Sitting of 29 June 1926

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 Bills, 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:
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords.]
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords].
Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords].
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords].
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords].
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Mexborough and Swindon Tramways Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Tramways Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Glasgow Education Authority (Juvenile Delinquency) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COCONUTS AND PRODUCES IMPORTED.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of coconuts and coconut products imported in 1925, stating separately the value imported from Empire and Foreign sources, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following statement shows the value of coconuts and of certain coconut products imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1925:

    DECLARED VALUE OF IMPORTS INTO GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN 1925.

    —

    Consigned from Foreign Countries.

    Consigned from Empire Countries.

    £

    £

    Copra

    561,816

    2,466,200

    Coconut Oil:

    Refined, edible

    360,077

    33,243

    Unrefined

    795,618

    285,198

    Coconut:

    Desiccated and flaked

    1,433

    578,434

    Sugared

    Coir fibre

    2,284

    64,333

    Coir yarn

    12,149

    817,714

    Coir manufactures other than cordage ropes and twine.

    1,651

    1,707

    Coir mats and matting

    107,598

    296,125

    Separate particulars of the value of coconuts used as fruit or mite, or of the value of coconut oil or other products of the coconut contained in imported margarine, etc., are not available from the official records.

    TOBACCO (EMPIRE PRODUCTION).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of tobacco grown within the British Empire during the past five years; and how much of it has been imported by this country during those years, respectively, the value thereof, and how

    I.—ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION.

    Acreage under, and Production of, Tobacco in the British Empire

    (so far as particulars are available).

    —

    1920.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    Acreage.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    United Kingdom

    Not available

    Irish Free State

    Not available

    40

    Not available

    British India (excluding Native States)†.

    932,482

    1,050,685

    1,032,687

    1,025,474

    Not available

    Ceylon

    19,720

    12,700

    12,700

    12,700

    12,700

    Mauritius

    55

    60

    115

    163

    Not available

    Commonwealth of Australia‡.

    1,345

    1,967

    3,727

    2,783

    Not available

    Fiji

    308

    222

    123

    131

    489

    Union of South Africa

    26,563§

    19,324§

    Not available

    19,301║

    Not available

    Swaziland

    Not available

    Southern Rhodesia

    7,504

    9,531

    10,174

    9,054

    8,000

    Northern Rhodesia

    Not available.

    2,965

    Nyasaland Protectorate¶

    14,219

    21,074

    18,440

    17,308

    20,591

    Dominion of Canada

    53,114

    11,809

    25,762

    23,932

    21,317

    Jamaica†

    454

    342

    318

    418

    348

    Production.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    United Kingdom*†

    9,393

    12,182

    11,797

    4,862

    10,195

    Irish Free State

    43,621

    45,221

    35,427

    24,419

    Not available

    British India (excluding Native States).

    Not available

    Ceylon

    Not available

    Mauritius

    12,000

    12,000

    20,000

    32,000

    Not available

    Commonwealth of Australia‡.

    1,093,344

    1,504,496

    3,665,648

    1,246,112

    Not available

    Fiji

    59,995

    184,305

    58,302

    59,136

    51,461

    Union of South Africa

    16,620,640§

    11,427,860§

    Not available

    9,671,496║

    Not available

    Swaziland

    Not available

    285,720

    273,970

    322,350

    Not available

    Southern Rhodesia

    2,927,627

    3,746,982

    3,182,359

    2,810,781

    3,952,000

    Northern Rhodesia

    Not available

    1,087,111

    Nyasaland Protectorate¶

    3,844,000

    6,736,600

    6,490,100

    3,918,700

    7,311,752

    Dominion of Canada

    48,088,500

    13,248,962

    25,947,570

    21,297,000

    18,710,740

    Jamaica

    Not available

    * Home grown Tobacco charged with Excise Duty.

    † For the 12 months elided 31st March of the years following those stated.

    ‡ For the 12 months ended 30th June of the years following those stated.

    § For the 12 months ended 30th April of the years following those stated.

    ║ For the 16 months ended 31st August, 1923.

    ¶ European cultivation only.

    much of it has come in the form of cigars, etc.?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer consists of tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOER.
    Following is the answer:

    II.—IMPORTS.

    STATEMENT showing the Total Quantities and Declared Values of the various descriptions of Unmanufactured and Manufactured Tobacco registered as Consigned from Empire Countries to the United Kingdom during each of the years 1921 to 1925.

    Description and Empire Countries whence Consigned.

    Total Quantities.

    Declared Values.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    1925.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    1925.

    TOBACCO: UNMANUFACTURED.

    Stripped or Stemmed:

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Consigned from—

    Irish Free State*

    …

    —

    —

    943

    97,050

    35,752

    —

    —

    46

    7,962

    3,052

    Union of South Africa

    …

    9

    5,911

    28,179

    33,291

    778

    1

    435

    2,120

    2,612

    72

    Nyasaland Protectorate

    …

    524,685

    1,488,221

    3,301,867

    3,159,783

    2,674,013

    42,641

    111,752

    239,508

    233,106

    199,580

    British India

    …

    549,393

    742,990

    1,938,536

    5,844,372

    5,340,575

    22,109

    32,615

    78,423

    236,107

    232,058

    Canada

    …

    2,264

    15,976

    107,640

    768,125

    702,015

    337

    2,676

    7,881

    76,016

    64,387

    Other Empire Countries

    …

    2

    1,569

    1

    12,621

    18,774

    525

    2,177

    4,088

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    1,076,353

    2,254,667

    5,377,166

    9,915,242

    8,771,907

    65,088

    148,003

    327,978

    557,980

    503,237

    Unstripped or Unstemmed:

    Consigned from—

    Irish Free State*

    …

    —

    —

    7,520

    266,952

    224,749

    —

    —

    609

    23,779

    15,867

    Cyprus

    …

    15,503

    467,772

    140,814

    59,382

    13,864

    1,816

    2,880

    5,283

    2,164

    1,186

    Union of South Africa

    …

    10,563

    53,476

    22,326

    164,111

    23,275

    461

    2,004

    1,515

    7,140

    2,152

    Rhodesia

    …

    174,665

    360,325

    366,513

    719,392

    866,178

    16,496

    49,993

    31,478

    49,504

    71,309

    Nyasaland Protectorate

    …

    4,252,218

    5,246,642

    2,589,300

    3,722,669

    4,512,940

    328,395

    368,618

    169,282

    251,066

    298,366

    British India

    …

    865,769

    3,191,583

    2,635,968

    2,543,683

    2,486,793

    24,453

    99,862

    80,170

    77,173

    81,185

    British North Borneo

    …

    739,050

    593,016

    894,209

    889,730

    829,650

    141,972

    123,277

    155,670

    175,786

    155,832

    Hong Kong

    …

    64,379

    2,878

    3,315

    23

    14,503

    2,772

    119

    242

    1

    980

    Canada

    …

    172,097

    839,421

    847,867

    1,019,055

    1,156,58

    18,100

    64,409

    59,885

    66,428

    78,512

    Other Empire Countries

    …

    20,522

    36,206

    9,643

    23,250

    20,807

    1,499

    1,715

    490

    1,455

    2,360

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    6,314,784

    10,370,319

    7,517,475

    9,358,247

    10,149,267

    535,964

    712,877

    504,624

    654,496

    707,749

    Stalks:

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    —

    —

    —

    23,999

    —

    —

    —

    —

    251

    —

    * From 1st April, 1923.

    Description and Empire Countries whence Consigned.

    Total Quantities.

    Declared Values.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    1925.

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    1925.

    TOBACCO: UNMANUFACTURED.

    Cigars:

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Consigned from—

    Channel Islands

    …

    266

    377

    406

    497

    403

    254

    324

    344

    340

    353

    British India

    …

    55,956

    65,910

    53,792

    52,392

    70,200

    15,943

    17,219

    11,510

    15,858

    17,751

    Hong Kong

    …

    2,016

    1,919

    2,194

    1,816

    2,085

    1,431

    787

    940

    1,016

    1,095

    Canada

    …

    1,151

    619

    520

    1,078

    645

    1,330

    657

    388

    834

    592

    British West Indian Islands (excluding Bahamas).

    7,870

    7,098

    5,535

    10,032

    9,715

    6,682

    6,815

    4,393

    7,476

    7,88

    Other Empire Countries

    …

    10,932

    1,922

    1,758

    2,493

    2,137

    6,187

    1,149

    1,273

    2,235

    1,514

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    78,191

    77,845

    64,205

    68,308

    85,185

    31,827

    26,951

    18,848

    27,759

    29,113

    Cigarettes:

    Consigned from—

    Malta and Gozo

    …

    16,650

    2,141

    1,048

    4,411

    2,471

    3,900

    840

    424

    1,491

    855

    Cyprus

    …

    5,162

    3,984

    2,289

    5,786

    2,957

    1,497

    1,090

    865

    3,053

    493

    Aden and Dependencies

    …

    2,046

    1,602

    804

    1,567

    1,018

    625

    572

    275

    544

    144

    Iraq

    …

    10,523

    21,794

    —

    —

    —

    2,630

    2,058

    —

    —

    —

    Canada

    …

    16,417

    6,444

    97,105

    179

    400

    4,556

    1,131

    4,915

    38

    140

    Other Empire Countries

    …

    13,223

    5,670

    4,493

    8,178

    16,840

    2,032

    2,391

    1,617

    2,051

    5,776

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    64,021

    41,635

    105,739

    20,121

    23,686

    15,240

    8,082

    8,096

    7,177

    7,408

    Cavendish or Negrohead:

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    5,419

    20,070

    989

    2,878

    1,736

    1,141

    1,116

    115

    564

    266

    Other Manufactured Tobacco:

    Consigned from—

    Union of South Africa

    …

    10,692

    8,514

    9,027

    9,798

    9,124

    1,147

    1,061

    864

    1,062

    1,324

    Iraq

    …

    14,424

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2,850

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Other Empire Countries

    …

    24,896

    3,904

    2,828

    53,987

    129,775

    1,284

    486

    389

    467

    771

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    50,012

    12,418

    11,855

    63,785

    138,899

    5,281

    1,547

    1,253

    1,529

    2,095

    Snuff:

    Total Empire Countries

    …

    2

    2

    12

    31,051

    27

    —

    —

    1

    79

    —

    ORANGES (RETAILERS' PROFITS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the prices, wholesale and retail, of oranges are such that 200 per cent. profit is being made by retailers; and whether he proposes to take any steps to check this profiteering, and thus enable the heavy consignments which have arrived, or are about to arrive, in the port of Liverpool to reach the public at lower prices?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Inquiries which have been made do not confirm the hon. Member's estimate. If he can give any definite information in regard to particular consignments I shall be glad to examine it.

    NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY)asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of artificial nitrogenous fertilisers imported during 1925, and their value; and the quantity and value of artificial nitrogenous fertilisers produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1925?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: As the answer contains a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of the hon. and gallant Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I.—Imports.
    The following statement shows the total quantities and declared values of the undermentioned descriptions of nitrogenous fertilisers registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1925:

    —

    Quantity Imported.

    Declared Value.

    £

    Ammonium compounds:

    Sulphate

    tons

    151

    2,023

    Lime compounds:

    Nitrate

    cwts.

    101,551

    58,026

    Nitrolim or Cyanamide

    cwts.

    1,020

    509

    Sodium compounds:

    Nitrate

    cwts.

    1,626,483

    1,020,854

    II.—Production.
    According to information obtained by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the production of sulphate of ammonia in Great Britain in 1925 amounted to 388,000 tons. Similar particulars for other nitrogenous fertilisers are not available.

    SAFEGUARDING INDUSTRIES (HOSIERY TRADE).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the decision of the Committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure to report on the hosiery trade; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for War whether the incidence of venereal disease in the Army has increased or diminished in the last three years; and whether he can state what is the general view of the Army Medical Service as to the value of the preventive measures that have been employed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): During the last three years for which complete statistics are available, the incidence of venereal disease in the Army has decreased from 74·0 per 1,000 of the strength in 1921 to 47·8 per 1,000 in 1924. My medical advisers consider that this reduction is mainly due to the very effective preventive measures that have been and are still being employed. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the information contained on pages 15–18 of the Report on the Health of the Army for 1924.

    MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Secretary of State for War whether members of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland and members of the Episcopalian Church of Canada are debarred from admission to the Order of Military Knights of Windsor; if so, on

    967
    what grounds; and, if not, whether he will have the Appendix to the King's Regulations for the Army amended so as to give correct expression to the intention to enforce the exclusion of Presbyterians only?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, I see no reason for amending the King's Regulations in the manner suggested, which I may add would erroneously represent their intention.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not a fact that the Military Knights of Windsor are subjected to a religious test?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I do not think that, properly speaking, is a fact. They are required to attend the service of the Church of England. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that is a religious test, it is a religious test.
    Captain BENN: Are members of other denominations eligible to become Military Knights of Windsor?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I answered that question on the last occasion in an answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Brigadier - General Charteris), to which I refer the hon. and gallant, Gentleman.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Are we right in assuming that the only reason why members of churches other than the Church of England are debarred is that it is considered that it might conflict with their conscience to attend service at Windsor?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: think that is not unfairly stating it.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other officers have to attend Church of England service, whatever their religious persuasion?
    Mr. COUPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no Episcopal Church of Scotland? The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is why I am a little cautious in answering these questions.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: It should read Episcopal Church in Scotland—not of Scotland.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is a condition of the order that Military Knights of Windsor must be members or adherents of the Church of England?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 22nd instant to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries.
    Mr. COUPER: As this is a matter of considerabe interest and importance to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the Knights of Windsor were founded in the time of Henry VIII.?

    BEDFORDSHIRE AND HERTFORDSHIRE REGIMENT (HONORARY COLONEL).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 20th June, while inspecting a battalion of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment, an honorary colonel of another battalion of that regiment made an attack on trade union leaders; whether such political propaganda is permitted by Army Regulations; and whether disciplinary action will be taken?
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the statement of an honorary colonel of a battalion of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment, when inspecting the second battalion at Dover on the 19th instant, that soldiers were more free than the working man, who was bullied and intimidated by the tyrants of trade unionism; and whether he will take steps to discourage attacks on trade unionism by officers of the British Army in the execution of their duties?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My attention has been called to a Press report of the incident in question. There appears to be some misapprehension as to the status of the officer concerned, who is not in the Regular Army, but is the Honorary Colonel of a Militia battalion. This officer was not present on this

    969
    occasion in the execution of his military duties, but in his private capacity as an old friend of the regiment in which he has always taken a keen interest; and no question of disciplinary action arises.
    Mr. AMMON: Does that answer mean that this officer, Lord Ampthill, is entitled by permission to attend and make speeches to the troops?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret I have not seen a verbatim report. I have only seen a very short report, which may or may not be correct, and it is difficult therefore to express any opinion upon it, but from the report I saw I should have preferred, naturally, that the speech should not have been made in the form in which it was made.

    STAFF COLLEGE COURSES.
    Mr. B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War what, if any, alterations are proposed to be made in the duration of courses at the staff college or of accommodation for officers, in view of the large and increasing number of candidates who present themselves annually for examination to fill the few vacancies available; and whether he can outline the proposals for a course for senior officials?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the ast part of the question, it is not proposed to make any changes at present. Alterations of an experimental nature in the classification of students and in the syllabus will be introduced in January next with a view to deciding whether a permanent change in the direction of shortening the course and increasing the output is desirable. As regards the last part, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving to Question No. 34.

    INVALIDED MEN (PENSION CLAIMS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for War what procedure is followed in the case of those men invalided from His Majesty's Army who desire to question the decision of the medical officer which deprives them of pension rights; and whether the medical officer's report, which is the basis of the complaint, is referred to and taken as evidence of the correctness of that report?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A man whose claim to disablement, pension has been rejected by the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, on the strength of the report of a medical board may appeal to the Commissioners for reconsideration of his case on medical grounds and may state the grounds of his appeal. The report of the medical board is considered in conjunction with the whole of the man's medical history during his Army service. Any evidence which the man may adduce in his own interest is also considered and investigated by reference to his late commanding officer or other persons likely to be able to confirm his statement. The opinions of the consulting physician and surgeon to the Army are obtained when necessary before a decision is given.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the aggrieved person should have a right to appeal in person or through a representative, as is the case with the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is a very dehatable question which the hon. Member constantly raises at question time. If he will deal with it at a time when I can reply, I shall be very glad to meet him in debate.

  SCOTLAND.

    POOR, RELIEF, CAMBUSLANG.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that he Parish Council of Cambuslang has reduced the scale of relief to recipients by suspending the standing orders, which normally require a two-thirds majority, the chairman's casting vote having been exercised for this purpose; and what action, iT any, does the Scottish Board of Health intend to take in this matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware that the Parish Council of Cambuslang have reduced their scales of relief, but have no knowledge as to the procedure at the meeting when this was decided. The ruling of the chairman of a parish council on questions of validity of motions holds until set aside, by a Court of Law, and I have no power to take action as suggested in the question.

