, the figures show that commercial vehicles pay about ten per cent. of the total of the highway rates. If you take the expenditure on our highways at £60,000,000 they pay £6,000,000 towards that sum. But I must admit that they do ninety per cent. of the damage, and now that the Ministry Of Transport has allowed a greater weight per axle than formerly, and as they run at a much higher speed as well, it is time that the whole question of these speeds and weights should be considered. An axle weight of eight tons is allowed on a single axle. That is far too great a weight to allow. In the case of a traction engine, there is not only the traction engine itself, but often two and three trucks behind it; and they do an immense amount of damage to the roads. In my own district the constant passage of a traction engine and its trucks over a certain piece of road has so disintegrated that road that it has cost the ratepayers five or six times as much as they would otherwise have had to spend, and at present those who do the damage do not contribute anything at all of this expenditure. That is manifestly unfair. Consequently, I support the noble Lord in his request for a Committee to inquire into the matter.

541
Having said so much, I should like to say a few words in defence of motor traction. It has not had a single friend in the House so far to-day, but I think there is something to be said from the other side. First of all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Long, mentioned just now, nothing has done more to help the countryside than the advent of the carrier and the Ford van. Nothing has so helped people to get about as motor cars, and they have helped even more in the country than in the towns. With railway rates at their present figure, motor traction is the only way of bringing any form of competition into play against the railways. I know cases in which we in the country have had to abandon the use of railways entirely because the rates have been put up to such a high figure, and if you put difficulties in the way of motors by putting a heavy tax upon them you will make it more difficult to carry goods at cheap rates. I believe it is very important to maintain the facilities of transport in this way. The only result of penalising motor tractors would be to drive the traffic back upon the railways. Naturally, the railways would like that, but from the point of view of the trader and the consumer it is, to my mind, very important not to overtax even the heavy vehicles.
What should the Government do in this case? I think it would be very difficult to ask a general Committee of this House, or of both Houses, to decide upon technical matters. I do not know that there are many noble Lords or Members in another place who would be qualified to take these matters into consideration and to decide upon them, but I think that a general Inquiry would be a good thing from the point of view of the motor industry, which is very dissatisfied with the present system of taxation. It would also be a good thing from the point of view of the ratepayer, who has really come to the end of his tether and is not inclined to pay any more; and it would be a good thing from the point of view of establishing some definite relation between the Grants-in-aid of local taxation and the money which is taken from road users for the repair of the roads. Consequently, I support the noble Lord in his request for a Committee to reconsider the matter, and I think it would benefit everyone if this were done.
We must be careful of one thing. At the present moment the motoring industry,
542
which employs a very large number of men in this country and in which many millions of pounds are invested, is in a rather parlous state. It finds it difficult to produce vehicles at a profit, and there is no very great demand. We must be careful that nothing is done further to depress that industry. If we are too hard upon the owners of motor vehicles we shall lead to a diminution of the demand for the products of the industry. While I support in a general sense the request of the noble Lord, at the mine time I think that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said just now, it should be on the wide ground of not interfering with the work that is already being done by Committees. There are, as I believe the noble Earl who replies for the Government will tell us, two Committees sitting at the present time at the Ministry of Transport investigating questions of taxation and construction. Whatever they report, they could not take the place of a Parliamentary Committee, and whatever decision they reach should be referred to that Committee. They can do very useful work in that way. Let me conclude by saying, on behalf of the motor trade, that they are dissatisfied. I know that the ratepayer is dissatisfied, and I think the whole system wants reconstructing. On those grounds I support the Motion moved by the noble Lord.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I do not know what is the reply which the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Transport is going to make, but if he intends in any way to accede to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I should like to remind him that, on a previous occasion when Lord Harris introduced the subject into this House, I ventured to make a few remarks about the effect of heavy motor traffic and its speed in urban areas. I notice that the noble Lord's Motion is confined entirely to rural areas, but in my opinion just as much damage and injury are done by heavy motor traffic, going apparently at any speed its drivers please, in the narrow streets of urban districts, and additional damage is caused by the great noise and vibration that arise in such places. While entirely agreeing with all that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, I hope that if an inquiry is to be held into the effect of heavy motor traffic on the roads there will be included in its scope the effect and the speed of such traffic upon streets in urban areas.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will press his Motion to a Division if the reply of the Government is unsatisfactory. In all these discussions on the comparative advantage of railway and road transport we are arguing from insufficient data. On more than one occasion, I have urged the Ministry of Transport to have inquiries made and figures published of the exact cost of road repair and road upkeep per ton per mile. I believe there are absolutely no figures today which show this, making due allowance for the class of road, the material of which the road is made, and the weather conditions under which haulage is carried out. I have always been very much interested in this matter, and in France during the war I was able to get a good many fairly accurate statistics. I do not know if your Lordships will believe me, but on one occasion 80,000 tons of material, pulled over 14 kilometres (roughly, nine miles) under winter conditions by motor lorries, necessitated 43,000 tons of road material being used to keep the road in repair.