    IRISH HARVESTERS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that labour is being imported from Ireland to the West of Scotland for the hay or potato harvest; and can he state how many Irish harvesters have arrived on the Clyde since the 15th May?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It has been usual in past years for Irish labourers to come to various parts of Great Britain for harvest week. I have no statistics as to the number arriving in the West of Scotland, but I am endeavouring to obtain some information, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. COUPER: Is the hon. Member aware that within the last 14 days one party of 600 arrived by steamer from Donegal to Glasgow? Is there not sufficient labour unemployed at the present time in Glasgow and the West of Scotland to do such work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but in any case my Department has no authority or power to interfere with the arrival of Irish labourers.
    Mr. B. PETO: Was not the custom in regard to the importation for harvest work of Irish labourers current during the time when Southern Ireland was in the Union, and can the hon. Gentleman say whether the situation is not different now, seeing that Southern Ireland is a quasi-independent nation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The situation is not different so far as the powers of the Ministry of Labour are concerned to deal with the matter.
    Mr. COUPER: Will the hon. Member see that the unemployed in Glasgow and the West of Scotland have the offer of such work before these men are imported?

  GENERAL STRIKE.

    CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY, LIMITED, FOLKESTONE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet decided the appeal lodged under the Roads Act, 1920, by the Co-operative Transport
    972
    Society, Limited, Folkestone, against the decision of the Folkestone town council; and, if so, will he state his decision in this case?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): This appeal has not yet been decided, as I am awaiting further information from the Society.

    MILK POOL, (FARMERS' PRICES).
    Mr. LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that farmers who delivered milk direct to buyers within the Metropolitan police area during the operations of the Hyde Park milk pool have been refused payment of the price stipulated in their contracts where such price was in excess of ls. per gallon; and whether such refusal is based on any order or regulation issued by his Department?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that, during the period in which the strike took place, the price under the form of contract settled between the National Farmers' Union and the milk distributive trade was is. per gallon; that the majority of the farmers were supplying milk on this basis; but that some had entered into separate contracts at rates less than this and some at rates higher and with varying conditions. I understand that the Pool Committee found it impossible to make their arrangements on the basis of large numbers of individual contracts and stated in advance that payment would be made on the basis of the National Farmers' Union contract. This results in everyone getting equal treatment during the strike, though in some cases suppliers are receiving more money than they would under their own contracts and in other cases less money.
    Mr. MARCH: May I ask whether this was for the imperial gallon or for the farm gallon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the gallon usually suppliel.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his reply does not indicate that these farmers were exploiting the situation at that moment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. My answer indicates that every farmer was treated exactly alike.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is not an answer to my question. Does not the answer indicate that there were farmers who were exploiting the situation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so. It is true that some farmers suggested they might he paid a little more than they were in fact paid; but every farmer was paid the same.
    Mr. MARCH: Did not the Board of Trade issue an Order that the distributors were to charge extra per pint or quart to the consumers?
    Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that some farmers were giving extra services for extra payment, and that they are not now receiving that?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not criticising in the least, but it is obviously impossible in an emergency to pay on a whole variety of contracts. Notice was given that a flat rate would be paid, and that rate was the general rate agreed to with the Farmers' Union. I do not think it is unreasonable for a man to ask that his contract should be carried out if it is possible, but it was not in the least possible.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Why were orders given to advance the price of milk by 2d. a quart?
    Mr. MARCH: The consumer has to stiffer, not the farmers.

    BROMPTON ROAD TUBE STATION.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Transport, whether his attention has been called to the closing of the Brompton Bond Tube Station; whether he is aware of the inconvenience which is being suffered in consequence by the trading and residential district in its immediate vicinity, and to persons wishing to go to Brompton Oratory and Brompton Parish Church, which adjoin the station; and whether, in view of its effect on London traffic, he will refer the matter to the Traffic Advisory Committee, with a view to the re-opening of the station at the earliest possible moment?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I understand from the railway company that certain stations on the railway, including the
    974
    station to which my hon. Friend refers, are kept closed with the object of releasing a, train from service, thus enabling them to economise in power during the present shortage of coal, and that the station in question will be re-opened as soon as circumstances permit.

  BROADCASTING.

    WEATHER, REPORTS (HARVESTING).
    Mr. H. MORRISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange that the British Broadcasting Company shall broadcast weather reports every morning during the hay and corn harvest?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): Weather reports prepared by the Meteorological Office are broadcast every morning at 10.30 from the high power station at Daventry, in addition to two reports every evening from all broadcasting stations.
    Mr. MORRISON: Could not we have it broadcast earlier than 10.30 in the morning, which is rather late for the average farmer?
    Viscount WOLMER: The information cannot be broadcast until it is received. It has to be collected from many distant points in Europe and on the Atlantic and I understand there is considerable difficulty in getting the information to the British Broadcasting Company earlier than 10.30.

    REACTION.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the oscillation annoyance experienced by wireless listeners, he will consider action to prohibit the use, of reaction on the aerial?
    Viscount WOLMER: On the recommendation of the Broadcasting Committee of 192:3 a condition is inserted in all wireless receiving licences that "Reaction must not be used to such an extent as to energise any neighbouring aerial." I do not think it would be in the general interest to prohibit entirely the use of reaction, which is of considerable advantage in increasing the sensitiveness of wireless sets and only causes interference when improperly used.
    Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether all the clauses on the licence are enforced?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir. We are enforcing them, and very strictly, and if the hon. and gallant Member can bring any information to the notice of the Postmaster-General respecting their infringement the Postmaster-General will be very grateful.
    Mr. EVERARD: Has not this practice of oscillation been increased by the minute instructions given by the "Daily Herald" during the recent general strike, which were efficiently carried out?

    NON-PROVIDED SCHOOL BUILDINGS, KESTEVEN.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the scheme of the Kesteven local education authority for dealing with unsatisfactory non-provided school buildings; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Education Act, 1902, approval of the scheme will be withheld?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The terms of the scheme have not been officially communicated to me by the authority, but I have seen a reference to it in the Press. As regards the second part of the question, I can only say that any application for the consent of my Department to the transfer of a non-provided school on the lines of such a scheme would necessarily be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the school and the requirements of the statute.

    PUERPERAL SEPTICÆMIA (KINGSTON NURSING HOME).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that further deaths have occurred from puerperal septicæmia following childbirth in the Kingston Nursing Association's Home, which makes a total of eight deaths from this cause during the last six months, and the criticisms made by the Kingston coroner on the conditions existing at this home, he can now state whether he is in a position to give further information
    976
    to the House on the Report that has been made on this home by one of his medical officers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has now considered this Report and regrets to say that it indicates that there has been grave laxity in the administration of this home and of the district midwifery practice associated with it. He is about to address a communication to tie nursing association dealing fully with the facts elicited by the inquiry, and he proposes to send a copy of the communication to the county council and the Kingston Town Council. My right hon. Friend will he happy also to send a copy to the hon. Member and to any other hon. Member who desires it.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Member use his influence with the Government to see that the Midwives and Maternity Homes Bill is given a speedy reception and carried through into law?
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the hon. Member say in what medical authority's area this home is situated, and whether it was inspected as a maternity home by the medical authority?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the hon. Member say whether the husband of the deceased woman was given an opportunity of attending the inquiry?
    Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say, but I know that a very full inquiry has been made. I should be happy to send the hon. Member a copy of the correspondence, from which he will see the action which the Minister of Health proposes to take.

    HOUSING, PLYMOUTH.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken by his Department in connection with the Plymouth housing shortage?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is still in consultation with the Admiralty

    977
    with regard to the matter, and regrets that he is not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member aware that the Minister of Health is fiddling while Rome is burning?
    Sir K. WOOD: We are taking all the steps we can in order to deal with a very difficult situation.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Member indicate when the inquiry is likely to come to a conclusion?

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (ADMIRALTY SERVICE ABROAD).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement as a result of the special consideration he has given with the view to granting some concession in the cases of established men asked to serve abroad under the Admiralty, and who have to renounce all title to benefits under the National Health Insurance Act, even if they may never have had any benefit from the scheme, and who, on return to this country, have to wait a period of 52 weeks before being entitled to half benefits, and 104 weeks before being entitled to full benefits?
    Sir K. WOOD: The position of these men on proceeding abroad is not quite as suggested in the question. During their temporary absence abroad they may, in general, continue in insurance as voluntary contributors under.the corn-bind scheme of health insurance and pensions. Although not entitled to receive health insurance benefits whilst abroad, they will be able by this means to resume title to such benefits immediately on returning to this country without serving fresh waiting periods, and they will also remain insured for contributory pensions. In the event of a claim to pension arising during their absence abroad or shortly after return, the normal requirement of residence in Great Britain for the, preceding two years is already subject to certain modifications in pursuance of Regulations made under Section 23 (1) of the Contributory Pensions Act. Consideration of the question whether these Regulations need amendment is still in progress.

  COLLEGE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give any information with regard to the proposed College of Imperial Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am able to give the following general and preliminary information in regard to the Imperial Defence College. The function of the College will be the training of a body of officers and civilian officials in the broadest aspects of imperial strategy. The instructional staff will be drawn from the three fighting services, and the commandant will be nominated in turn by each service. The size of the College is being computed on a basis of 30 graduates per course, which includes vacancies held at the disposal of the Governments of the Dominions and India should they wish to avail themselves of its facilities. Arrangements are being made for the co-operation of the Civil Service in the work of the College. It is intended that the College shall begin in a, small way, and gradually develop to its full sphere of usefulness in the light of experience gained in its working.
    Mr. B. PETO: Can the Prime Minister say where this college will be situated; and in what building?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will be in London. As the scheme is only now being developed. I suggest that further questions be put in the course of discussion on the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has any estimate been made of the annual cost per graduate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The cost is very trifling and will not need any further Estimate. That is a subject which could be raised in later discussion.

    FOREIGN CINEMA FILMS.
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to prevent the importation of undesirable foreign films, he will consider the appointment of an independent Board of Censors to act on behalf of the general public in this country?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): The Home Secretary, to whom this question has been referred, asks me to say that he fears he can only repeat the answer given to a similar question last year, namely, that he has received no complaints which go to show that an adequate standard is not, on the whole, being maintained under the present system and that he cannot therefore take action as suggested.
    Sir C. RAWSON: In view of the fact that several films which are, in the opinion of the general public, undesirable, have been introduced into this country during the last twelve months, will the hon. Member go into the matter again if I send him particulars?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend will be glad to receive any information.
    Colonel DAY: Is it a fact that the British Censor is thoroughly efficient.
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums accrued to the revenue in the last financial year from the duty on imported foreign films and from the cinema Entertainments Duty, respectively; and whether he will consider the possibility of encouraging the British cinema industry by repealing the Entertainments Dory and increasing the duty on imported foreign films?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The net revenue from imported cinematograph films in 1925–26 was £103,365, of which all but £622 was derived from foreign films. Particulars of the yield of the Entertain-merits Duty paid in respect of different kinds of entertainments are not available. The suggestions in the last part of the question have been noted.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not a fact that without these very fine foreign films the Entertainments Duty would suffer, through the audiences not. responding so freely?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member can draw the inference as well as anyone.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL (TEA).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government that tea shall automatically come under Clause 1 of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill, and will in consequence of bearing the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the -United Kingdom have to bear upon it when exposed for sale an indication of origin?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Clause 1, as amended in Committee, extends to all goods, but does not come into force for six months from the date of the passing of the Bill. The Clause also gives the Board of Trade power, on application made to them by persons having a substantial interest in the matter, to direct that Clause 1 shall not apply to goods of a particular class or description. If the Bill passes in this form, it will be my duty to consider any representations that may be made to me by the interests concerned.

    HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES (MEAT SUPPLIES).
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the quantity of meat ordered by the War Office, Air Ministry, and Admiralty, for the use of the forces those Departments administer, during the months of August, September, and October, at home; whether any representations have been made by his Ministry as to the advantage that would accrue to British agriculture if for those three months British-grown fresh meat could be supplied to the troops, airmen, and sailors instead of foreign or imported frozen meat: and whether, as an aid to farmers, this proposal may he further investigated?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the question of supplying home-produced meat to His Majesty's Forces has been carefully considered by the Departments concerned, but in view of the very large extra cost involved, I regret that I cannot see my way to take any further action in the matter.
    Major GLYN: Does the Minister of Agriculture realise that, if this concession can be given, it would he a very real help to agriculture during these particular months of the year?
    Mr. LAMB: Does the right hon. Gentleman also realise that there is a great deal more wastage on foreign meat than there is on meat supplied by home producers?
    Mr. GUINNESS: This is a matter for the Departments concerned, and in the ease of the Admiralty alone I am told that the extra expenditure would be from £150,000 to £200,000 a year. In the ease of the Army it would be much more but it would be very difficult under present conditions to press the Services to face the extra cost.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember his statement about increasing the cost to the consumer, when he is considering Amendments to the Merchandise Marks Bill upstairs?

    Dominion.

    No. of Migrants sent from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (approximate.)

    Total amount of assistance towards passages by British and Dominion Governments and Voluntary Societies. (approximate.)

    Borne by British Funds.

    Borne by Dominion Government Funds.

    £

    £

    £

    Australia

    25,596

    580,836

    295,779

    283,821

    Canada

    10,266

    143,563

    78,437

    60,768

    New Zealand

    8,225

    190,894

    91,703

    98,742

    South Africa

    127

    1,930

    965

    965

    Totals

    44,214

    917,223

    466,884

    444,296

    The balance of the total assistance given was contributed by voluntary societies.
    The above expenditure relates solely to assistance given towards the cost of passages. There is other expenditure, e.g., for cost of after-care and training, which cannot be related to the individuals who sailed during the year ended 31st March last. In addition to the proportion of cost borne by the Dominion Governments, free railway facilities are granted, with some few exceptions, to all assisted migrants arriving in Australia and New Zealand.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what was
    Mr. SPENCER: May I ask the Government., before they invite other people to do so, to put into practice their own precepts?
    HON. MEMBERS: Buy British goods!

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (MIGRANTS).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what were the figures of migrants from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Dominions for the year ending 31st March, 1926, showing the Dominions in the order of the number of migrants, and giving in each case the total cost; and what proportion of the expense was met from British funds and how much from the Dominions concerned?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): With the permission of the hour, and gallant Member, I will circulate my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The particulars supplied are as fallow:
    the total number of boy and girl migrants who went to the Dominions during the year ending 31st March, 1926, under the auspices of such organisations as Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, etc.; what is the total average cost of sending a boy or girl under the age of 17 to each Dominion, respectively; and which Dominions contribute towards the cost either direct from Government funds or through other organisations?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The total number of boy and girl migrants between 14 and 17 years of age who went to the Dominions under the auspices of such organisations as the Salvation Army, the

    983
    Church Army, etc., during the year ending 31st March, 1926, was as follows:

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    Canada

    1,349

    162

    1,511

    Australia

    190

    74

    264

    New Zealand

    144

    —

    144

    Total

    1,683

    236

    1,919

    The average cost. of sending a boy or girl overseas (including cost of outfit) is £28 in the case of Canada and £44 in the case of Australia and New Zealand. To this cost the Canadian Government contributes £8 4s., the Australian Government £13 15s., and the New Zealand Government £16 10s., His Majesty's Government contributing in each case at least an equal amount.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (SUNDAY STAGE PERFORMANCES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the stage societies which produce theatrical performances on Sunday evenings pay an Entertainments Duty; if so, on what basis, and to what amount?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Societies which give theatrical performances on Sunday pay Entertainments Duty on the basis of the membership subscriptions. It is not possible to separate the amount of duty so paid from other receipts of Entertainments Duty.

    HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Trent Falls Improvement Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bristol Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Haydn Jones.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL,
  "to provide in the case of default by a hoard of guardians for the reconstitution of the board; and for matters arising out of the default or consequential on the reconstituion," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; supported by Sir Kingsley Wood; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [28th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, aiding and abetting the employers' demand for the extension of the working hours of the coal miner, provides no remedy for but will aggravate the present difficulties of the coal industry, is calculated to embitter and prolong the existing dispute, and is directly contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission."—[Mr. Walsh.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The Debate yesterday was disappointing. [Interruption.]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are going to get a row to-day.
  Colonel LANE FOX: The Debate yesterday was disappointing, unreal, and lifeless. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Mr. BATEY: You will get it at the end, so why not at the beginning.
  Colonel LANE FOX: As I was saying, the Debate yesterday was unreal and lifeless, and the reason was because there was no alternative suggestion put forward to that proposed in the Bill. The Bill does suggest a scheme by which, at any rate, a majority of the pits would be able to open at once—[Interruption]—by which a majority of those working in the pits will he able to get reasonably good wages, and by which no man—[Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  HON. MEMBERS: It is not true.
  Colonel LANE FOX: —and this without the subsidy, and at once. Not one person in the House was able to
  994
  suggest any other scheme. Not a single alternative was produced which would lead to any suggestion of better conditions for those working in the coal industry, and, therefore, I am entitled to say that this Bill holds the field. A number of speakers quoted the Commission's Report and it is very curious how any heresy or any opinion can find some justification in all sides of the House by quotations. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) took as his main point against the Government Bill the fact that the suggestion which it contained was one only reluctantly admitted by the Royal Commission, he forgot that only a few days before he and all his party were recommending the nationalisation of the industry—one of the suggestions which the Commission turned down wholeheartedly. They did admit the principle of an eight-hour day, though they did so reluctantly, but nationalisation they turned down without any qualification whatever and hon. Gentlemen who support that idea cannot claim that they are carrying out anything which the Commission recommended. The Commission having ruled out any question of a subsidy, which they say must come to an end, and having explained that their reorganisation proposals must take years to come into effect, while, meantime, the situation is one which has to he met, we are left with only two alternatives. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to this statement will be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley).Let hon. Members wait, and they will hear the reply. Colonel Lane Fox.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Let him tell us what he gets in royalties.
  Colonel LANE FOX: As I was saying. the Commission left only two alternatives for a solution of the coal problem. They left us only the two possibilities, either a reduction of wages or a lengthening of hours, and they said, if the present system of hours was to be maintained, it could only be done by a reduction of wages, and that had to be done at once in order to relieve the situation. The miners at this moment have no chance of availing themselves of the alternative which the Commission say is the only

  995
  way of meeting the situation. This Bill gives them a chance. Permissive and temporary, it gives them the alternative which they have not now got, so that if any man wishes to earn rather more money at the expense of working rather longer hours, any man who is thinking about his women and children has a chance—
  Mr. WESTWOOD rose
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is it a point of Order?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes, Sir. This is a charge against my own people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am not giving way. He has charged my relatives with being afraid, and I would not take that from any man in this House. [Interruption.] He is a rank coward, a dirty coward. My aged father is locked out at the present time, and the Secretary for Mines says, in effect, that my father does not want to defend my mother. He is a dastardly coward to say so, and I will take off my boot to him.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in saying that the men who accept longer hours are thinking about, their wives and children, to the exclusion of others who are refusing—manfully refusing—to do so, but who are still thinking of their wives and children?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have asked hon. Members to await the reply to this statement.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it in Order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are here to listen to different opinions, and, as I have said, there is to be a reply by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The Secretary for Mines must, at the same time, remember that we are sitting here representing the men to whom he refers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not care a button. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] You can name me if you like.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must resume his seat when I rise. I cannot allow him to be on his feet while I am standing. There is no point of order
  996
  in what the hon. Member has put forward. It is a point of argument, which will be dealt with, no doubt, by subsequent speakers in the Debate. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate, and these interruptions simply have the effect of limiting their opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I have the greatest respect for your ruling, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. J. JONES: Send us to gaol if you like.
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House must allow me to deal with matters of order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Deal with those on the other side as well as with us.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must allow me to deal with these matters.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: So I will, if you deal with the others—and I say that Mr. Speaker and all as you are.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with matters of order in the House wherever they arise, but I must insist that speeches should be listened to in a proper manner. There can be no Debate unless different opinions are heard. The hon. Member has already put the point which he said was a point of order. I have ruled that it is a point of argument, which can be replied to, not by interjections, but in the course of the Debate.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I have the greatest respect for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I would he the last to attempt in any way to upset the ruling of you, Sir, or of the Chairman. May I submit, however, that I have just as great a respect for my own father who is locked out at the present, time. The charge has been made that, unless my father is prepared to accept an 8-hour clay, he is not thinking of my mother and his other dependants. Unless the Secretary for Mines withdraws I will allow you to suspend me before I take that from anyone. No one is going to make that charge. May Mr. Speaker, draw your attention—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members will allow me, I will see that the Debate is conducted properly.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: But will the Secretary for Mines withdraw what he has said?
  Colonel LANE FOX indicated assent.
  Mr. AMMON: But is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for Ministers to make speeches that are provocative?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is not being given a chance.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I do not object to the Minister getting a chance, but he must not insult us here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Lane Fox.
  Colonel LANE FOX: I need hardly say that if I have said anything which seemed offensive to hon. Members, that I most certainly withdraw it without any qualification whatsoever. It is the last desire in my mind to be offensive to hon. Members opposite, or to anybody else. I really think there must have been some misconception of what I said, but if I used any unfortunate words I am extremely sorry. I have been in the House now for 20 years, and nobody has accused me before of being offensive or has brought such a charge against me, and I hope it will never occur again.
  The intention of this Bill is to give an opportunity to the miner which he has not had up to now. Yesterday we were told front the other side of the House that no miner would accept longer hours as a solution of the difficulty. If so, then really I do not quite see why all this trouble has arisen or why there should be all this bother about the Bill, which has been said to be a futile and a meaningless Measure! I am afraid that one of the reasons is that of course hon. Members who are anxious—as indeed many of us know about this matter—know that there is a certain feeling, it may be a considerable feeling, among a certain class of miners that this may be a way out. If that is not the reason, why are hon. Members so disturbed about this Bill? Why has it been necessary to have two full days' Debate over so small a Bill? If it is not the reason, then I can only say that I am surprised that so much objection has been taken to the Bill, which is permissive, and which hon. Members opposite say is futile. The Government have never
  998
  taken in charge or fathered the various offers made by the owners to the miners, but it is obvious that this is an offer that gives the miners a better chance of earning more wages than they would have under a seven-hours' day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] At this moment such an offer cannot be legally made nor cat it be legally accepted. This Bill, at any rate, does give the opportunity. [Interruption.]
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: May I put a question, Mr. Speaker. It is a material point.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I suggest to hon. Members that questions should be put afterwards, and not in the course of the Minister's speech. There might be fifty questions, and then no other speaker would get a chance.
  Colonel LANE FOX: Hon. Members below the Gangway yesterday drew a distinction between the lengthening of the hours to eight and a reduction of wages. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said that as a plain man he did not see any necessity—[Interruption.]
  Mr. K RKWOOD: What did he tell us?
  Colonel LANE FOX: To many of us it does not seem merely a superficial question as to which of these offers is more acceptable to the men, but I do appeal to the commonsense of the House to realise, I appeal to those who know what these offers may be, whether this may not be the way to gain a settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—for under present conditions the industry cannot be carried on with seven hours. The Bill does not insist, nor does it force, this solution on anybody. The Bill is permissive and permits of a variation in settlement. Therefore, if the Bill is passed, nothing will be imposed on a single miner, but he will have the opportunity to earn more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince yesterday said that this Bill would throw the miner on to a lower level than the miners on the Continent. But we sometimes fail to remember that, after all, we are not very certain what are the hours of the miner on the Continent. We do know, however, exactly what are the conditions in this country. At any rate, we know this: that the hours are better and the wages

  999
  that are paid to the British miner are infinitely higher than those that are paid to the miner abroad. [interruption.] The British mine worker receives 10s. 6d. as compared with miners in the Ruhr 6s. 7d.—including family allowances and overtime; Upper Silesia 5s. 2½d.; and Lower Silesia 4s. 10d. Conditions between the two are very different. Yesterday it was said that if the eight hours did come into force that the 14·2 per cent. which was given as an addition to piece rates, would be lost. I do not believe that any miners will expect that if they are paid for the extra time which they are working they should also receive an allowance in respect of the time they lost when the hours were reduced.
  Mr. GREENALL: Is not that a reduction in their wages?
  Colonel LANE FOX: If the 14·2 were accurately estimated in the first instance there should be, in that respect no reduction in present earnings per shift.
  Mr. GREENALL: But is not that a reduction in their wages?
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Stick it, Tom.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is one of those whom I am anxious to call upon in this Debate, and that will be the opportunity for him to put his question. He ought not to try to put his question now.
  Mr. GREENALL: I think it should be answered now, but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  Colonel LANE FOX: Another argument brought out yesterday, based on the Report of the Royal Commission, was that if there was an increase of hours and only the same output of coal were necessary, owing to the impossibility of selling any larger output at the present time, at least 130,000 men would be thrown out of employment. We all know that, unfortunately, there must be a reduction in the number of those employed in our mines, whatever the conditions may be, on account of the men who have come in since the War and during the War; and there must be reductions in the number of pits under the scheme
  1000
  of the Royal Commission. The argument put forward does not impress me very much when I compare it with the repeated declarations of the leaders of the Miners' Federation that they were prepared to face far larger unemployment than that, that they were prepared to see whole districts stripped of work, whole areas without a pit working.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who said that? [Interruption.]
  Colonel LANE FOX: If we were to adopt the suggestion of the Miners' Federation that wages should be continued at their present level without any alterations, it would be inevitable for very large numbers of men to be thrown out of work, and in some cases for large areas, especially in Northumberland and Durham, where the conditions are worst, to be very largely, if not entirely, thrown out of work. That is not the only suggestion that has been made by the Miners' Federation. They have suggested that a general rise in the price of inland coal would save the situation. I do not know whether any hon. Members opposite are anxious to father that suggestion, because they must know what the effect would be on our heavy industries. The coal industry depends upon the heavy industries. Unless the heavy industries are able to take coal, a very large number of pits would not be required. Not only would that solution be disastrous to the heavy industries of the country, but what would be the effect if we lost our export trade, with its corresponding reaction on imports of foods and the other necessaries of life? I am certain that is not an alternative suggestion which would be welcomed or encouraged by hon. Members opposite.
  In yesterday's Debate no alternative to the Government's plan was put forward. Under this Bill it will be possible, with the assurances which have been given, for the majority of the men to receive their existing wages, for a great number of the others to suffer only a small reduction, and for no man to suffer a reduction of more than 10 per cent., and also for the majority of pits to remain open without subsidies. That remains the scheme which holds the field, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman who is going to follow me to say what is his alternative. We have had one long day's Debate without any con-

  1001
  structive alternative being put forward. We have now got the whole day before us, and I invite hon. Members opposite, if they think so badly of the scheme of the Government, to tell us what is their constructive scheme. It has been freely said during the Debate that reorganisation ought to have come first. Hon. Members based that contention on quotations from the Royal Commission's Report in which they state that before any sacrifices are asked for from those engaged in the industry it shall be definitely agreed between them that all practical means of reorganisation and of increasing efficiency shall be adopted as speedily as possible. We contend, and I propose to prove it, that that agreement has been reached. [Interruption.] The Government agreed to do their part; the owners agreed also—rather grudgingly, I admit, but still they agreed—to do their part; and the only agreement on the part of the miners has been on this point. In the resolution sent to the Prime Minister on 20th May by the Miners' Federation, in reply to the terms sent them by the Prime Minister, it is stated:
  "We are largely in agreement with the legislative and administrative proposals set forth, and are prepared to render every assistance possible to ensure their success."
  Following that they announced their refusal to consider any reduction of wages and their refusal of a National Board, with an independent chairman, to settle district wages. The House will see that the miners have definitely agreed with the Government as to the proposals of an administrative and legislative character.
  Mr. LAWSON: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but do we understand from him that, according to his interpretation of that letter, the Miners' Federation have accepted what are called the constructive proposals in the Mining Industry Bill?
  Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. The proposals which have been put before them are the very proposals which are in the Mining Industry Bill. [HON. MEMRERS: "No!"] If the hon. Gentleman does not agree he can look up the letter which was sent.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask a question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. We cannot constantly have these
  1002
  points of Order. Hon. Members must realise that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Colonel LANE FOX: I am sorry not to give way to the hon. Member
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Because you know you are not telling the truth.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. Williams) cannot put it in that way. If he wishes to say it, he must say it is incorrectly stated. That is a Parliamentary phrase, but not the other.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: If the first statement was incorrect, I readily withdraw it. I was definitely that the whole statement was strictly incorrect.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I would like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether a Minister, at that Box, is entitled to make statements that he must know are untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Is it to be expected that he can get the ordinarily silent attention of this side of the House when he is making such a statement?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a charge sometimes made against Members in different parts of the House. It is not permissible to make such a charge. One of the first conditions of our proceedings here is that we give credit to all Members for sincerity in the opinions they put before us. Hon. Members claim sincerity for what they say, and we must have it all round.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I am quite willing to accept the sincerity of the statements made by hon. Members opposite, but it is not unreasonable to ask that a Minister ought to be more careful.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. PALING: Is it not usual, when a Minister is referring to an important letter, that he should read from the letter instead of putting his own interpretation upon it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If he is asked, and if he has the letter, he will no doubt do so.
  Mr. PALING: He only read a part of the letter.
  Colonel LANE FOX: It is true that I only read a part of the resolution, because that was the only part which was relevant to my argument. I have no intention of concealing anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read the letter."] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) gave some interesting figures on this point in the previous Debate, and he quoted the figures supplied by the owners before the Royal Commission as showing that under an eight-hour system there would still be heavy losses to the owners. He did not remind the House that those figures had been the subject of very strong criticism.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Does the right hon. Gentleman question the accuracy of my figures? I gave the figures which would arise under the eight-hours day which were supplied by the coalowners.
  Colonel LANE FOX: That is what I said. The figures I referred to were put before the Coal Commission. If those figures were exaggerated, it really matters little. At any rate, the real point remains that the loss on an eight-hours day is bound to he less than on a seven-hours day. They show that 3d. a ton is the average loss between January and June, 1921. That is the average over the six months, but in the last of the six months the loss was 1s. 11¼d. The loss was a growing one, and, at the end of another six months, in the December quarter of 1925, there was a loss of from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 5½d., and in the following quarter it was 1s. 4¾d. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ince Division quoted some figures in the Debate, in which he pointed out that £66,000,000 represented the owners' profits from July, 1921, to December, 1925, a period of 4½ years. I am not complaining of his figures, but I wish to point out that the correct figure was £62,000,000. The wages in the same period were £691,000,000, therefore the proportion of £62,000,000 to £691,000,000 is considerably greater in favour of the wages than 87·13. which was the proportionate share agreed upon under the. 1924 agreement. That shows that figures like these, taken by themselves, are very often misleading.
  Mr. WALSH: I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that that referred to the figures used during the
  1004
  course of the Debate, in which it had been stated by the Minister of Labour that no profits had been made in that time, anti I pointed out that the owners had received £66,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman now admits £62,000,000 in a period within which it had been said that no profits had been made. Surely there can be no complaint in regard to an industry in which the right hon. Gentleman admits that the coalowners' profits amounted to £62,000,000.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly show me the statement which he attributes to me?
  Colonel LANE FOX: The only reason why I mentioned that figure was to show how very misleading it is when you take a figure by itself. I only want to show what is the real conclusion. The sum of £62,000,000 may sound a very serious and devastating figure which suggests that the industry might be in a much better position than it is, and it is only when you realise the magnitude of the figure as a whole that you realise the actual position.
  Mr. WALSH: It is 10 per cent. each year on the capital invested.
  4.0 P.M.
  Colonel LANE FOX: No. It is 10 per cent. upon a very precarious undertaking. I want to ask hon. Members on this occasion not to lose the chance we offer of giving their alternative proposals, and, if they cannot give us any better alternatives, then I think the House had better accept the Bill which we propose. If they have alternative suggestions which are better and which will give a chance of a settlement with reasonable and decent wages without any undue cost to the public, then the House will be prepared to consider the acceptance of them, but, in the meantime, I claim that the scheme of the Bill holds the field.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The House will, I am sure, appreciate the very strong feeling that is displayed by my colleagues during the discussion of this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we are to-day determining the living conditions of about 5,000,000 of our population, and possibly of children still unborn; and my colleagues, having firsthand experience of the conditions under which miners work and live to-day, can-

  1005
  not suppress their natural indignation at any proposal to reduce these men and their dependants to a lower standard of life. I do not think that I would be suspected of affectation if I submitted to the House that very seldom has a responsible Minister put forward such a weak case in support of such an important Measure as that which has just been submitted by the Secretary for Mines. The principal part of his speech—lie reiterated it—was that we on this side of the House had failed yesterday and might be expected to fail again to-day to submit alternative proposals. Does it not come strange from a Member on the Government benches to suggest to the House that hon. Members would sit in their places and be doing their duty 1.)y allowing us to discuss alternative proposals when the present Measure was there for our consideration. Is not the present Bill the only Measure that is before us and that could be before us?
  Mr. ROY BIRD: It was ruled yesterday by Mr. Speaker that it would he in order to put forward alternatives.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: It may be in order to suggest alternative proposals.
  Mr. BIRD: That is what we want.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: It certainly would not be in order to discuss in detail these alternative proposals. I submit that, during yesterday and, indeed, all through this industrial trouble and for years before the present industrial troubles began, alternative proposals have been submitted by this party in this House, in the industrial field, and from every political platform in the country. I want to deal at the moment with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the Bill which he asks the House to adopt. The best that has been said for it is that by working eight hours, instead of seven, some miners will get their present wages, other miners will get less wages, and 130,000 will get no wages. He has told us that the Bill is a very little Bill. I suppose, therefore, like the erring servant's baby, it is so little that we may be expected not to make a fuss about it. He told us that it is permissive in character and that it is only temporary, and we were assured yesterday that. it was not the signal of a. general attack on the wages of the workers of this country. Has the right
  1006
  hon. Gentleman submitted one argument in favour of the assertion that the Bill is of a temporary character Can he-assure the House, or can anyone on the opposite side of the House give am assurance, that the extension of hours and the reduction of wages that are proposed and implied in this Bill will be for one year, or two years, or three years, or even for five years?
  To talk about the Bill being of a permissive character and to say that the miners may reject it or accept it, is not to flatter the intelligence of this House. It suggests that you have two equally free and independent bodies, who sit on either side of a table, and, by reason, and reason only, arrive at an agreement. We are asked to believe that this is a step towards the brotherhood of man, and that it is to be peace by negotiation and not by pressure. But what are the facts? The hon. Member knows, and so does everyone here, that the workers in the negotiations will be neither free nor independent. They are faced with the alternative of accepting the conditions which are submitted to them by the owners or of accepting the risks of starvation or semi-starvation for themselves and their children. I submit that to compel people to accept such terms through the threatened starvation of their children, is not to arrive at an agreement by negotiation but by force of the most brutal and inhuman character.
  We were told yesterday by the Minister of Labour, when introducing the Bill, that there was no intention of making a general attack on the wages of the workers. That is entirely contrary to all the expressions that we have had from representative gentlemen of the party on the opposite side of the House. I have here in the Press of 31st July, a statement of the Prime Minister himself that it was necessary, and it would be necessary, for all workers to submit to a reduction in wages if the industries of this country were to be put on their feet.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what paper that is in?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: There it is, in the "Daily Herald." I want to ask the-right hon. Gentleman to-day if he has ever publicly denied that statement, or if he is going to submit to the House