I will give a parallel case from the North of England. A timber merchant was asked by the local council to pay at the rate of 4s. 3d. per ton per mile for timber hauled over a piece of road. That was the charge which the local council thought necessary, possibly for a second class or third class road. I would suggest to Lord Harris that, if this Committee is formed, one of the figures at which they should be instructed to arrive is what, under varying figures of transport, is the actual cost of hauling a ton of material over a mile of road. I think that figure would give more value to any comparison of the respective merits of motor traffic and haulage by rail.
The second point to which I want to call your Lordships' attention is the question of extraordinary traffic, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane. That is one of the matters into which the Committee should inquire. It should attempt to arrive at a definition of extraordinary traffic, and I have no doubt that such a decision would be very valuable, for extraordinary anomalies exist. I heard of a case in my own county the other day. We were unable to tax an individual who, instead of sending the material for his house by sea or rail, decided to carry it across the county. This was no advantage to us, because he lived outside the
544
district and did not increase its rateable value. On the other hand, there are certain carriers of timber who, although they have paid rates and taxes for the whole period of their existence of seventy years, are charged to the full extent if they have extraordinary traffic. I think that the law and custom which have arisen from such definitions as exist on the subject of extraordinary traffic should also be inquired into at the same time.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I wish to raise my voice in support of the position that has been taken up by almost every speaker that we have heard to-night, as to the absolute necessity of having this matter inquired into not as a mere local question, and one involving technicalities, but as one which of a certainty will become a serious national question before many years are over. It is not when greater troubles exist, when local authorities feel greater grievances, and when the users of motor vehicles feel greater grievances, that an Inquiry should be ordered, but it is now, in advance. I have had practical experience of very large portions of the roads in Kent, Hampshire and Essex, and of that part of the country where I live—namely, the Isle of Wight—and I can confirm absolutely, by cases that have come under my own observation, the use of the roads which has been mentioned by Lord Long.
Any one who uses the roads at the present time will agree that there are three large questions involved, which are not Departmental questions, but which affect, and certainly will affect, the whole country. It is obvious that this huge volume of new traffic, whether of charabancs, or steam engines with trailers, or large motor carriers with trailers, each month shows a larger and still larger increase. I think it was suggested by one noble Lord that this traffic would probably injure trade in one direction, by the practical exclusion of light motor vehicles, owing to the difficulty and danger of using the roads. That may or may not be the case—in my humble judgment it probably will be so—but it is not a question merely for a Department, it is a question for the whole public of this Kingdom.
The next matter which is brought under one's observation is that this thing has come to stay. It will not vanish on the Department waving its hand, or making regulations, or holding inquiries, but it

545
is a real live factor of modern life, and will go on increasing. The cost of accommodating existing roads, whether main roads or roads which, owing to changing circumstances, may become main roads, is enormous, and it will increase fourfold as this particular form of traction increases. Then there is forced upon one the question of who is to pay for it. Is it legitimate that those who derive the least advantage from the roads—namely, the farming class, who have no interest in this huge competition with the railways which is taking place along these main roads—should be called upon to pay, as they are being called upon to pay, more and more as time goes on? But, whether it be right or wrong, that is not a question for a Department.
Then there is another question which is certainly not one for a Department. The present system under which roads are maintained casts most unequal burdens upon different parts of the country. In some places which may lie between large centres the roads are used to an enormous extent, and parts of the roads which pass through merely rural districts are subjected to the traffic of huge motor coaches. Is it right that that state of things should continue? Is it just that those who derive the least advantage should probably have the largest amount to pay? Is not; this a matter which is purely national, and which ought to be paid for out of the general funds of the Kingdom? It may be that it is, or it may be that it is not. In my opinion, which may be perfectly immaterial, it is coming to that, and in a very short time. Is it not clear that we ought to take time by the forelock, and, by means of the only tribunal that can look into those questions which are not merely local and not merely technical, have an Inquiry now? I humbly urge upon the Government the acceptance of this Motion.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I will do my best to deal with the very considerable variety of problems raised this afternoon. Almost every question relating to the difficulties arising from motor traffic has been submitted to the House. I confess my task would have been much easier if my noble friend, Lord Harris, and the noble Lords who support him, had condensed this Motion into the terms of a reference to a Parliamentary Committee. I should then have known
546
more exactly what it is that they require, than I can gather from speeches from which it is almost impossible to define what is wanted, unless you wish to refer to a Parliamentary Committee the "whole question of motors traffic and the problems arising therefrom." I do not want to speculate as to what those terms of reference would be, but I think, if only in justice to myself, that I should be allowed to say that until I know really what is required it is very difficult to see what precise answer can be given. I think, however, I can offer two or three observations which will show that no Parliamentary, or indeed any other, Committee is needed to inquire into two or three of the problems that have been raised to-day.