  1007
  that this is the first occasion on which ho has heard of it? Indeed, if I had thought that the statement was likely to be challenged, I think I could have produced in support of it statements made by his colleague, the Home Secretary, of exactly the same character and in the same direction. Before I pass from that let me put this to the Prime Minister if he still asks the House to believe that wages in other industries will not be reduced. Is he prepared to rise in his place to-day and give to the country a public guarantee that before the end of 1927— a period in which he is likely to have political power in this country—the wages of the workers will not be reduced, apart from the proposals in the measure now before the House? I submit that that is a perfectly reasonable request to make to people who ask us to accept this Bill on the assurance that wages in other industries will not be reduced, but who say that, owing to the particular conditions of this industry at this moment, it is necessary, to their intense regret, to reduce the wages of the miners.
  Before proceeding 'to examine the proposals further, may I draw the attention of the House to one or two extraordinary features about the introduction of this measure, to which brief reference was made yesterday. This is the first time on which a British Government has openly and definitely taken sides in an industrial dispute. The Labour Government of 1924, when confronted with the stoppage in the transport services of London, never dared to violate tradition to this extent. The present Government has no such scruples. It is prepared to march through precedent and tradition, through custom and even through the Constitution to the attainment of its goal. This is not their policy. No mention was made of this Bill during the General Election. No mention of it was made in any Ministerial speech before the wretched speech that was delivered by the Prime Minister in this House a few days ago. It has been well said in the course of the Debate that no Government, and least of all a Government representing a minority of the electors of this country, has a right to introduce such a revolutionary change as this makes in the industrial history of this country without popular consent. But while this
  1008
  proposal was never mentioned publicly before last week by a representative of the Government, it has been the principal proposal of the mine-owners. Not merely since the trouble began, but for months and months before the trouble began, the mine-owners were demanding from the miners something that was not legal. There was on the Statute Book of this country, and there is to-day, an Act of Parliament which made it illegal for miners to work, or for mine-owners to permit them to work, the number of hours proposed in the Bill now before the House.
  When Members of the working class in this country seek for the violation of the law, advise people to violate the law, and plead for the violation of the law, they come under the notice of the police, and frequently find themselves in prison. But here we have another attitude—"Our class, right or wrong." That is the basis of their policy; that is the unexpressed slogan of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister says in effect to the mineowners, "Gentlemen, do not break the law; we will change it." May I remind the House—and I think this was brought to their notice yesterday also—that this is the first time that a Bill to increase the hours of labour has been introduced in this or any other Parliament? Right down through the industrial age, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) pointed out yesterday, we have had continuous progress towards the emancipation of the toilers of this country from excessive labour Even the Conscazvative party, from the days of Shaftesbury down through the time of Disraeli, have contributed something to our national gains in progress. The present Prime Minister has cut out for himself a particular niche in the political history of this country. He is the most reactionary statesman of the industrial age. Other Conservative leaders have merely put a brake on progress; he has reversed the engine: he is the leader of reaction, and not the leader of progress. School children in the future may be asked, "When did Britain turn back?"—and the answer will be, "In 1926."
  This Bill solves no problem, it intensifies existing problems, and is bound in its very nature, as I shall show, to produce a fresh crop of social

  1009
  problems. If we on this side of the House, who sincerely believe that it is in the interests of Britain to have a new order of society, considered only the destruction of the existing order, we would say to the Government, "Take your Bill; increase the hours of labour; reduce the wages of your workers; and six months from now you will be in a more hopeless industrial position." But we cannot neglect the human suffering that would be involved in the national folly of putting a Measure like this at the disposal of an unscrupulous industrial class, who control the bread, the life, not merely of the miners, but of those for whose welfare the miners are responsible. May I remind the House of the obvious and external features of the industrial problem with which we are faced? It is not a problem of a shortage of coal; it is not a problem of a shortage of anything that human beings require in this country to satisfy their human wants in a. healthy way. We have surplus coal; we have a shortage of customers and we have a. surplus of miners. Is not that the problem that confronts us now? We have more coal than we can sell. I have with me here a report made to.the Trades Union Congress in September, in which it is stated that the Prime Minister himself had informed the reporter that there was more coal in this country than this country can sell. I not think anyone questions that that is the very kernal of the problem that confronts us. If that be the problem, are we not entitled to ask, how is this Bill going to contribute one iota to the solution of it?
  Our problem is to get more customers. How will this Bill get more customers for us? Generally, when it is proposed to reduce the conditions of the workers, either by forcing them to work longer for the same wages or to work existing hours for less wages, we have this argument put forward—an argument which, I believe, is frequently fallacious, but it is usually put forward—that the reduction of cost will increase the demand, and the increase of the demand will set the wheels of industry running more smoothly and produce greater employment, greater industrial efficiency and national prosperity. But even that argument cannot be used in support of this Bill. I have not heard anyone say
  1010
  that it is the intention of the coalowners of this country to reduce the price of coal as a result of this Bill. No one has said, no one will say, that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, of the miners working longer for the same wage, coal will be sold at a penny a ton less than it is being sold for at the present moment; so that the whole idea of an extended market goes to the wall immediately.
  If you have more coal than you can sell now, and your Bill is not going to increase the demand for coal by a reduction in price, it follows, as night follows day, that there is bound to be a substantial contribution to unemployment from the ranks of the miners. Members of the Government say they may find an Opening elsewhere, but what industry to-day is short of workers? Where can they hope to find employment to-day? I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be satisfied if the 150,000 or whatever may be the number of men who will be unemployed as a result of this Measure, could find an opening in the wasteful or parasitical industries of this country. They would say, "We have passed our Measure, and there has been no increase in the number of unemployed." But whether you maintain your unemployed through the Employment Exchanges or through parasitical occupations, they are a direct burden on the employed people and the industry of the country. It is perfectly plain what will happen here. At least 150,000 people will be immediately sent to the Employment Exchange, and what happens then?
  We were asked yesterday—and I wish to lend my support to the appeal—to consider this Measure from a national point of view as well as from the point of view of the particular industry. What happens, then, from a national point of view? 150,000 men and their dependants have to be fed. It is quite true that their maintenance allowance will be less than if they were working; that is necessary in the interest of competitive capitalism; but they have to be fed somehow. They have to get, let us say, 30s. a week for digging nothing, instead of 45s. a week for digging coal. Is it a sound national policy that will compel men to enter circumstances in which they will have to exist on 30s. a week for doing nothing, rather than to regulate the hours in this

  1011
  country so as to distribute the amount of labour that requires to be done in the national interest and pay our useful workers for doing useful work?
  I submit, however, that the unemployment will not stop there. What is the next step in the course of the policy now being adopted in the interests of capitalism by His Majesty's Government? Might I remind the' House that Germany lost the War? Might I also remind the House of what has frequently been said, that the miners helped to win the War? We have heard a good deal during this Debate about the law of supply and demand. If the miners had insisted on the law of supply and demand during the War, they would have had £2 a day during the War; but, when the law of supply and demand favoured the workers the law was suspended, as the seven-hours law is being suspended now when it favours the workers. Germany having lost the War, we decided that the losers must pay. That is part of our national policy; it is part of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government that the losers must pay. It may be that they have not paid much, as has been muttered from the other side of the House, but, it has been laid down that Germany must pay. To compel Germany to pay, the German miners, who are included in the losers, have to work longer hours, because Germany lost the War; there is no other way in which Germany can pay. Equality between victor and vanquished is intolerable. You cannot have reparations if the victor and the vanquished are to be on an equal economic level, and a direct result of this Measure must be to extend the hours of labour in Germany. Otherwise, what becomes of the Versailles Treaty? How is the loser to pay?
  Immediately the working hours are extended in Germany, are we not then back exactly at the position that faces us to-day? If the Germans adopt a nine-hours' day, or if the Germans care to work for less wages, will not our coal-owners experience the same difficulty in competing with the German owners after this Bill has been passed as they do at the present moment, before the Bill is passed and before a nine-hours' working day has been introduced in Germany? I think it is a reasonable assumption that
  1012
  they will. And then, according to the very same philosophy that supports this Bill, what course is left open to the mine-owners of this country but to come to this House and, through their spokesmen on the Government Bench—if they still have spokesmen on the Government Bench—to tell this House that the miners of this country must face the economic facts of the situation; that, Germany working nine hours, we must work nine hours; that the present Bill for eight hours must be suspended, and that a nine-hours' Bill must take its place on the Statute Book of this country? I submit that that is a reasonable assumption of the natural course of the policy on which we are asked to embark to-day. What does that show'? It shows us that to-day the British miners, who won the War in 1914–1918, are the slaves of the German miners who lost the War, and that it is the German miners and the German mineowners who determine the living conditions of the miners of Great Britain. The miners on the industrial field to-day who are fighting against this yoke being placed upon them are at war against the very conditions that they were told they would be fighting against if they went to France in 1914.
  May I carry the House with me a little further and ask it to see that, even if the miners did accept these proposals—I do not believe they will, and I ask the House to remember who these miners are—our troubles would not be at an end. The miners are probably the most magnificent million of men in this country. They are men who, if they were displaying the same indomitable determination and loyalty in the military field on your behalf as they are doing to-day on behalf of their wives and dependants, would win the admiration of the world. They are men whose leaders. instead of being denounced as they are being denounced to-day, would be invited to Buckingham Palace and to the greatest mansions in the country in order that they might receive an expression of the admiration of the rich for the people who were carrying on the war in the national interest. Do you think that, that is the stuff of which a servile class is made? Is not the whole idea lying behind this, that you can get in this country a million people sufficiently docile and servile to live in beastly conditions in order that you may, within the competitive system,

  1013
  carry on your industrial policy? That is the whole idea underlying this Bill—that the miners of this country are prepared to live in worse houses, to live on a less quantity or poorer quality of food, that they are prepared to see their children get less education than they are getting to-day, in order that you may have an opportunity of showing in your ledgers a dividend on the capital that is invested in the mining industry.
  I submit, even to the Members opposite, that the day when you could get that class of people in this country has gone for ever. You got a supply of miners of that calibre from the ruined agricultural districts of Ireland and the Highlands and the English counties during the 19th century. That supply has run dry. Your miners in future will be recruited from the mining villages. They will be the sons of miners; they will be the sons of people who are as well educated in political economy and industrial history, taking them in the mass, as are probably any other million of people in any other walk of life in this country. They are composed of men such as those who sit behind me to-day—men who rise in their places and tell you that they are carrying out the dying wishes of their fathers in resisting proposals of this kind. These men will bequeath to their children the same spirit of resistance, the same fighting determination, as is being displayed by the miners at the moment. It is all nonsense to talk about the fighting spirit of trade unionism that is now being displayed as being of alien origin. The spirit of fighting trade unionism, whether it be displayed in this country or in any country in the world, is British or British by extraction. I submit that, even if it were true that it had an alien origin, it is offering insult to some of the best families in this country to suggest that the mere fact of a person or a thing being alien in origin is sufficient justification for condemnation.
  I want the party opposite, because they have the power, to face the economic facts, even as thy ask those on this side of the House to face them. It is you, and you only who can save this nation, if it is to be saved from going down the slippery slope to revolutionary destruction; and you are going to save it if you can rise superior to the immediate
  1014
  economic interest of your class, and realise the economic facts of the present situation. May I state one or two of those economic facts which I think cannot be seriously disputed? The first of them is that you have no outlet in this country now such as you had in the nineteenth century for surplus goods as means of developing the country. You have all the mines, all the railways, all the warehouses, and all the workshops, and you have all the property, apart from housing, that you require. There is no outlet for the surplus product of labour there, as there was during the nineteenth century, when this was an undeveloped country. That is an important economic fact which is governing the social and industrial conditions of this country at the moment. May I point to another which is very simple, but is frequently neglected, and that is that the exchange of goods with a foreign country is not the same as the consumption of goods? You do not get rid of goods merely because you exchange goods with a foreign country; you merely carry out a system of swapping, of barter, and the amount of your goods at home remains the same, except for purposes of convenience, as it was before you entered on the transaction.
  I submit the further fact, that you cannot import goods faster than your people can buy. If you could get a million times more trade abroad than you have, you would not purchase a pennyworth more or import a pennyworth more to this country than the people of this country can afford to buy. The purchasing power of the British people in 1926 is the governing factor in the trade conditions of the country. May I remind you that 70 per cent. of the people, who are your market, who detemine what the trade and industry of this country is to be and what its conditions are to be, are wage earners, and that the incomes of those wage earners determine the extent of the home market, which is the governing factor in British trade and industry? Low wages mean low trade. No wages, speaking generally, would mean no trade. If you lower the wages or the purchasing power of the people of this country, as you would by this Bill, to the extent that you reduce wages or put people on the dole, you deal a fresh blow at British trade and

  1015
  industry, and you increase and intensify every social problem that we have, and, more and more, you make the condition of Britain a heart-breaking consideration for the people who have any responsibility. The only way in which we are going to find an outlet from our present industrial difficulties is by realising that we have in this country, in our mining villages, in our agricultural villages, in our towns and in our cities', millions of people who have unsatisfied human wants, that side by side with these people we have millions of pounds' worth of goods for which we cannot find a market, that if we could get rid of those goods we have again millions of people prepared to replace them with other goods.
  Surely it is not necessary, if we have any statesmanship left, that Britain should be compelled to starve in the midst of plenty? A great capitalist on the Clyde spoke to me on the subject only a few weeks ago. He said that he was losing faith in the capitalist system, because when he could find no employment for his men through industry being choked, owing to the unworkable nature of our present order, he was getting no dividends on his capital and he added something which I have frequently quoted. He said: "If I get no dividend on my capital, then it might as well have been sunk in the bottom of the Clyde as on the banks of the Clyde." I submit that we are drifting towards a state of society in which no people will have an interest in preserving the social order at all. I do not think that any responsible people in this country want revolution. I question whether any responsible people in any country ever want a revolution. Conditions breed revolution, and the people who produce the conditions are the real revolutionaries. We who ask the Government to realise the danger of the present situation are the bulwark against revolution in the country, and not the people who denounce us as revolutionaries.
  Let me say one or two words in reply to the appeal that has been made to us. We are told that the mines do not pay. We have had conflicting views on that question. I read the other day a speech delivered by the Chairman of Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, in which he made an amazing statement.
  1016
  He said that during the past year his company had raised 4,500,000 tons of coal, but had lost on every ton; but the company had made a profit of £1,000,000 and was paying a dividend of 10 per cent. free of Income Tax. That presented to me a conundrum, and I submitted it to one of my friends amongst the miners. He said, "It is easily explained. Nettlefold. the coalowner, must have sold his coal to Guest, the ironmaster, at a very keen price, and, therefore, Keen and Nettlefold gained a million pounds or more on the swings than they lost on the merry-go-rounds." At any rate, the fact remains that they made £1,000,000 profit and that they paid a dividend of 10 per cent. free of Income. Tax, and put an enormous sum to reserve. Whatever the facts of the situation, we all know that there are more miners than mineoeners receiving relief from the guardians and the parish councils to-day. I confess that all the moving appeals made to me on behalf of the owners leave me very cold as long as I know that the people under consideration are probably enjoying the highest standard of life in this country.
  Again, when I am told, the mines do not pay, I am not sure that I am seriously disturbed to prove whether they do or not. The country as a whole pays. The most essential industries in this country do not pay. The Army does not pay, the Navy does not pay, scavenging does not pay, the health services do not pay, our elementary schools do not pay, even the telegraph service of this country usually does not pay, but no one conies forward and asks the policeman to face economic facts, no one even asks the school teacher to face economic facts. What do they say? They say the elementary schools, the police, the Army, the Navy, and the scavenging and health services are all industries essential to the life of this nation, and, therefore, the people engaged in them are, in so far as the country can afford it, entitled to a decent standard of living. Is not coalmining an essential industry, and is not the miner entitled, if the country can pay, to a decent standard of living in order that he may carry on one of its essential industries? I am submitting that the country can pay.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other

  1017
  day that he had discovered, in the course of his Budget investigations, that £300,000,000 a year are invested in credit betting in this country, so that evidently we have a class of people who at one game can play with twice more in stakes than the entire mining population of this country get for producing its coal. I do not suppose that they lose the £300,000,000. It may be the same money turned over and over again, but even if they only lost half the money—and I do not know if anyone would insure them against that risk—the amount they would lose to the bookmakers would be as much as is being paid to-day to all the miners engaged in the production of coal in this country. How can you say, then, that the country is poor? We are told that Bond Street is busier than it ever was before. I submit that, if there is anything in the brotherhood preached by the Prime Minister, it would be a practical expression of brotherhood to ask the brother with more than £50 a week to contribute a little to the brother who is only getting less than 50s. a week, and a brotherhood which cannot give that material expression is only a brotherhood useful for perorations on political platforms.
  I submit that the first step ought to be to got the miners back to their work, that this is not merely a mining problem, not merely a coal problem, but a great national problem, probably the greatest that this country has ever had to face in its history, that the whole future of the nation depends on its intelligent solution, and that the first step ought to be to stop the civil war, to get our miners back to work, in a friendly spirit, on the old conditions, and to apply our brains to the reorganising, first, of the mining industry, and then of the other national industries. I submit to the Prime Minister, whose political honesty, I fear, is greatly exaggerated, that he has not played fair with the miners. He comes to this House and tells the House, and, through this House, tells the country, that he wants peace in our time, and that he is working for peace and only for peace, but he goes to his own friends at their Conference and tells them that he always regarded the strike as inevitable, that he knew it was bound to come, and that he prepared for its coming. We are being asked whether the miners are pre-
  1018
  pared to accept the Coal Commission's Report. When that question was put, weeks and weeks ago, there were differences in the interpretation of the terms of that Report. Some people said it meant one thing, and other people put another interpretation on it, and in order to elucidate its terms, influence was brought to bear on the man who had presided over the Coal Commission, the man who was considered by the Government to be the most capable man on earth to find the facts and guide us in national policy, even along their lines, on this industrial problem.
  He was invited to come and give his interpretation of the Report. He might be expected to understand it quite as well as the Ministers who appointed him, because they did not know what to do. It was to him they went for guidance; he was their "guide, philosopher and friend." He presented his Memorandum in the course of the general strike, and I submit that here again an attempt was made to trick the miners. It is quite true, I believe, that no binding bargain was made in the calling-off of the general strike, but I think it is an undoubted fact that an impression was left on the minds of honest men that if, in the national interests, it were called off, the Samuel Memorandum would be offered to the miners as the basis of settlement of the trouble in the mining industry. Think of what was attempted. We now know what the facts were. Immediately the mineowners met, they unanimously decided that they would not accept this Samuel Memorandum as the basis of settlement. In reply to a question that I put to the Prime Minister 10 days ago, he informed this House that he had never accepted it, and that he was not prepared to accept it. But the question was put to the miners as to whether they would accept it. If they had said that they would accept it, we now know that they would never have got it. We now know that if they had accepted its implied reduction in wages, having got them on the slippery slope, all the anti-trade union forces of this country would have coalesced to bring them down and down and down, on the plea that they had accepted the principle and were now quibbling over a matter of degree.
  But the miners' leader, who has been sometimes termed an honest fool, has

  1019
  proved himself in statesmanship superior to the great majority of his critics, and he refused, and refused rightly, to go into negotiations pledged to accept a reduction in wages before even the discussion had begun. Here, again, I submit to the Prime Minister that honesty, even in dealing with miners, is the best policy. I leave it at that. I hope that if the present policy is pursued, the miners who are standing to-day not merely in the interests of themselves and their families, but of the future of this country, will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder. I hope that they may go on weeks, and weeks, and months, if necessary, rather than submit to degradation, and I take this opportunity of appealing to every real lover of his country who understands the economic implications of the present struggle and the present discussion to risk everything in support of the miners, knowing that if the miners go down, this country will go down from the place which it has occupied during the centuries of the past.
  Mr. SKELTON: I do not rise to pursue the broad and general economic argument which has been developed in the speech of the right hon. Member for the Shettleston Division (Mr. Wheatley), but because I think that hon. Members on this side, even though they may not be closely connected or, indeed, at all personally connected, with the mining industry should not, give merely a silent vote upon this occasion. So far as I am concerned, I desire, if I may, in a very few words to express the course by which I have arrived at the decision as to the step that I propose to take this evening, namely, to vote, with perfect confidence that it is the right and wise thing to do, in support of the Bill, upon whose introduction I most warmly congratulate the Government. [Interruption.] I arrived at that conclusion many weeks before the Bill itself was introduced, and I so expressed myself in the public Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should work under it!"] We must each, in this world, do our own work, and the course—[Interruption].
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member for the Shettleston Division (Mr. Wheatley), who has just finished, was listened to for 55 minutes, and if
  1020
  hon. Members behind him have any sense of fair play, they will listen to other speakers.
  Mr. SKELTON: I was about to explain in a very few words the process of reasoning by which I have arrived at the conclusion that this Bill is the best and the only way out of a hard and difficult situation. Do not let us blind ourselves to the fact that in life very often there are hard and difficult situations. I do not, myself, believe that there are any moments more anxious for a statesman, for a Government, and for Parliament than when they have to meet these hard and difficult situations, but I pray the House, and, if I may, hon. Members opposite, not to assume or to suggest or to believe that our motives in dealing with this hard and difficult situation are less honest and less decent than those which they themselves would have if they were called upon to deal with it. As it seems to me, the alternatives, the hard and naked alternatives, are between a greater and a lesser reduction of wages. Nobody says that that is going to be permanent, and nobody believes that it will be.
  5.0 P.M.
  Let us never forget—and this has not once, so far as I have heard it, been mentioned in this Debate—that alone among the industries of this country the profits of the coal-mining industry are so arranged that the men receive 87 per cent, of the profits and the owners 13 per cent.. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is so. I do not wish to be diverted and to speak for a longer time than. I informed Mr. Speaker I was about to do, but let me say that, if that division is not now made, there is a totally different question, which requires separate investigation, and I may assure hon. Members opposite that, if investigation be needed, there is no party that will more willingly and anxiously undertake it than the Conservative party, of which I am proud to be a member. [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh, but it does not help the argument. There are times for a. sense of humour, and times for other senses, and I think in a. Debate of this importance there are other senses that are more necessary to apply. I venture to suggest that, hard as are the alternatives, the Government are pursuing the course which enables the

  1021
  miner to select the least hard alternative. [An HON. MEMBER "Starvation!"] Call it starvation, if you like. It is not better to be only partially "starved"—using your own most inaccurate word—and nobody knows better than hon. Members opposite how inaccurate it is—surely, it is better, if the question is one of the reduction of wages, to open the way to making it possible for that reduction to be as little as it can he. Hon. Members opposite, with great force, with great sincerity, constantly urge that it is of immense importance that the standard of living of the people should not be reduced. Humbly, I agree with them. It is because; so far as I can see, and I make no claim to be an expert, this is the only means whereby you can bring to an absolute minimum such reduction of the standard of living as is necessary that I support this Bill. That is the hard alternative, but, surely, there is no man, no statesman, no party who would not attempt to solve it in the way we are trying to do.
  With regard to the standard of living, can there be any hon. Member opposite who does not agree that the standard of living is far more intimately connected with the amount of wages received than with the amount of hours you work? I most fully agree that if any trade or industry were to be burdened by hours of immense length, that would indeed more than compensate for any wage they could receive. But can anyone say, in view of the standard of living and hours of the other wage earners of this country, that by permitting the coal miners to work eight hours a day, you are imposing such a burden of hours as to make it worthless? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] You say so, but is there any foundation for it? [An HON. MEMBER: "You try it. You go down the pit for eight hours."] If you are faced with the necessity of a reduction of wages or increase of hours and are considering the question of the maintenance of the standard of living, surely the answer to the problem is to reduce the wages as little as possible, even if you have to some extent to increase the hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about reducing your own wages?"] The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me has not the slightest idea of what my wages are, and I do not propose to inform him.
  1022
  The solution of the problem that we have adopted makes it possible to keep up as far as possible in these difficult times the standard of living to which the miners are properly and rightly devoted. Therefore, I say to the Government, "Carry on, do not be frightened. You are taking the right line, the courageous line. Do not be frightened, because the country knows that. Do not be frightened, because the miners' members know that. Do not be frightened, because, when the test comes, the country will back you up; and do not be frightened, because, of all the difficulties which democratic Government has to face to-day, the greatest is the danger of weakness, of going along the line of least resistance." I venture to say to the Government, to the Prime Minister, and to hon. Members opposite that, in carrying out what we believe to be right in these hard and difficult times, we are providing the sound solution, because it is the solution which most maintains the miners' standard of living, and we are taking a decision which once again is showing that democratic government in this country, with a Conservative Government in power, is not too afraid and too weak to face the situation, however hard and difficult it may be. I shall venture to record my vote when the time comes against this Amendment and in support of the Bill, with the full conviction that it is the right way, and not the cowardly and weak courses which are commended to us from the other side.
  Miss WILKINSON: After the encouragement given by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the Premier of this country will no longer be frightened. But when we are considering the question of an eight-hour day, it is surely not irrelevant to consider the conditions under which the miners have to work. My purpose in rising, although I realise that there are many on these benches much more qualified than I am to speak about the conditions of the miners' work, is to crave the indulgence of the Chair in order to reply to an attack made by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) upon an article which I wrote in a Labour paper known as "Lansbury's Labour Weekly." I was not able to be present during that Debate, and the Speaker has kindly given me permission to reply to these statements now. I wrote in that article of men working in

  1023
  Somersetshire mines dragging tubs of coal along narrow roads, which were too narrow for horses or pit ponies to work in, and that these tubs were attached to the men by means of ropes passed round their waists and fastened through their legs by means of a chain which is hitched on to the tub. I also wrote that these men were naked. The point I was insisting upon was not the actual nakedness of the men, or otherwise, but the fact that in many cases, I do not say in all, the rope was rubbing the naked flesh of the men. Since that article appeared, I have received a very large number of letters, both from men who are working under these conditions and from men who deny that these conditions exist. For the information of the House, I have brought with me one of these ropes. I am sorry to intrude into the polite environs of this House a thing of this kind. [The hon. Member produced a rope with chain and attachment.] This is what is worn by the men. This is the rope that goes round the man's waist; this is the chain that passes between his legs, and this is the crook that is hitched on to the tub. This was worn, not 60 years ago, as stated by certain coal-owners, but on 30th April of this year by a miner.
  When I went into the district I had no knowledge of the conditions of the work there. The matter came to my knowledge because of a woman whom I interviewed and who asked whether anything could be done because of the conditions under which their boys have to work. One woman told me—I could give the name and address of the woman and the boy—that she wept when her boy came home from the pit because of the way the rope rubbed his flesh. The general secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain was also one of those who wore one of these ropes round his waist, and he told us at a meeting that to-day he bears the marks of these rubbing ropes in his flesh. Perhaps hon. Members might think of that when they accuse Mr. A. J. Cook of being an extremist. I have here a large number of letters and also photographs that have been sent to me. I was told that the photograph which appeared in "Lansbury's Labour Weekly" was a fake. I have now been given the name and address of the person who took that
  1024
  photograph and the colliery in which it was taken, the Ringwood Colliery in
  Bristol. I have two others. The point is that they were not photographs specially taken for propaganda purposes, but two photographs which have been on sale to the public, showing the conditions in the mines. They have been on sale merely as matters of interest, and if hon. Members care to examine them, they are here. In one the rope is shown clearly on the naked flesh of the man, and in the other he is wearing a small pair of drawers. I would like to give one or two extracts from letters I have received about this speech. This is one:
  "It is true that not ordinarily is the 'guss' wearer naked except for a bathing slip. Nowadays he wears an old pair of shorts or even trousers and there are some who wear shoes. But the cruel rope still tears the naked flesh."
  Here is another case:
  "Many a time I've scraggled along on my belly with the 'guss' on, tugging my put more than 20 yards with only 9 inches between floor and roof."
  Here is another ease:
  "It's worst when you've got the rope wet and you can't hang it anywhere to dry. Next morning yon put it on all wet, and when you begin to tug it takes the flesh off your back."
  Then I have another in which the man said:
  "We are enclosing real photographs taken by Mr. W. H. Jones at Highbury Coleford of the conditions prevailing at Newbury Colliery. Yon will plainly see that the instruments of torture, the guss, which is being worn, and when he is actually hauling coal he wears it next his skin. There are hundreds of lads that are wearing and have worn it for years, boys from 14 upwards."
  This is the position. Certain coalowners have said the men need not wear it next their skin. The men may wear clothes if they want to. I am perfectly aware that as far as the coalowners are concerned, if the men chose to go down in fleece-lined leather motor coats or in a diving suit, it would not matter to the man who actually owns the colliery. But the point is this. The collieries in which these men are working under these conditions are very hot. The wearing of either no clothes or the very barest minimum of clothes is an absolute necessity, because the heat is so great. The very fact that these galleries that go right into the coal face are so narrow

  1025
  that a pony cannot get in, and that they have to be drawn by human beings, makes it still hotter. There is no proper ventilation. The men are working with the perspiration pouring off their bodies. Therefore, as one can imagine when one sees an object like this, so filthy dirty, stiff with coal dust and perspiration, it rubs the skin until the men get callosities on their bodies and the rope presses against them, as we grow a corn on the foot, the flesh is rubbed and septic sores are the result.
  The hon. Member who attacked me in this matter said he took his wife down the pit and there were no conditions which any lady might not see. We are all aware that when visitors are taken round factories of any kind or collieries, just as when royalty is taken into the streets of our large towns, they are shown what it is convenient for the owners or the managers or the employers to see, and I have no doubt whatever that when Mrs. Peto, or whatever lady was concerned, went down the pit, she saw just the ordinary main galleries and nothing that was not perfectly fitting was allowed to obtrude itself. I am not talking of the kind of show places or show things that a visitor is allowed to see. What I am talking about is the conditions under which these men have to work every day of their lives. The letters I have received are largely from the hon. Member's own constituency and if he will talk to the miners themselves in the collieries which I am only too willing to supply to him, he will find that these conditions are operating. I understand the Coal Owners' Association, without denying the facts, are denying the numbers. The numbers given to me were that 1,500 men and boys were employed—all tuggers—in this Somersetshire coal pit. I am not prepared to swear to the number one way or the other. The coalowners' figure, I understand, is 600, but if there was only one human being working under conditions like that it is an outrage. A hundred years ago women were working like that and people said that should not he, and it was prohibited by law. The degradation of the human body is the same whether it is a man or a woman. It appeals to peoples' hearts more if it is a woman than if it is a man, but the mothers who have to wash the bodies of their boys when they come
  1026
  home from the pits.are as hot and indignant about it as if it was their daughters. When you consider that people are working under these conditions surely, in God's name, seven hours is enough. You are adding on another hour in order that more profits may be made, because it will not mean more wages. We know only too well that whatever the wages are, the rates are cut and cut until the minimum only is paid, and I feel that if these conditions are to go on in the name of profit, at least seven hours is enough.
  I was also attacked for the wages that I said were being paid. I might have made it clear that what I was speaking about was not the minimum wages of the colliery, but the wages that were actually received by the men for the number of hours worked. The coal-owners have replied stating the actual amount which is the minimum. They have taken the number of shifts and divided by six. That is perfectly all right if the men were getting these wages. If they work that number of hours they get those wages, but what I set out to prove in that article was that the people were in abject poverty before the lock-out commenced and were, therefore, in greater need of help, and I have here a large number of pay checks, which can be examined by anyone, showing that the men were getting the wages that I stated in the article. I have, in addition, a letter received this morning from Mr. Fred Swift, the agent and corresponding secretary of the Somersetshire Miners' Association, in which he says:
  "DEAR MISS WILKINSON,
  I may say the Somerset Colliery owners refuse to carry out the provisions of the 1924 National Wages Agreement, although the Somerset Colliery Owners' Association is affiliated to the Mining Association of Great Britain. In December of last year I applied for a subsistence wage, pursuant to Clause 7 of the National Agreement, but the owners not only refused the application, but evaded meeting us to discuss the matter."
  Therefore, it is not oven correct to state that the minimum wages of the national agreement apply, because here I have an official of the Somersetshire Miners' Association pointing out that these colliery owners are evading the national agreement of the association to which they themselves are parties.