I will take in the first instance the resolution mentioned by Lord Harris and passed a day of two ago by the Kent County Council, and Lord Long's uncomfortable experience of coming round a sharp corner in a country lane and meeting a traction engine with three or four trucks behind it, part of the train, I gather, having subsided into a ditch. The responsibility for these difficulties does not rest entirely, at any rate, with the Ministry of Transport. Provision is made in the Road Act, 1920, by Section 7, for that very point. Any local road authority is entitled to approach the Ministry of Transport and ask that roads unfitted for that kind of traffic should be closed, or else that the traffic should be bound to use such roads in one direction only. The Ministry of Transport does not take the initiative in these matters, and does not act upon its own authority. It only follows the request of the local authority, and does not do so until a local inquiry has taken place. Then, if the road is shown to be dangerous, it is closed.
The County of Kent, I observe, has never made application that a road of this kind should be closed. It evidently does not find the grievance serious. Some counties, however, take a very strong view on the subject, and Westmorland, for example, has had no fewer than twenty-three roads entirely closed against motor traffic, either owing to the frequency or sharpness of the angles, or because the road is too narrow for motor traffic at all. The procedure may not be very rapid—it certainly cannot be called slow—but it is very efficient; and it is not a procedure which in any way interferes with the responsibility of local government; quite the contrary.

547
One other point—a technical point, too —namely, the control and construction of these roads. Of course, I quite understand what was behind Lord Lamington's remarks. The proper way, in his opinion, to spare these roads is to prohibit traffic upon them. But the prohibition of traffic is a power which is only used, or which ought only to be used, to promote safety of life or the convenience of circulation. It is rather dangerous to use this power in order to economise expenditure. But when Lord Lamington argued that our roads are in a shocking condition, and getting worse, I cannot help feeling that he rather exaggerated the situation, or at any rate that he rather ignored its difficulties.
We have passed through a period when roads have been subjected to a greater pressure than ever before, when a new form of heavy and damaging traffic has been developed in a very rapid manner; and finally, when, owing to conditions of labour, of prices, and so on, it has been impossible to spend as much upon roads in upkeep and repair as would have been desired. Three factors, therefore, have combined against the surface of the roads. But, so far as my own experience goes, the roads of this country, whether in industrial or in rural areas, are, broadly speaking, as good for work of this kind as those in any other country in Europe where a similar amount of traffic exists. And although much can be done, I must remind your Lordships also that much is being done. I have heard it said by people whose opinion is well worth listening to that the condition of the main roads of this country to-day is very little inferior to the condition they were in before the war; in some cases it is actually better. Therefore, I hope Lord Lamington will forgive me for saying that he places the case against the condition of the roads rather too high.
The other point is that the costs of construction and of repair are falling very considerably. In many cases the county rate has been reduced, and at the same time the amount of work upon the roads has not been diminished proportionately; in other words, more work can be done for the same amount of money. Another point upon which I very much question if a Parliamentary Inquiry is the proper procedure to adopt is as to the technical problems involved in the construction of road surfaces. Economy in construction is a subject which is naturally and constantly brought before the Ministry of Transport.
548
Committees actually exist to-day (I do not know whether your Lordships know this)—voluntary committees, of course—in various parts of the country to watch this problem, to secure up-to-date information about costs, construction, stability, and the point that Lord Long mentioned just now, the danger to animals. A report has been made on that very point, and the greatest trouble was taken to inquire into it, with all kinds of experimental horseshoes, for instance, in order to find out if something could be done to mitigate the danger to horses from smooth surfaces of roads. That, therefore, is a constant subject of inquiry in various parts of the country by pretty competent people with technical knowledge, and probably that is a better way of getting at a great variety of results by different methods of construction and the employment of different materials than could be got from a Committee of Parliament.
Lord Harris's main point dealt with the classification of cars. He said that should be a subject of inquiry, and I quite agree. My only doubt is whether a Parliamentary Committee is as suitable as a non-Parliamentary Committee composed of people connected with the motor world. The actual scale of Duties now in force was based upon the classification which was reached after long and very close inquiry by people who represented all the different types of car, which cars were called upon to pay the Duties. That, I say, was an agreed schedule of taxation. It was embodied verbatim in the Act of Parliament. I think it has been working for twelve or fifteen months, and, whether it has worked well or badly, it has produced a great deal of money—about £10,000,000 I believe—and the fact that £10,000,000 is being devoted to the assistance of local authorities on their roads is one of the reasons why a control which was not required years ago when the State made no material contribution has, I think, to be imposed to-day. If the State is now paying £10,000,000 towards keeping up roads (there are, I think, 37,000 miles of them) it is not wrong to argue that the State should have some measure of control—a joint control with the local authority in its expenditure. That schedule to which Lord Harris referred was, as I say, drawn up by agreement, and I believe it has worked very well.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: It was not quite an agreed form of taxation; it was strenuously opposed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The schedule to which I am referring, which lays down the scale of taxation between this car and that car, was agreed among members of the Committee who were directed to inquire into the subject. My noble friend does not deny that. I have not got the list of the Committee here, but I can give it to any noble Lord who wants it. It was a Departmental Committee of twelve or fourteen people, I think, who were directed to raise a certain amount of money from cars and to draw up a schedule of taxation of so much on this basis, so much on that basis, and so forth. That Committee unanimously agreed upon a schedule. I do not think my noble friend, Lord Montagu, has quite apprehended what I am saying. No doubt the whole motor world objected to having to pay ten millions of money; there is not a doubt of it. But these gentlemen agreed upon the incidence of taxation between one particular kind of car and another and one particular kind of power and another. That schedule was reported, was made public property, and was embodied verbatim in the Act of 1920. However, it is not a very material point, and I will not pursue it further.
The point is that this was only fifteen months ago and a great deal of experience has been gained in the interval. We have seen how the incidence worked out; where there are grievances; where some cars are clearly paying too much; and where it can be substantiated that others are paying too little; and a good many weeks ago it was settled that the Committee which originally drew up this schedule should be invited to review the position in the light of the experience which has subsequently been gained. The Ministry of Transport is perfectly prepared to review the situation in the light of that experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, expresses a doubt whether the existing schedule will be changed. Let me read to him the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on that particular point. This is the Committee which has already' reported on the subject, which is still sitting and inquiring into analogous problems, and will now have the duty of revising, if they so think fit, the decisions they previously arrived at. The terms of reference say that the Committee are to—
"take into consideration the objections to the present system of taxation of mechanically propelled road vehicles in the light of experience gained, and to report whether any more satisfactory
550
alternative method of taxation can be devised, or if the present system can be modified or revised to meet such objections so as for the purposes of this Inquiry, in either case to produce a revenue equivalent to that produced in the financial year 1921–1922."
That proviso is inserted in order that the Committee shall not say: "We will revise the classification and instead of drawing £10,000,000 from motor cars, we will reduce it to £6,000,000, or £8,000,000, or whatever it may be." The terms of reference are very wide and empower the Committee, if they so desire, to inquire, for instance, whether a fuel tax is preferable to the present system, or if it be possible to devise a mileage tax, or whether the metal tyre shall pay more than the rubber tyre. In fact, the terms are so wide that the Inquiry will not, I think, be limited in any way. The Inquiry will be public, and evidence can be presented to it by any accredited authorities on the subject.
That is the problem which my noble friend, Lord Harris, desires shall be placed before a Parliamentary Committee. I ask him very earnestly to consider whether that highly technical problem is not best dealt with by a purely technical Committee. I will give him, in very few words, the reasons which led me to this conclusion. In the first place, the classification and taxation of cars has already been exhaustively discussed by the existing Committee. It is a problem, I have satisfied myself, of the most extraordinary technical complexity, and it is unfamiliar, and will remain unfamiliar, to anybody who has not made a study of these mechanical problems. It is not a matter in which the ordinary common sense of any one of your Lordships is sufficient to settle on broad lines what the classification should be. I have looked through some of these cases and I assure your Lordships that the terminology used in them is such that every third or fourth word is entirely alien to the thoughts and conversation of anybody except a skilled mechanic. This is so technical a question as to be one which, I think, must be referred to a technical committee.
The Committee which has already dealt with the problem is, I think, well qualified to consider how far changes are necessary. I really can assure Lord Harris that to the best of my knowledge there need be no fear that this Committee will refrain from changing the incidence of taxation if a sufficiently good case is made out. There

551
is no amour propre in the matter at all. If they change the incidences they will change them because they are convinced that those changes are necessary. The task, I admit, is a very difficult one, and they will have extremely difficult problems to settle. Lord Harris says that char a banes pay too little, and that light cars pay too much.