  1027
  Therefore, I stand by that article and I can only say if anything I have done has in any way called public attention to the conditions under which these men are working, I am thankful for what I have written, and I am thankful for the attack the hon. Member made, which has made it possible for me to bring the matter before Parliament. If people realised the conditions under which the miners have worked and the poverty they have suffered previous to this agreement, we should be here discussing how their wages could be raised. Hon. Members see this matter only from the point of view of profit. I am the chairman of the women's relief committee, which is dealing with the other side of the shield, with the wives and families, with the women who have been living on margarine and bread and tea. Whatever meat could be secured has got to be given to the man of the house, because he was working under hard physical conditions. We do not realise how much of the man's wage has got to go in food to keep him in bare efficiency to get the wages you are paying. In this staple industry men are working under conditions which in many cases are fit only for beasts, conditions which no hon. Member opposite would tolerate for half an hour if it was his children, and all you can say is, let them work longer, let them have longer hours and less wages in order that your profits may be safeguarded. It is abominable, and those who vote for these longer hours ought not to sleep in their beds until they themselves have done what these men are doing every day in their work.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: I will not follow the hon. Lady on the lines on which she has addressed the House, because I think that matter would be more suitably dealt with by the hon. Member to whom the matter is somewhat more personal. The point that has struck me most about this Debate, and about all the Debates on this question we had last week and on previous occasions, is a very remarkable omission in the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway. I have very carefully read those speeches I have not had the pleasure of listening to. There is one word that occurs very rarely, and that is the word "subsidy." Really, if we want to get to the root of the matter,
  1028
  it is around the word "subsidy" that the whole of this question revolves. We are in agreement on all sides of the House in one or two aspects of the problem, that is to say, if I may take it that hon. Members above the Gangway.are in agreement, at any rate, with the facts as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn). He has stated, I think on two occasions, that 58 per cent. of the coal produced in this country before the time the subsidy was first granted was produced at a loss. I do not think anyone would deny that if the miners were to return to work to-day at the rates of wages and hours that were prevalent on 30th April, the greater part of the coal would be produced at a loss. I do not think that is disputed, whatever may be the views of hon. Members as to the cause why it is produced at a loss. That gap has got to be bridged somehow. It is almost invariably the termination of speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway that the miners should be got back to work on the same conditions under which they were working on 30th April. They do not say definitely how that is to be done, but I take it their view is that the miners should be got back, and that any loss that is being suffered by the industry by getting them back on those terms and conditions should be made good by a subsidy.
  We have heard a great deal about reorganisation. Let me make my position clear. I am a strong supporter of the conclusions arrived at by the Samuel Commission. I believe in that Report. I do not say there is nothing to criticise in it, but on the whole I believe in its recommendations. I believe there is a good deal that can be done by unification, not on too large a scale, to improve the conditions of the industry. The word "reorganisation," I think, is a little over-used. We all know the man who comes with a request for a job and when we ask him what he is fit for, and what his experience is, we have often had the reply that he is a good organiser. Perhaps he had had a little experience on the Army Service Board during the War, or as an adjutant, and he thinks himself fit to organise big industries and deal with big problems. Just as we have become rather tired of the man who calls himself a good organiser, although he

  1029
  has no special qualifications for any job, so I think we are bound to become a little tired in time of this vague word "reorganisation," which is to bring such wonderful benefits to the industry. We must get down to concrete facts. I think there will be general agreement that in any reorganisation it must take a very considerable time before the benefits of it can accrue to the industry in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
  The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) referred several times to the question of profit. She said that this or that legislation was introduced or this or that thing was done simply to increase the owners' profits. She knows as well as anybody else that, for the past 18 months, there has been very little profit in the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am only going to a large extent by what the right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) said, when he stated that the major portion of the coal was produced at a loss. During the interval, and it must be a long interval, before reorganisation or unification can bring better profits or minimise the losses of the industry, there must be a gap. Hon. Members of the Labour party, although they have not said so in this Debate, are asking for a subsidy to bridge that gap. If they are not asking for a subsidy, I wait to hear from any one of them how the gap is to be bridged.
  There is only one other way of bridging the gap, and that is nationalisation. Surely hon. Members must be consistent. They have accused the Prime Minister frequently of not having mandates for this or that. If the Prime Minister brought in any scheme of nationalisation, he would have no mandate for that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take a referendum!"] I am glad to hear the Labour party endorsing the idea of a referendum. That was not their view when we asked for a referendum on the Irish question, before the War. If they are not to have a subsidy and if they are not to have nationalisation, how is the gap to be bridged? The Government have put forward an attempted solution by this Bill. Hon. Members of the Labour party are fiercely opposed to the Bill. They say that it will not be a success. That remains to be seen. I fail to see how this Bill can be said to be inflicting any hardship on the miners, when it is merely permissive
  1030
  and gives them an option. If the miners refuse to work eight hours, the Bill will have proved a failure, and will be useless. This is the first time that I have heard that, by giving people an option to do a thing, you are inflicting a hardship upon them.
  It is always said that there are three parties to this dispute, the miners, the owners and the Government. That view is incorrect. There are four parties to the dispute, the miners, the owners, the Government and the general public. It may be said that the Government represent the general public. In a sense, the Government have to protect the general public, but he would be a great optimist who said that that in every action which a Government performs from the time it is elected to the time when it goes to the country again it represents the views of the public on every question. As far as I was able to gather, last August the Government did not very strongly represent the views of the public when they gave the subsidy. They would still less represent the views of the public if they were to give a further subsidy at the present time.
  I have no intimate connection with the mining industry, therefore, I can speak, as many other hon. Members can speak, from a detached point of view. I believe most profoundly that in what I am going to say I represent the views of a very large number of people in this country, and I know for a fact that I represent the views almost unanimously of my own constituents. My constituency is one that lives largely by the fishing industry. We have heard a great deal during these. Debates of the patriotism and gallantry of the miners during the War. I would be the last to deny their patriotism and gallantry, but hon. Members will admit that men in other industries were equally patriotic and equally gallant, and not least amongst them the fishermen. The fishermen of Yarmouth and of other ports do not work a seven hours' day or a nine hours' day: when they are at work they work a 24 hours' day, and their occupation is in many ways as hazardous as that of the miners. In other respects they are somewhat similarly circumstanced to the miners, in that their earnings are based upon the profits of the vessel or vessels in which they serve. They work on profit-sharing terms, and I

  1031
  can tell the House that their earnings during the past two or three years have been very considerably less than the wages of the lowest paid miners. [Horn MEMBERS: "It is a disgrace!"]
  The reason why these earnings—they are not wages, because they are based on the proceeds of the fish they catch—are less, is because there is not the money in the industry to pay them more. I must not go into the details, but hon. Members who know enough about the subject know that the owners of the fishing vessels have not been making large profits. How can I or any other hon. Member representing a constituency of that kind, with no miners in it, and with no connection with mining, where our constituents are working long hours, with very small earnings, go to those men and say, "You must contribute something to enable the miners to continue working their present hours and to continue earning their present wages"? Could any hon. Member representing a constituency not, connected with mining say that, with a clear conscience? I cannot.
  I am still waiting to see how the gap which exists is to be bridged, if it is not to be bridged by nationalisation or by a subsidy. [An HON. MEMBER: "The fishermen are being robbed?"] An hon. Member says that they are being robbed. Let him go and ask the fishermen. They have no complaints against their employers. The: hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) made an eloquent speech, but it was typical of the confusion of mind with which he approaches this subject. Although he pleaded for special treatment for the miners, and did not mention the word "subsidy," he compared the mining industry as a national industry with the Army, the Navy, the teachers and the police. A more illogical and a more unreasonable argument I never heard. Is the Army run for profit? Are the police run for profit? How can you compare a service with an industry? What would be the condition of this country if every industry was run regardless or cost and regardless of whether it was run for profit or not? We should very soon be in bankruptcy. The right hon. Member for Shettleston has a favourite theme, which he hangs on every peg whenever he addresses the House. His theme is,
  1032
  that we should have control of inflation in this country, and that all we have to do is to increase the purchasing power of the consumer, regardless of our foreign trade and regardless of what the foreigner is purchasing from us, and by that process we can bring back prosperity. I have heard him advance that argument, and I have read about it in a well-known book called "Revolution by Reason." I should be out of order if I pursued that subject here, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was nearly out of order when he pursued it in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman's comparison of a service with an industry was typical of his confusion of thought, and it was typical of the inaccuracy which characterises so many of its statements when he said that the Samuel Memorandum was accepted by the Government as a settlement of the general strike. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] He implied that.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I would ask the hon. Member to be quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Samuel Memorandum had been discussed, and that the Government refused it from the beginning.
  Sir F. MEYER: I am within the recollection of the House when I say that he stated that it was understood that that Memorandum mild be the terms for a settlement, of the strike. He also said that the Samuel Memorandum was an interpretation of the Report of the Commission. The Samuel Memorandum never professed to be anything in the nature of an interpretation of the terms of the Report. It was a suggestion by the Chairman of the Commission of means by which it might be possible to call off the general strike, but it was never put forward by him as an interpretation of the Re7iort. To show how clearly that view is accurate, I would point out that in the Report a subsidy was condemned. The words used in the Report were that the subsidy "must never be repeated"; but in the Memorandum it was suggested that the miners should go back for a limited period with a subsidy.
  I wish to emphasise the reason why I i am supporting the Bill. I support it because it is optional and gives the miners an opportunity if they want this

  1033
  unfortunate dispute to be settled on the terms that they are to work an hour longer and in many eases to obtain the same rates of pay which they were earning before 30th April. I am in favour of the Bill for that reason, and because up to the present no alternative solution has been put forward, except a subsidy or nationalisation, to which every hon. Member who represents a constituency not connected with mining is unalterably opposed.
  Mr. LAWSON: At the outset I would like to refer to the story told by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) concerning the condition of many people working in the Somerset coalfield. There are some of us on these benches who know a good deal about the conditions that prevail in the various coalfields who had almost thought that we had got beyond the stage of being shocked. At a very early age I was pushing tubs where a pony ought to have been pulling them. Those who know me will recognise that fact from the carriage of my body. I have worked naked for month after month at the coal face, but I confess that before a friend of mine told me about a month ago of the condition prevailing in the Somerset area I should scarcely have believed that such conditions prevailed. I say to those who are responsible for the conditions in Somersetshire that, whatever may be done about the other conditions in Great Britain, bad as they are, they ought to take immediate steps to get rid of such a scandal as prevails in that part of the coalfield.
  Mr. WRAGG: Is the hon. Member aware that the allegations of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough have been denied and repudiated, and that they are absolutely inaccurate?
  Mr. LAWSON: I will not spend time in debating the point, except to say that when a personal friend of mine, on whose word I can rely, told me, before I had heard about this matter from any other source, what he had seen with his own eyes, I felt that there was room for investigation.
  Viscountess ASTOR: If these are the conditions, what on earth have the Miners' Federation been doing?
  Mr. LAWSON: That is just what I am dealing with now. The Miners' Federation, given a reasonable opportunity for dealing with conditions which prevail there or anywhere else, would certainly deal with it, but they had not a ready access to all mines and most certainly the Government's inspector is the right person to deal with conditions like that. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) has said this afternoon what a good many other hon. Members have said for some weeks now—why should not the miner work eight hours like any other worker? That is the regular story. All I have to say to that is just this: let the Government ask the other workers of the country what they think about it. One of the most amazing things to me has been the extent of the sympathy and sacrifice of the great mass of the workers in other industries to,save the miner from an increase of hours. They had arrived by sheer instinct and by a spirit of common humanity at a better understanding of the miners' case than the worldly wise men in Parliament. Over a great part of the coal area in the counties of Durham and Northumberland the hewer at the coal face has worked seven hours and less in the mine for years, and during the whole of that time the owners have never asked for an increase of hours, for this simple reason, that they know it would be impossible to work longer under the conditions.
  It would be interesting to know what the Northern coalowners think of this proposal. I made a speech in the early part of the year 1924 when I saw this trouble coming. This trouble was not born yesterday. From the very moment the Seven Hours Act was put on the Statute Book it has been attacked by certain coalowners, and for the last 18 months that attack has been continued. Let me read what the "Colliery Guardian" said at the beginning of 1924:
  "In this direction"—
  That is the eight hours—
  "alone is it possible to discern any remedy for the trouble that now exists. Indeed, any remedies that evade this sovereign solution may quite easily in the end make the position infinitely worse."
  The Chairman of Baldwins, Limited, as reported in the "Sunday Times," of the 21st December, 1924, said:

  1035
  "There is the question of reverting to the eight-hour shift in the mine, on the necessity for which everyone who has anything to do with colliery management is emphatic."
  The Chairman of Baldwins, Limited, when he made that statement to his company, saw what was taking place. I made a speech then similar to that which was made yesterday by an hon. Friend of mine from Yorkshire, with plenty of Yorkshire relish in it, and I said that the people who were asking for an increase of hours were asking that more men and boys should be killed in the mines, and that anyone who voted for an increase of hours would be responsible for the deaths of these men.
  Mr. WRAGG: May I ask the hon. Member—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think it would be much better if hon. Members on both sides would not interrupt.
  Mr. LAWSON: It is all very well saying that when we talk of the number of men and boys who are killed in the mines it is sentiment. We have picked up the bodies of men and boys; we have had to take the news to the wives and mothers of these men and boys, and while this may be sentiment to hon. Members, they are very real facts to us. I tell you that when you ask for an increase of hours you are asking for the deaths of men and boys. I made a speech along these lines in 1924, and I said that it would not be going too far to say that people who were then asking for an eight-hour day would be guilty of the murder of those men and boys—and there were some 1,200 killed that year—who were killed under those conditions. A coalowner in the North told me that they were not asking for an eight-hour day, and that their executive committee had never asked for it. But there have been people on the track of the seven hours ever since it was put on the Statute Book, and now when they see the occasion they use the situation in order to get hack to the eight hours, when they know that it is no remedy at all for the present difficulty.
  The miners in Durham at the present moment work less than seven hours. And why? Why did not the owners ask for an
  1036
  increase? I will tell the House. Is it a very small thing to go down a mine for eight hours? If any hon. Member wants to understand what it means, if he wants to obtain a new appreciation of daylight and sunshine, if he wants to really understand the wonders of God's creation, let him go down a mine for less than eight hours. If hon. Members want to understand the privilege of walking erect and breathing clean fresh air let them walk a hundred yards only to the coal face, in about three feet high, amidst dust and heat, then they will have a good deal more sympathy and religion because they will be able to understand more fully some of the wonders of the creation under which we live. Take the conditions under which miners work. I never worked with more than a loin cloth on and heavy shoes, and when I moved across the face of the coal in a place three or four feet high the sweat used to squirt through the lace-holes of the boots. You were exhausted in an hour or two. We did not take any meals. It was not worth while; we could not eat under such conditions. We did not drink the water we took with us, but poured it on our arms and wrists. The Northern coalowners know that four or five hours under those conditions is the maximum of efficiency, and when we had finished our work it was all we could do to walk out to the shaft. I have known men when they have got home who have been unable to eat their meal. They were sick, used up altogether, they had taken too much out of themselves. There are some very sad as well as humorous stories to tell in this connection.
  The Secretary for Mines took the same line to-day as the Minister of Labour took yesterday. He says: "What is your alternative." What insolence! Our alternative! Our alternative is the Seven Hours Act. The Secretary for Mines says: "Will you take the Report of the Commission?" To-day the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Miners' Federation sent a. letter actually endorsing the Government's constructive proposals. An hon. Member on this side said it was untrue. I thought that was putting it much too mildly But what has happened? The Government have given us the Reconstruction Bill, but there is nothing about mining royalties in it.; they are left alone. The Commission in its Report definitely said that it

  1037
  was necessary to take possession of the royalties in order to have power to effect amalgamations and combinations, and on the question of royalties let me say that if geological opinion is worth anything at all there is as much coal lying unproved in this country as will very likely pay for all the royalties, and no Government in the future will, I hope, allow people to claim coal which may be proved, give a new value to the land and lead the same shameful situation which has taken place during the present generation. The reconstruction proposals do not include pit committees. There is no mention of them. Yet the Commission very definitely considered whether pit committees should be set up voluntary or by Statute. They said it was no use trying to make pit committees effective unless it was by Statute, and I say to the Secretary for Mines and the Minister of Labour that when the Miners' Federation talk about reconstruction and make legislative and administrative proposal they include the whole of the recommendations of the Commission and not this devitalised thing which is called a Coal Mines Bill.
  Our alternative proposal is the Seven Hours Act. The coalowners know that this Bill will not be permissive. Is there any hon. Member who really believes that it will be permissive I ask them to be serious. Suppose one district is taken and eight hours is imposed, immediately it forces other districts into the vicious circle. Then it is said that it is only temporary. What happens when you have a change in hours? You have very long negotiations, and in the coal industry very complicated negotiations which require statesmen of the finest order to get this thing going again. It not only gets into the life of the men but into the life of the mining village, and the coalowners know that this Bill is neither permissive nor temporary' in its measure.
  6.0 P.M.
  They know it includes district arrangements and reductions of wages, and that it means taking us back to the economic basis, and once they get us back to that they will say, "There is no need for reconstruction." From the very first the question of getting markets has resolved itself into this—whether they were going to get markets by efficiency in the mining organisation,
  1038
  or whether they were going to do so at the expense of the stomachs of our people. Unfortunately, the Government are preferring the latter course. The worst feature of all this legislation, perhaps, is the fact that the Government are not now an independent body. This stoppage has lasted for nine weeks. I know nothing more sad than the condition which prevails in the various coalfields. I was here when the Prime Minister prayed for "peace in our time," and I believe the right hon. Gentleman was then perfectly sincere. I in my own heart echoed that prayer. Who could do otherwise, if during his lifetime, from boyhood to manhood, he had seen nothing but fighting and battle and strife, and stoppage after stoppage, which did not mean merely poverty during the actual period of stoppage, but meant year after year of suffering to the people in the locality concerned? What is the present position? The Government, at one time, might have come in as an arbitrator. Now the Government cannot be described as an independent body. The Government are suspect, and by this Bill the Government are being bound, hand and foot, and delivered to the coalowners. So we have to drift along now without any hope at all.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston used strong language in trying to paint the conditions of the great ma's of the people in the mining areas. He tried to describe I he spirit which is animating the men and women in our coalfields, and coming, as I do, from a coalfield, with the people of which I was in close touch only last week, I tell the Government that if they go through with this Bill they are inviting a continuance of the stoppage not for weeks but for months. No one who knows the situation wants it to continue, but I would say, with an hon. Member who has spoken already, that we know the danger of giving up the seven hours and of being involved in a vicious circle and you can take it from us that, so far as this Bill is concerned, terrible as is the prospect before as, our men and women are going through with this thing to the end. They realise that the Government, in this Bill, are not asking or praying for peace. This is a declaration of war.
  Mr. WRAGG: It is not my intention, although I am interested in the ownership and working of coal, and although I represent a constituency where there are many miners, to go into all the elaborate details of the hardships which hon. Members opposite allege to exist in the coal trade. But I should like to refer to what I understand the hon. Lady who represents East Midlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has said with regard to the Somersetshire coalfield. I saw a pamphlet as to what she said and I saw a refutation and a denial by the Mining Association. Personally I believe that denial. I believe that no person could wear a shackle of the sort which the hon. Member has been passing along the benches opposite, without having some abrasions on the body and without the case coming up for compensation. There has not been a single case of injury reported to the mine-owners of Somerset or a claim for compensation that has been due to this cause, and it is well known that the men or youths in the Somersetshire coalfield who do this sort of work have only to convey the coal a matter of 10 or 12 yards from the face to the haulage roads. I have not learned that any protest has been made in the past by the Miners' Federation of Somerset against these so-called inhuman methods. I give the denial absolutely to what has been said with regard to these methods in Somerset-shire, for although I am not thoroughly acquainted with the details of mining in Somersetshire, I have sufficient faith in the humanity of the coalowners, reviled as they have been in this House, to know that they would not allow any methods to be adopted in the mines to-day of the nature described. There are as good men and as humane men among the coal-owners as among the miners, and it is perfectly disgusting to hear hon. Members opposite, time after time, referring to the coalowners as if they were people who had no right to live and whose chief desire was to oppress the miners. Provocative speeches such as have been delivered on the other side will not help towards a settlement of this difficulty.
  I live on the fringe of a mining area, and I see as much suffering of the miners as hon. Members opposite. I have helped them and relieved them to the best of my ability. I get 30 or 40 of them every day
  1040
  coming around asking for assistance, and I give them assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where do you get it?"] Where do hon. Members opposite get their money? I know very well many miners in Derbyshire and Leicestershire would go back to work to-morrow on eight hours, well knowing that eventually it would mean increase of wages under the profit-sharing agreement. They would go back to work were it not for the fact that they do not like the idea of going back except as a body and because they fear some sort of intimidation. Some men have signed on at the collieries in which I am interested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
  Viscountess ASTOR: Why not?
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Let the hon. Member sign on some of his colleagues who sit over there.
  Mr. WRAGG: Some men have signed on or presented themselves in the coalfields, but immediately mass meetings of miners have been called in the locality in order, I will not say to intimidate, but to persuade them that they must not go back against the wishes of their leaders. It is quite true as has been said by Mr. Spencer, the treasurer of the Derbyshire Federation, that this strike is polonged entirely for the sake of the vanity of Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith. I support the Bill, not because the particular colliery in which I am interested needs it—for my particular colliery can get on without it—but because there are districts in this country—
  Mr. GREENALL: The hon. Member said just now that the men were going back on the eight hours.
  Mr. WRAGG: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument. I sat here and listened to speeches on the other side which seemed very provocative, and I should like to reply in my own way. I say I support this Bill because I believe in certain districts it is necessary, for a time, to work eight hours. It is not necessary in all districts, and I hope the mineowners will not attempt to insist on it in certain districts. I should further like to say that instead of a seven-hour day, a 42-hour week is recommended by the Commission. Hon. Members opposite have said that this Bill is contrary to the Commission's