LORD HARRIS: No, I never said that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he did.
LORD HARRIS: No. I said that if the light cars are heavily taxed the heavy cars ought to pay a good deal more.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think that must be a first cousin to my interpretation of what Lord Harris said. Anyhow, the noble Lord said that as between one style of car and another there was inequality.
LORD HARRIS: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that can he shown, then the Committee will do their best to rectify the mistake. But when Lord Lamington goes so far as to say, for instance, that heavy traffic must build its own roads, or when it is argued that special roads are to be made for horses and cattle, I do not think that this Committee, or indeed any Parliamentary Committee, can venture to face the gigantic cost which anything of that character would involve. Lord Lamington's remarks were so drastic in their terms that—
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: There is no possibility of a gigantic cost in reference to horses and cattle. That will be covered by the grant for the preservation of existing roads.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I misunderstood what my noble friend said; I thought he said that by-passes ought to be made for the purpose.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: No; I said that the tremendous suffering entailed on dumb animals under the present system ought to form the subject of a separate Inquiry by a Parliamentary
552
Committee; but I did not indicate the remedy.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I misconstrued what my noble friend said. I thought he said that by-passes would be needed for the purpose. I acknowledge that motor traffic has great disadvantages and, I think, great enemies. It is rather significant that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, should have risen and said: "I think it is necessary to say a word in defence of motor traffic."
LORD LAMINGTON: I am not a great enemy of motor traffic. What I say is that it should be run on proper lines.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not want to follow that point too far, but if it is once conceded that heavy traffic is to go off the public high roads, we are faced by a prospective outlay which is so great that we know that heavy traffic will have to cease altogether. I think that really must be acknowledged. The only further point which I would urge in favour of this difficult question of classification being referred to a Select Committee is this. The Departmental Committee has one advantage which a Parliamentary Committee has not. It can sit through the recess, and it is not subject to the changes and chances of Parliamentary life. There is much more assurance against frequent change of personnel on such a Committee. It is very important that this Committee should begin at once its researches, and conclude them at the earliest possible moment. Every one connected with the motor world knows that people are extremely anxious on the subject, and desirous that it should be inquired into. I therefore press your Lordships not to agree that a Parliamentary Committee is the proper form of Committee to inquire into this technical question.
As regards railways using the roads for their traffic by running fleets of lorries, my impression is—I say it subject to correction—that that can only be done by sanction of Parliament. In every case special Parliamentary rights have to be obtained before the railway can act in this manner. If that is so, your Lordships, or the other House, have merely to order that the subject shall be referred to a Select Committee, and Parliament can then do or say whatever it pleases.

553
If your Lordships, as I hope you will, support me in not duplicating the inquiry into the classification of cars which is already going on by appointing a Parliamentary Committee as well as a Departmental Committee, the only other subject that is outstanding is the relation of local and Imperial responsibility—not the relations of local and Imperial finance, which have not been discussed to-day, but the relations of local and Imperial responsibility. It is a very difficult, a very large, and a very important subject. I cannot say that Parliament ought not to inquire into it, but I hope, if it be settled that Parliament should inquire into it, that they will not limit the inquiry to the relatively small question of rates in regard to motor traffic. If that is to be inquired into the reference ought to be larger. There are many more outstanding questions, and front a money point of view more important outstanding questions, than that of the rates. It is far too large a subject for me to give a definite answer upon today. It is far beyond the terms of the Motion on the Paper, but if Parliament should so decide to have a Joint Committee or a Royal Commission on the subject, I should greatly hope that it would not be limited, but would deal with a variety of subjects of great interest and importance.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, may I say one or two words in reply? With reference to what was said by the noble and learned Viscount opposite respecting excessive traffic, I have here a paragraph which deals with that. It is from the report of the bridge and roads committee of Kent, and says—
"It is now exceedingly difficult and costly to sustain claims of extraordinary traffic, or recover the same in the Courts, as the view is held that, as the users of the roads arc contributing largely towards the cost of maintenance, they are entitled to expect special consideration."
I always make a point of studying, as far as one can from the ordinary channels, the information contained in the reports of cases in the Courts in regard to excessive traffic, and my experience entirely bears out the statement which I have just quoted. People are getting very chary indeed of bringing actions for excessive damage. In this particular case the claimants seem to have been successful, but only when they got to the House of Lords. I wonder how much it cost them to get to this House. A county council is
554
not going into expenditure of that kind very readily with the experience which, as I know, it has already had.
I have to thank my noble friend very gratefully for the extremely careful and earnest way in which he has dealt with the subject, and I think I may claim for myself, from the speeches which have been made front every part of the House and from his own speech, that the subject was worthy of very serious consideration. My noble friend deprecates the subject being examined into by a Parliamentary Committee front two points of view—namely, the classification of vehicles, and the distribution of the amounts of the fees. That, he says, is already being inquired into by a Departmental Committee. There is no necessity for a Parliamentary Committee to go into it in detail, for they can have the results so far obtained laid before them, and they will be able to judge, like an impartial referee, whether the relative rates are fair.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If this Committee recommends a change it will involve a change in the Statutes, and therefore must come before the Court of Parliament.
LORD HARRIS: I was not impressed by the terms of reference. So far as I can remember the Committee were to examine into and report on the system of taxation. It was not necessary to take into consideration the objections to the present system of taxation of mechanically propelled vehicles in the light of experience gained, and to report whether any alternative or satisfactory method of taxation could be devised. It may be possible that under the terms of reference read out by my noble friend the Committee may go into this point. My first point was as to whether the relative rates are just, having regard to the damage caused to the roads. I hope that the terms of reference cover that point. I can imagine it being argued in the Committee whether they do so or not. I think sonic noble Lord asked who were the representatives on the Departmental Committee. I think I can give them. The Chairman is Sir Henry Maybury, representing the Ministry; and there are representatives of the Royal Automobile Club, the Commercial Users Association, the Automobile Association and the Motor Union, police authorities, agricultural local authorities, London and Provincial Omnibus Owners' Association,

555
the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the Board of Customs and Excise. It sounds as if there were rather a preponderance of motor users and manufacturers as compared with local authorities.
As to the main question of whether or not it is advisable to refer this to a Parliamentary Committee or not I confess that I am not influenced by my noble friend's appeal. He asked me to consider carefully whether this was the best procedure, and I must state that I think it is, not merely from my own opinion but from the arguments used in every part of the House to-night. One after another noble Lord brought forth reasons why it is desirable that this matter should be inquired into by a Parliamentary rather than by a Departmental Committee.
My noble friend says he would have been happier if I had submitted the terms of reference. I always thought it was rather the privilege of the Government., if a Motion of this character were carried, themselves to consider what terms of reference are acceptable to them, and then to report what they have agreed to refer to the Committee. But, without committing myself, the words which have been suggested to me might be to this effect:
"To inquire into the control and user of roads in rural districts and the incidence and costs of constructing and maintaining the same, and to report whether any, and if so what, change is desirable in such control or in the incidence of the cost."
Something to that effect is desired having regard to the extraordinary change that is coining over the user of the roads— almost without warning to local authorities. In these circumstances, I feel I am justified in pressing my Motion and if necessary going to a Division.
TEE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment. Lord Harris has introduced at the last moment a question which all your Lordships have omitted from your speeches this afternoon —namely, the incidence between local and Imperial taxation. That is a subject which has been discussed by six or seven different Committees, Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Committees, Departmental Committees, Select Committees, for the last ten or fifteen years.
LORD HARRIS: Does the noble Earl include in Imperial taxation these licence
556
fees? Only the day before yesterday they were local taxes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: All I am saying is that the noble Lord has raised the question of the relation between Imperial and local taxation. That subject has not been before your Lordships this afternoon, and I think it would be a great pity if it is re-opened in isolation in connection with motor traffic alone. As was the case yesterday, I am bound to recognise that your Lordships desire some form of Parliamentary Inquiry. I have tried to convince your Lordships that I see no useful purpose at the present juncture, when the technical points are being considered by a Committee, in duplicating the Inquiry by a Parliamentary Inquiry, but I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of going to a Division on the Motion of the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PEACE TREATIES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have taken any, and if so, what steps to carry into effect the Resolution of this House passed on April 6 last, requiring further limited exemptions of the property of people of enemy nationality from the confiscation provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I do so not as an excuse for re-opening the previous debate to which I refer; but for the purpose of ascertaining whether anything has been done to carry out the Resolution then agreed to by this House. It was carried by a substantial majority, in a House which, if it was not large in numbers, was very representative in its constitution.
In case any noble Lords here to-day were not present then perhaps I had better read the Resolution. It was in these terms—
"That the terms of the Peace Treaties appropriating the private property of enemy subjects shall not apply to sums of £5,000 or less where the owner is either born of British parents or had been resident in this country continuously for twenty-five years before 4th August, 1914."