  1041
  Report. It is not so, because you cannot carry out the Commission's Report without this Bill. On page 175 of the Report will be found the following:
  "In the second place, it should be considered whether the definition of working time by the day rather than by the week is everywhere essential. It might be possible and beneficial, at least in certain districts, to allow the daily limit to be eight hours, or even more, so long as the total of 42 hours plus one winding daily was not exceeded in the week as a whole. It was given to us in evidence that in many cases a five-day week of eight hours per day, making 40 in all, would be more productive than a six-day week of seven hours per day, making 42 in all."
  Mr. GREENALL: If that proposal were adopted, would the coalowners be prepared to pay the whole of the men, both piece-workers and day-wage workers, six days' wages for it?
  Mr. WRAGG: Of course, I cannot speak for the coalowners as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is there anyone on the other side who can speak for the Miners' Federation?
  Mr. GREENALL: That is not an answer.
  Mr. WRAGG: All I can say is, that colliers throughout the country do not work more than five days, taking an average throughout the year. If they worked five days of eight hours, or if they worked 42 hours, and if on Saturday you could do your shift work and repairs and get the pit into order for Monday, you would save a great deal of expense and get as much, or more, coal, and the saving of expense would go towards providing the miners with a better wage under the profit-sharing arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) poured scorn on the idea that there is any possibility of the mine-owners reducing the price of coal, but the very thing of which the miners are complaining is that the price has been reduced too low. If the price of the coal is not reduced, it will be a great thing for the miners, because on the 87–13 basis wages will go very much above the minimum at present proposed. It is well known that under the 1921–24 minimum in the Eastern federated area, which produces one-third of the total coal in this country, the profit-sharing agreement operated within limits of 140 per cent, to 46'67 per cent.
  1042
  above the basis of the minimum. In one month only up to 1924 were the wages cut down to the minimum. Therefore, if you effect economies by this Bill—as you will effect economies—when the trade gets settled the miners' wages will go up very considerably above what they were before the stoppage.
  Every argument which has been used by my hon. Friends on the opposite side might with equal logic be used against coal-cutters, conveyers, and against any efforts which have been made by the coal-owners to reduce costs. You might say that if you put in coal-cutters you would do away with men. If you introduce coal-cutting machinery you will make a more efficient property; if you can afford to spend money on coal-getters you will be more able to knock the inefficient out of business. Every argument that has been used against the eight hours can be used against coal-cutters. If you cheapen coal, within limits, you sell more; nothing is as certain as that. At the same time, as I say, I am very much in favour of selling organisations throughout the coalfields. I have spoken in this House before on these matters, and I say there is much coal thrown away at ridiculous prices. If you have eight hours, if you go in for adopting the Commission's Report, you must go in for selling organisations throughout the country so as to prevent what is in many instances coal thrown needlessly into the market at a cheap price which can probably benefit only merchants, while those who win the coal do not reap any benefit.
  When I hear hon. Members talk about the eight-hours' clay and this Bill being a retrograde step, and that the time will be half-an-hour or an hour longer than most countries in Europe, with the exception of Silesia, I would ask them to have regard to the fact that in European countries the law is not rigidly enforced or observed. When I was in Silesia last year, although they are supposed to have an eight-and-a-half hours' day, very often, when they were busy, they worked longer hours, and there was no such thing as prosecutions against the mineowners like there are in this country. There is no such thing as that every time a miner works a minute or two longer in the pit his name must be put down, together with the reason why he worked so much longer

  1043
  than the hours specified. The eight-hours' law on the Continent of Europe, notwithstanding what has been said, is merely loi de principe, and is not carried out in detail; everyone knows it. That is the reason why this House has consistently refused to carry out the compulsory 48-hours' week. Hon. Members know that foreign countries do not carry these hours out.
  I myself was in Poland last year together with several hon. Members of this House. We went round the coalmines there, and, knowing something about the subject in this country, I, so far as I could, went fully into the matter. I know, and it is known by hon. Members in this House and by hon. Members opposite too, that these laws are not carried out as rigidly as in this country. Again, we hear talk about conditions, but the miners in this country are receiving more than twice as much as they receive in Silesia.
  Mr. OLIVER: Is that a reason for reducing them
  Mr. WRAGG: I am not giving reasons for reducing them. I am simply trying to argue that this industry is efficient, that the mining industry in the past as well as in the present has always afforded a higher rate of wages than any other country in Europe. In Silesia you see that the miners are living on rye bread and potatoes, and under conditions that are not very satisfactory.
  Mr. BATEY: They are living on potatoes here with no rye bread.
  Mr. WRAGG: I am putting forward the argument in connection with this Bill that the industry of this country is efficient to-day, and I am trying to show that in Silesia, which has been mentioned by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and where it is said the industry is very efficient, and up to date, they cannot pay their men half the wages we pay in this country, and that the men there live under horrible, conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about America?"] Yes, the coalminers of this country should turn out four tons per day as they do in America. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: These constant interruptions of speakers prevent them developing their arguments, and have a
  1044
  tendency to prolong the speeches and so prevent other hon. Members getting an opportunity to take part in the Debate.
  Mr. WRAGG: I was trying to prove—not that it needs any proof, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) has already, quite recently, from the bench opposite proved it—the efficiency of the coal trade. He has demonstrated the great increase in the machinery and equipment that has taken place. But what I am saying is that this industry here is one of the most efficient in Europe. I am trying to show that the wages are higher than in any other mining country in Europe, that our industry here works shorter hours at present, and that if the miners decide that the hours shall be extended they will still be working not any longer hours than on the Continent of Europe, having regard to the rigidity with which the hours are enforced in this country. I object to the figures that have been put forward by hon. Members on the other side, and in connection with the suggested increase, and to the suggestion that it means murder for the miners. That is all rubbish. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are not going to have them!"] The statistics will not hear that out at all. I do not think the statistics before 1919, when the eight hours was worked, will show that there were, having regard to the number of men in the industry, more accidents and more deaths than there have been since 1919, except to a limited extent year by year because as the mines get more efficient, there are less accidents. Hon. Members opposite cannot prove, and no mining engineer will agree with them, that the extra hour on the day will make any difference at all in regard to loss of life and limb. This question of accidents in the mining industry is greatly exaggerated. [Interruption.] In the colliery of which I am chairman, since the War we have only had two fatal accidents, and we have produced 3,500,000 tons of coal in seven years. Our output is 500,000 tons per annum, approximately, and, as I say, there have been only two fatal accidents. Although that is below the average of the country, coalmining is not so dangerous as hon. Members opposite would lead this House to believe. It is argued that it is

  1045
  dangerous, and that is so, just as working on the railway is dangerous, and other occupations. Walking in the London streets to-day is a dangerous occupation.
  I would like to make a suggestion. No one desires a settlement more than I do, although I am not over-keen on the eight hours and would prefer that a limit should be put in this Bill on the lines of the Commission's Report—and I should like to appeal to the Government to carry out the Report of the Commission. If the men were to go back to-morrow, or next month, there would be such a demand for coal that the owners generally—speaking throughout the country, would make a profit on pre-stoppage wages and hours. I would suggest that for one month the men should go back, and this matter of fixing conditions, hours, and wages in the different districts should be referred to the Commission which ought to be reconstituted, and sit in each district or visit, the districts, and come to a conclusion within one month as to what the hours and wages should be in the district. In some districts it might be found necessary to work longer hours and in other districts not so long. There is no reason why there should be one uniform basis of hours throughout the country, any more than there is any reason why there should be one minimum wage throughout the country. A district settlement is far and away to the advantage of the miners. It is time to stop the suicidal policy of the leaders, Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith, who refuse to sit round a table and discuss the Commission's Report, for it could be discussed without prejudice to the question of longer hours or reduction of wages. I do suggest that all these matters should be referred to the Commission, with a request that they should come to a decision in one month: meantime, the miners should go back, and although it may not be possible to get all the owners to agree to them going back for a month on pre-stoppage conditions, possibly the £3,000,000 the Government thought about might do something to ease the situation, until the Commission decided what were the terms for the districts. I suggest that both the miners and the mineowners should agree to accept, what the Commission sitting judicially decides. I have detained the House far too long, but I feel very deeply
  1046
  on this subject. I feel that the men want to go back, and I hope a solution will be found which will be honourable to the men and economic for the country.
  Mr. GREENALL: I am sure many hon. Members on this side of the House will be interested in what the last speaker has said in regard to a settlement of this dispute; but, apart from that, I think every hon. Member in the House must be satisfied, from what the hon. Member has said, that the Government will not find a solution of the problem by going forward with this Bill. Before I come to the Bill I want to say a word or two with regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Labour as to the eight hours being provisional. He would lead the House and the country to believe that every miner individually will have the option of deciding whether he works eight hours or less. I take it that was his contention. If it was not, I hope he will say so now. Silence gives consent. What did he intend then? Why use words such as those if you did not intend them to mean what they do mean? What are the facts? The facts are that the coalowners of Great Britain have locked the men out, have closed their pits to every individual unless he be prepared to accept an eight hours working day and the other conditions they have laid down. Where does the option to the worker come in? Why is it necessary for Members of the Government to attempt to deceive this House and the community at large on the great issue we have before us? The Minister also made a statement with regard to the 14·2 per cent., the 13·1 per cent., and the 12·2 per cent.
  Mr. RADFORD: Is it not a fact that in four of the districts—Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Can-nock Chase—the owners did not post any notices at all, but the men themselves on the instructions of the Miners' Federation, handed in notices?
  Mr. GREENALL: That may be a fact. I do not know whether it is a fact or not; but the hon. Member from that district in his remarks has used language which suggests insidiously that we might very soon get to the eight hours if it were adopted in other places. I was referring to what the Minister of Mines mentioned with regard to the percent-

  1047
  age increase given to the piece workers when hours were reduced. Surely the Minister of Mines must know that since that percentage was given their wages have been reduced by 50 per cent., and, therefore, one cannot now base the standard upon that. What it comes to is that even if the pits were to go to work on the old terms, with no reduction at all, there would be a reduced standard for the workmen. In lose mines where it is admitted that on the new terms there is to be another 10 per cent. reduction it means that the standard of living will have been reduced 24 per cent. I can only think the Minister of Mines is talking in the way he does because the Government have a bad case. They cannot tell us the real facts.
  In listening to these discussions I am reminded very forcibly of the first dispute in the mines in which I took part, more that 50 years ago. At that time we heard just the same arguments as are being used now. It was said the Continental miner was working longer hours and for less wages, and that our coal industry would not be able to compete in the markets of Europe. During the whole of the 50 years since then it has been one continual struggle and fight by the miners, their wives and their children to secure a miserable pittance. A living wage has never been paid to the miners of Great Britain. Improvements have been made, hours have been shortened, but these advantages have been gained by fighting and suffering, during which the miners saw their children short of food and of clothing. Now it remains for a Conservative Government to make a start on the downward grade. They are to have the honour of beginning that downward movement, and if it. succeeds it will not stop where it is now.
  This increase in hours is only a beginning of what must take place if the Government are successful with this Bill. Hon. and right hon. Members on the other side talk flippantly about the hours of work in mines. They say the miner works less hours and earns more wages than do other workmen in this country. If they know the facts they know that is not true. If they do not know the facts, they ought not to make such statements. What are the real facts with regard to the seven-hours day. We know
  1048
  there is a Seven Hours' Act on the Statute Book, but there is something else to be considered in connection with that. It is a seven-hours day plus the time for men to go down the shaft and to come up the shaft, and in so far as my own county is concerned that means something like 45 minutes to 70 minutes to go down in the morning and come up in the afternoon—the same time to come up as to go down, 45 minutes to 70 minutes. I believe if one took a census of the whole country it would average an hour each way going down and coming up.
  Mr. WRAGG: The Commission's Report says it is half an hour each way.
  Mr. GREENALL: An hour and forty minutes. Look at the Report. Some of us have tried to ascertain where the reports the Royal Commission received came from, and we find that what they got was very largely what the coalowners sent them. It is an average of an hour to go down and an hour to come up, so that instead of seven hours it comes out at nine hours.
  Mr. WRAGG: Will the hon. Member excuse me? He knows that it is seven hours plus one winding, and one winding, whether it be one hour or half an hour, can only make it eight hours or seven and a-half hours.
  Mr. GREENALL: A coalowner ought to know the Act of Parliament better than that. The hon. Member will have to look at the Act of Parliament. The position is as I say, that in addition to the seven hours time is allowed for going down and getting to the workings and time allowed for coming out of the workings and coming up again, and so far as Lancashire is concerned that averages somewhere about two hours on a Shift. There you see what a difference a true statement makes—in contrast with a bale statement such as we have had from Ministers. Why cannot Members of the Government tell the truth and the whole truth? If they did, people outside and Members in this House would realise the position in the mining industry better than they do at the present time.
  To make the position a little clearer I ought to explain that men may go down in the first cage and come up in the last cage. There is no regulation in

  1049
  regard to their going down or coming up. There is no clocking on or clocking off. I wish to God they were clocked on and clocked off, and then we should know the real position and the actual number of hours worked. A man may go down in the first cage and come up in the last cage. He may go down with the middle lot if he chooses, and come out with the middle lot or he may go down with the last lot and come out with the first. Hon. Members may take it for granted that any number of men are. working 8½ or 8¾ hours per day. That is not all. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) was quite right, I have no doubt, in his statement that in other countries in Europe the regulations are not carried out as stringently as they ought to be. In Great Britain these laws and these regulations are not followed as strictly as they ought to be. Times out of number we officials have to complain to a colliery management, and many a time men get incensed about the conduct of the management in winding longer than the time allowed by the Act of Parliament. Men are working longer than the time prescribed by law. There is no need for me to say what that would mean.
  The suggestion of the Government that the seven-hour day should be increased to eight hours, means that the miners of Great Britain would be compelled by Act of Parliament to work longer than any other men in Great Britain, except the agricultural labourer. Do hon. Members opposite understand that? If they do, then I feel sure they will hesitate on this question. Surely the present Tory party do not want by Act of Parliament to compel the miners to be working underground longer than any other workman has to work in Great Britain in order that the coalowners may receive the same amount of profit which they have been receiving in the past. If they do, then, of course, they will be responsible for their actions. It is well understood that the time the men spend after leaving the top of the mine until they get to the working is the hardest work they have in connection with their duties. In many mines they have to travel between one to three miles underground, and much of that travelling has to be done in an incline of 1 in 3 and on roads along which you are compelled for thousands of yards to go doubled up and
  1050
  you have to carry the picks you have to work with in addition to your drinking can. I ask whether it is reasonable to expect the miners under those conditions to accept this proposal for an increased hour per day.
  Mr. WALSH: And in a temperature of 90 degrees.
  Mr. GREENALL: Yes, I will come to that point later on. It is often said that the German miners are working longer hours than the British miners. I have no doubt it will be within the recollection of hon. Members opposite that a number of people have been to Germany and have been down the German mines, where they have seen the conditions under which the German miners are working. The "Daily Mail" chose eight practical men, and I understand they paid their expenses to go to Germany in order that they could see and bring first-hand a report of the actual conditions under which the German miners were working. I also understand from what I have heard indirectly from some of these eight men that they made their terms before they went, and the first one was that they should have trade union wages. The main condition was that they should submit their signed report and that it should be published just as they signed it. What do they say? Their report appeared in the "Daily Mail" of 15th April this year, and they say:
  "With regard to the hours worked in Germany, they are no longer than the hours worked in Great Britain. The only difference that the hour; worked in Germany are eight hours from hank to bank, and that means that the eight hours in Germany is equal and no longer than the seven hours in Great Britain, talking, into account the time allowed going up and down the mine."
  Therefore, I hope the Government and their representatives will cease stating that the German miners are in a worse position than the British miners.
  Mr. WRAGG rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow so many interruptions. Already these frequent interruptions have made the speeches much longer than they need have been.
  Mr. GREENALL: We feel there is little to choose between the German miners' conditions and our's. In terms of money, they appear to have an advantage, but,