This matter really does not brook delay. If your Lordships still hold—as I have no reason to doubt you do—the opinion that the terms of the Peace Treaty confiscate the property of alien enemies, are

557
unfair and unjust in their incidence and have produced conditions of hardship and cruelty that were never contemplated at the time the Treaty was passed, and that had they been contemplated the provisions never would have been agreed to, it is plain that this matter ought not to be allowed to pass without notice, and we are entitled to know what the Government intends to do in order to carry out the Resolution.
As I have said, I. do not intend to reopen the old discussion, but since this matter was previously before the House a number of cases have been brought to my notice upon which I cannot speak with the same personal knowledge that I was able to use with regard to the three matters I definitely placed before your Lordships' attention on the last occasion. Two of them, I think, I ought to mention, if only for the purpose of letting your Lordships know exactly how this matter is operating. It seems to me impossible, once people have heard of these cases, to support any longer the continuance of the Order under which they arise. One case is that of a man who came to this country in middle life, some thirty or forty years ago, and established the potash industry here. His object in coming was to introduce to the farmers of this country a knowledge of potash as a means of fertilising, and he did this through the agency of agricultural colleges and lectures in Scotland with marked success. After a lapse of thirty years he had built up a substantial business in this potash industry. No person can suggest that the work this man did here was otherwise than of the highest benefit to the country. It entered into competition with nothing that we did. It introduced into this country something of the greatest value to our agriculture, and the Scottish Chambers of Agriculture have on more than one occasion expressed their appreciation of his work.
In July, 1914, he was stricken with paralysis and was ordered to Nauheim for a cure. He had been in this country all these years as a British subject except that he had never taken the trouble to get naturalised, and when war broke out he was unable to return from Nauheim. His business which represented something like £30,000 in value was confiscated, and the whole of his investments—which he put into British property in the belief that he had British protection—have been taken away. This man is now left with no right
558
whatever here except to get payment from a Committee to the extent of £200, and the right to claim recompense from the German. Government who are under no obligation to recompense on any scale and who regard this man with undisguised aversion because for thirty years he had left Germany and carried on business here.
I will give one other case—that of a musician who lived in this country for some thirty years, teaching and performing in public. He had a wife and one daughter. When the war broke out he was, of course, quite unable to earn any more money here, and he returned to Germany, having effected in this country some time before a life policy for £1,000. He died in Germany. His wife, a woman of refined tastes, who is now sixty-eight years of age, is earning her living in Germany by charing. The girl, who is a very delicate girl, was trained here as a typist and shorthand writer. She can get no occupation in Germany because of the ineffaceable odium that attaches to a woman horn in this country, bred in this country, and to all intents and purposes an Englishwoman, with only a technical claim to German nationality. The £1,000 insurance has been taken away, and these people are left on the edge of starvation. I do not believe that the woman used the language of exaggeration when, writing to me, she said: "There seems to as to be nothing before us but suicide." The reason why I say that I do not believe that to be the language of exaggeration is that I know that such has been the last and terrible resort to which people in Germany have been driven under similar conditions.
The horrible evil of the war falls with pitiless severity alike upon those who deserved it and upon those who were innocent. I know that, and I know that it is impossible to prevent it. But at least we need not cause it. What we have done has been deliberately to cause this suffering to fall upon innocent people. On the last occasion reference was made to what other nations had done. The whole of that argument leaves me entirely unmoved. This country is not in the habit of accepting from other countries precedents as to the way in which it should conduct itself, nor of following the example that other nations set. I care not whether other nations have confiscated property or have not. What I say is that to think that this country

559
has done things which have caused such suffering as I have mentioned is a thing which robs a man of his rest; he cannot keep on patiently believing that the country of which he has always been proud has committed actions which can never stand in the judgment of posterity.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, this Question, as I think the noble and learned Lord will admit, has been placed on the Order Paper at rather short notice. It was not until yesterday that I had any idea that he was proposing to raise this matter again to-day. When I became acquainted of the fact I asked the noble and learned Lord whether it would be convenient for him to postpone his Question until after the middle of next week, for the reason which I will give in a moment. That was not convenient to the noble and learned Lord, and, of course, I make no complaint; but he will forgive me if I do not answer him at great length, and do not attempt to traverse ground which was covered, not entirely but largely, in the debate of April 6 last.
Before I deal with the actual answer to the noble and learned Lord's question, I think I ought to say that, though the noble and learned Lord has spoken without any degree of bitterness more than he feels the question warrants, at the same time the actual wording of his Question is cast in rather a polemical tone. I cannot admit the word "confiscation" It is one that has aroused a great deal of controversy, but at the same time I feel bound to remind your Lordships that the ex-enemy countries undertook to compensate their nationals in respect of property which was taken by the British Government in order that the British Government aright repay the losses of our nationals. Having said so much, I think one may acknowledge that, after the discussion which took place here on April 6, it would be impossible for any Government Department entirely to ignore the opinion then expressed and the evidence of hardship produced. Had the noble and learned Lord been able to delay putting his Question, I might have been, later, in a position to give him something in the nature of a definite reply, and, even as it is, I hope that I may say something which will afford him at least some grounds of satisfaction.
At the time, when the previous discussion took place, the Chairman of the
560
Committee to which constant reference has been made, Lord Justice Younger, had already been asked by the President of the Board of Trade (though I myself was not aware of it) to render a Report on the whole position. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who said that he knew as a fact, and he was going to say so, even if it were an indiscretion, that Lord Justice Younger and the other members of his Committee were in favour of the principle of the Motion moved on April 6 by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I am not in a position to commit a similar indiscretion, if indiscretion it be, but at any rate Lord Justice Younger and his Committee have now. had an opportunity of making their point of view officially known to the President of the Board of Trade. Whether or not they may be found to be in favour of the precise principle covered by the Motion of the noble and learned Lord may transpire, but at any rate it is obvious that the Motion which was discussed by your Lordships covered two classes of persons only, and it was felt that, owing to the undoubted uneasiness aroused in the minds of many persons as to the effects of these provisions of the Treaty, it was right that that Committee should report upon the whole position.
That Report was received by the President of the Board of Trade on Friday last, and it conies up for discussion at the Board of Trade Council on Tuesday next. No final decision—indeed, no decision at all— has yet been taken upon it. It was impossible to take action upon the Motion carried in your Lordships' House until that Report had been received, and fully considered. The Report takes into consideration all the facts, together with the strong feeling shown by your Lordships, and includes them in its general review of the whole situation. It is impossible for me to-day, therefore, to give any definite answer, or indeed any definite promise, but I hope that what I have said has been enough to show that the Government are not unsympathetic to the points of view that have been put forward, and that they realise something of the hard cases. After this Report of Lord Justice Younger has been fully considered I hope that it may be possible to give something more definite in the way of satisfaction of the noble and learned Lord's contention.
LORD PARMOOR: Will this Report be made public?
LORD GORELL: I am not in a position to give a definite answer as to that, but I think there is reasonable probability that it will be.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as one who has taken some interest in this Question, perhaps I may be allowed to express the opinion that the statement now made is much more satisfactory than those which have been given previously. I have always had a strong suspicion that the Government, as a Government, is really not in favour of this procedure in principle. I have a lurking conviction that the excessive and narrow-minded severity pointed out by my noble and learned friend opposite, is due not so much to the Government itself as to some hide-bound Department, or some hide-bound official, who is unable to realise (if I am not using too strong words) the iniquity and harshness of this procedure. I gather considerable encouragement from what has fallen from the noble Lord this afternoon, and I think I may add that so far from deprecating any Question on the part of the noble and learned Lord opposite, it is obvious to me that the Motion which he brought forward the other day has had very considerable effect. I hope he will not be daunted by any suggestion of keeping quiet in the future, because I am convinced that the only means of getting this particular Department to act in accordance with our wishes is to bring Parliamentary pressure to bear upon it.
Loan BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kindly answer and for his promise of help; but I should like to ask him what this Council of the Board of Trade is and whether people are at liberty to appear before it. May I appear before it?
Loan GORELL: It may perhaps be a rather high term to use, but in most Government Departments, and certainly in the one in which I primarily have responsibility, there is such a Council. I imagine that it is not a public council, and although, no doubt, the views of the noble and learned Lord will be fully considered and will be welcomed, I cannot promise that he will be asked to appear before the Council.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Lord appear before it? I have confidence in him, and all I desire is to know that when the Council meets there is somebody who will really put the other side of the case before them.
LORD GORELL: Although I have had the honour of replying for the Board of Trade I do not happen to be connected with that Department. I will, however, undertake personally to put before the President of the Board of Trade all the points of view that have been raised in this House.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

RHONDDA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Petitioner; the Attorney-General heard on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned till to-morrow.
STOCK CONVERSION AND INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED (NORTH WESTERN TRUST) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WORTHING CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 9th and 10th instant discharged, and Bill committed.

DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill—
London Electric and City and South
London Railway Companies.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, May 19.]

RHONDDA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Committee for Privileges met: The Attorney-General further heard on behalf of the Crown: Counsel for the Petitioner heard in reply Resolution proposed that the Petitioner hath made out her claim; objected to; and, on question, resolved in the negative: Report thereof to be made to the House.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WOLVERHAMPTON EXTEN- SION) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Thursday next.