  1051
  when allowance is made for the various emoluments which the German miner receives, such as the family allowance, free provision of tools, and so forth, and when the cost of living is taken into consideration, there is scarcely any real difference. I have compared the Seven Hours Act with the Eight Hours Act in Germany at the present time, and I think it proves to this House and to the country at large that, if this Bill is passed, then the British miner will be called upon to work one hour per shift longer than the German miner. I have been talking to some of the miners in Lancashire who have read this Report during the past few weeks, and they told me that they remembered the time when both Members of Parliament and statesmen came to them and told them that the German enemy was at their gate. They said to us, "The nation wants your help," and we went to the help of the nation. We fought and defeated the Germans, but who has received the benefit? Who is going to receive the benefit if this Conservative Government go on as they are doing with regard to this particular Bill? The miners ask, "Who are our enemies now? It is not the German who is the enemy at our gate; it is the present Conservative Government and the Conservative party who are the enemies at our gate." They say that that this is the commencement of a general attack, not only upon the miners, but upon the whole of the workers in Great Britain. The miners do not believe what the Conservative Members are saying with regard to the intentions of the Government in connection with this Measure.
  This eight-hours' day is being proposed, we are told, with a view to producing more coal and producing it more cheaply. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite, who really understand the position, can reconcile it with what they are doing with regard to hours. For the last two years the British miner, on the average, has been working three and four shifts per week, many of them two shifts. During that time we have stacked hundreds and thousands of tons of coal. We believe that is one of the reasons why the pits are locked up at the present time. If that be the position under a seven-hours' day, what is going to be the position under an eight-hours' day, which we are told will produce an addi-
  1052
  tional 20,000 tons of coal? I had a conversation on this point with a coalowner, and I asked him what would be done with the increased coal produced at these collieries, and he hummed and hawed before giving me an answer. He agreed with me that the only thing they would be called upon to do, if the output of coal is increased at the present time, would be that for a considerable time to come they would work less shifts per week than they have been doing up to the present. That certainly would be the result.
  7.0 P.M.
  I just want to deal with one other point in connection with this increase of hours and that is from a humanitarian standpoint. It is a fact that developments are taking place in regard to the mining industry of this country. We are going further and further into the bowels of the earth for the coal we are producing. We are now digging coal at a depth of 3,000 or 4,000 feet, and the conditions there are much worse than the conditions that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has been describing. I have a report of an inspection which took place a month or two ago. The Minister of Mines has been supplied with this report. It was an inspection ordered to be made by the Commission when they were sitting. At that inspection the divisional inspector of mines was present and another inspector along with him, representatives of the men—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think this is stretching the matter rather far. It. would be more appropriate to discuss the work of the mining inspectors on the Estimates rather than on this Bill.
  Mr. GREENALL: I bow to your ruling, but it is not so much a question of the Estimates as a question of the effect these eight hours will have on the working people. The main point I want to make is that this is going to continue in the ruining industry. Year after year we shall have to go deeper and deeper to get the coal, and the question of the number of hours will have a great deal to do with it. This inspection was made in order to assist the Commission with regard to the conditions under which the miners were working, and, I take it, with regard to their decision on this particular question

  1053
  of increasing the hours of labour. The inspectors found the men working naked except for a piece of calico. They found them working in an atmosphere of from 90 to 100 degrees. When they went into the place where they were working, they could scarcely see each other. The inspectors got out of the working place as soon as ever they possibly could, and the moment they got out, they fell down with exhaustion through simply walking to the place and examining the conditions in which the men had to work. The men were stripped naked and as black, as they say, as the heathens. Wild men would not work under those conditions. It is only trained Christians that you can get to work under those conditions. I ask the Prime Minister whether the miners of this country are going to have a square deal if he compels them by Act of Parliament to work eight hours under such conditions? Their workings are two miles away from the pit bottom, and they have 70 minutes to go down that pit and 70 minutes to come up.
  I ask the Prime Minister if seven hours in addition to that time is not sufficient for men to work under those conditions. This is one of the mines which, I understand, according to the suggestion, will not only have to submit to a reduction in piece rates, but in regard to which the colliery owners have come to the conclusion that it ought to have a reduction in wages. They will take the 10 per cent. off them. In addition to that, it will mean, in this particular case, 23½ per cent. reduction in those men's wages, and an hour longer as well. In this particular mine a few years ago they had pit ponies pulling the tubs along the galleries. The conditions in the mines were such that they were continually pulling out dead pit ponies. The ponies could not stand the conditions. This is well known to all my colleagues from Lancashire. The ponies died under the conditions, and men were put in the places of the pit ponies. In addition to that, another mine has been examined recently. The same conditions apply. We say that this addition to the working hours is a disgrace to civilisation, and, depend upon it, if this Government does force the men—I do not believe they will be able to force them—to accept the legislation which they are about to pass through this House, then the time will soon come when not only the miners but all the workers
  1054
  in Great Britain will realise the true situation, and will deal with them according to their deserts, when they get the opportunity.
  Sir ROBERT THOMAS: We on the Liberal benches hold a view which is very much akin to that which has been expressed by many Members on the opposite side. I say at once that I cannot vote for this Bill, and I have good reasons for saying so. May I first of all say that, although I am not a colliery owner, I have had the honour of representing a colliery constituency for many years. I take a great interest in the miners. I find them a most loveable lot of men. I have been able to study the conditions under which many of the men live. There are many of them living under deplorable conditions. I cannot, knowing about these things, speak about the mining question without feeling an intense sympathy for the men who work in the mines. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) expressed regret that the miners should he reviled. I agree with him. I think it is a great mistake for Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith to be reviled. They are leading a body of men and doing their best according to their own lights to lead those men. It does no good to those who disagree with the miners to revile them, because it has just the opposite effect. It simply brings the miners more solidly behind their leaders. Therefore, it is a great mistake to revile anybody. It is a mistake to revile the Government. The Government have been in a very great difficulty. Although the Government is not the ideal Government according to the views many hold, at the same time they have had a very difficult task to perform, and they must realise—in fact, we all realise—that while this dispute is going on, this country is suffering very serious loss. The colossal sum of £8,000,000 a day was mentioned. That may he accurate or not. At any rate. it. is a vast sum.
  The longer this dispute lasts worse it will be. for everybody. It is the duty of every patriotic citizen to do what he can to bring it to an end. Will this Bill bring it to an end? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A Royal Commission has been sitting. The colossal sum of £20,000,000 has been spent in connection with that Royal Commission, and what

  1055
  do the Government do? Instead of putting those recommendations into operation, they simply say, "If both parties agree, we will do so." Really, they must know that the mineowners are not going to amalgamate of their own free will. It is generally recognised that the mine-owners do not want amalgamation. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that they will of their own accord agree to that part of the Commission's Report. On the other hand, is it reasonable to expect that the miners' leaders are going to accept, of their own free will, and recommend their members, who employ them to fight their cause, to accept a reduction of wages and longer hours? The obvious duty—and I am sure that is the opinion of the country at large—of the Government was to put the Royal Commission's Report into operation and to do it without waste of time. If that had been done months ago, I venture to say the conditions to-day would have been vastly different. I think there is no doubt whatever about that. They have gone right in the face of the Royal Commission's Report. This is what the Report says in effect, and it cannot be too strongly stressed: "We strongly recommend that there should be no increase of hours, even though the men want it themselves. We sincerely hope they will not want it, because it is so bad for the industry." Really, if the Commission make a statement of that sort, what justification is there for the Government coming forward and making a proposal directly in opposition to that Commission's recommendation?
  I maintain that even if this Eight Hours Bill be adopted, it will not have the desired effect in increasing coal production, for this reason. A willing and satisfied worker will produce more in seven hours than an unwilling worker will produce in eight. The mineowners do not enjoy today the confidence of the men. The men think that there is something behind which they do not know of. They think that these big concerns have subsidiary companies besides coal, that the accounts are not correctly stated, that coal is sold to subsidiary companies at less than an economic price, that the mines really are not losing all the money that it is stated they are. All that breeds mistrust and lack of confidence. We want to get rid
  1056
  of that atmosphere, and to get the goodwill of these worthy men, to get them to co-operate, to get them to work with a will, and when that is done you will get as much in seven hours as you would otherwise get in eight. We want reorganisation. That is strongly recommended; it is stated in the Report in unmistakable terms. This is what the Report says:
  "Before any sacrifices are asked for from those engaged in the industry, it should be definitely agreed between them that all practical means for improving its organisation and increasing its efficiency should be adopted."
  Why has that been disregarded? Why has this reorganisation not been put in hand? The Commission says it ought to be put in hand. A great amount of money would have been saved if it had been put in hand. Why has that not been done? One of the greatest wastages in connection with the coal industry, to my own knowledge is that the middleman is making too great a profit. One-fifth of the coal produced in this country is exported, and the middleman, the seller of that coal, gets a very big price in the handling of it—many shillings a ton—whereas if this reorganisation programme were put into force, and you had selling agencies with fixed commissions for selling the coal, there would be an enormous saving in that respect alone. Therefore, I do say that the whole responsibility and the blame for the present position of affairs is not with the mineowners, who have a perfect right to stand out for their own point of view, nor with the miners, who have also an equal right, but with the Government for refusing to put the Royal Commission's Report into operation.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I have listened as fully as I could to the Debate which started yesterday afternoon, and nothing has been more astonishing to me in this Debate than the complaint that has been made from time to time by speakers for the Government that the Opposition has brought forward no alternatives. When did the Government abrogate its function of legislating for the country? If the complaint has any foundation at all, it means that, but no one knows better than the Prime Minister that that statement is not accurate. No one knows better than the Prime Minister that, at every point in

  1057
  the negotiations, at every time when there was a chance of getting the two sides together, alternative proposals were brought forward, and the only reason they were rejected—and not only rejected but scrapped without consideration—was, as we now understand, on account of the attitude the Government had taken up, not that they were unjust, not that they were not discussable, but that the Government knew that they would not suit the owners.
  The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg), towards the end of his speech, which he concluded with a few conciliatory sentences, said that if it were only possible to get Messrs. Smith and Cook together with the owners, to discuss the Report of the Commission without prejudice to hours and wages, how much better the whole thing would be. Does the Prime Minister tell us that that was not tried again and again, and who is responsible that it did not come off? If you are asked to discuss without prejudice wages and hours, but, before you begin to discuss wages without prejudice, you have got to accept a reduction, then I think it is a generosity of phrasing which even the hon. Member's desire to back up his Government will find a little too much to impose either upon himself or upon anyone who knows the conduct of those negotiations.
  What I have really risen for at this moment is this: There is still an hour or two of this Debate. The Government apologists have complained that we have brought forward no alternatives. I claim that they have not defended their Bill. The Minister of Labour yesterday started with a miscellaneous speech, wandering all over the subject. The Secretary for Mines to-day again talked about the speech that was delivered about a week ago, if not more, which apparently Ministers cannot get out of their heads at all. It is worrying them; it is a nightmare upon them; the moment they begin to talk about the mining difficulty they go back to that speech, and, instead of the Secretary for Mines directing attention to his job, and explaining to the House why this Bill has been brought in, what it can do, what the Government expect it to do, and what the owners tell the Government it is going to do—instead of doing that, he made various observations about various things that
  1058
  had nothing to do with his business in addressing the House this afternoon. The owners are invited by the Government to make an eight-hour day general in the coalfields of this country. You cannot get away from that. It is the Government's proposal for, at any rate, a part settlement of the present difficulty; and not a single Member of the Government, from the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman who opened it to-day, has given us one reason why the Government think that this Bill is going to make a contribution to the solution of the mining problem.
  There are two things that must be adduced to justify the introduction of any legislation regarding mining now. The first is that it is sound as a business proposition, and the second is that it will conduce to peace. How does this Bill come up to those tests? I am not going through in detail the speech so admirably delivered by my right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General, but I want again to draw the attention of the Government to the figures published by the Royal Commission, showing where the real problem of the mining industry is. They show the diversity of profitableness in working pits, and that is the problem. How is that going to be solved by an eight-hour day? What is going to be the effect of this Bill upon that peculiar form of industrial problem? I have not heard a word; I have not heard a whisper; I have not heard an interjection from the other side that indicates what process of thought the Government have gone through in regard to that question, and what their conclusion has been. What is to be the economic effect of an eight-hour day now—the economic effect on production, the economic effect on wages, the economic effect on unemployment, and, what is just as important, the economic effect of partial employment? For, if unemployment is a rapid bleeding today, partial employment is a stow and much more cruel method.
  What is the nature and what is the analysis of the saving that is going to be produced in costs of production by this Bill? How is it to affect the volume of production, and how is an increased volume of production to affect the relations of the British coal industry in the international market? How is this Bill

  1059
  going to deal with the problem that every international authority who has written about coal, including one of the very last reports issued by the industrial section of the League of Nations, has drawn attention to—the fact, that whether you go to Poland or to Upper Silesia, to the old Polish coalfield or to the newer Polish coalfield, to Germany or to Belgium, the great problem is a superfluity of production of coal in relation to the consuming capacity of Europe? What has been the application of the experience of the Government in giving a subsidy which enabled them to reduce prices to a certain extent, and thereby enabled them—let us assume part of their argument, at any rate, so far as it is justified, or appears to be justified, by statistics—which has enabled them to keep a market that they otherwise might have lost? What is the relation between that and this eight-hours proposal, in view of the fact that, as soon as the effect of the subsidy was discovered by the German coalowners, they went to their Government in order to get a quid pro quo from German public money?
  Have the Government been taught nothing by that? Are they really still under the impression that, when we have passed this Bill, that economies may be effected by lowering the standard of life of our people—are they really under the impression that once that has been done here, and the advantage of these economies temporarily found, the foreign competitor, the Pole, for instance, who uses his workmen in the horrible manner described by an hon. Member behind me, is going to say, "I have been so much of a sinner in the past that I am going to sin no more?" Are they under the impression that the German is not going to increase his hours? Are they under the impression that no reaction at all is going to take place in the extraordinarily delicate mechanism of international exchange? Are they under the impression that the one thing that will happen will be that Great Britain will pass an Eight Hours Bill, will lower its cost of production—I am assuming that they will be lowered—and will, in consequence, invade foreign markets, and that not a single man, not a single foreign competitor, will lift a finger in order to meet the situation?
  1060
  I do not want to go further than the facts, and all I would say is this; They may have an answer to that. They may have thought it out. They may know how they stand in relation to these questions which I have put. But I say that it is now half-past seven o'clock on the second day of the Debate on this Bill, and they have never indicated that they had any answer. We have heard the speeches, interjections and so on of my hon. Friends behind me. What do they show? They show that my hon. Friends, particularly my mining friends, are not regarding this merely as an economic question. This proposal, the type of mind that makes this proposal, has been raised against them not merely to increase their labour by an hour a shift, but has been raised against them as an enemy of the whole of the conditions that they have got as the result of so many years' effort. My hon. Friends have used the word "murderers" and so on. One hon. Member has objected. I do not know that strong language means strong thought or strong action, but if the hon. Member who objected will look at the statistics of accidents he will find no justification for objecting to the application of that word.
  One of the great defects in our industrial statistics is that they are too much lumped together. Until we manage to subdivide them a little more we shall not he in a position to use them in the best way. But this, I think, is clearly proved—that you may lump together so many accidents a year or month and so on, but that does not show much, except that souls have been hurled to destruction while they have been earning their daily bread. So far as the statistics exist and so far as tables have been published recently in one of the mining journals, the "Colliery Guardian." they make one thing clear. The "Colliery Guardian," has published two Tables showing at what point and at what period of the day the accidents happen most I frequently. In the old days I sat as a Member of this House on an Accidents Committee relating to factories, because I was interested in this special point. We found that when the workers were tired the incidence of accidents became greater. You are increasing the hours; seven becomes eight. That eighth hour is appreciably more dangerous to the life

  1061
  and limb of the miner than the seventh hour was. Therefore if my hon. Friends are hot about it, who is to blame? I praise them for it.
  Another point that they have made up their mind about is this: The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill used two quite contradictory expressions and gave the House to imagine one thing at one time and another thing at another time. Others have used the same expression, "Hours or wages." What justification have the Government for saying that? This is not an alternative. The fact is "Hours and Wages." The Prime Minister's statement on Wednesday, when he announced that this legislation was coming, was not "Hours or Wages"; it was not "We have considered Mr. Herbert Smith's statement and case and have come to an opposite conclusion from him." He says, "Wages, if anything, but not hours." Not at all. The Government say, "We are going to increase your hours and we know that the owners are going to decrease your wages." I am quite able to say this: The only reason why wages are not in this Bill is that they do not require to be in it. The owners have a free hand in wages. Then there is the question, is this temporary? I think every side of the House will agree with me that there is nothing that turns out to be more illusory than human calculation and intention unless based on something that runs independently of itself, and gives an independent guarantee of its own.
  Is this to be temporary? What is the argument and the position of the Government upon that? They say, "We want cheaper coal in order to do two main things—to enable us to compete abroad, and secondly, to enable us to supply that cheap coal for iron and steel and other industries; and in order to get that cheap coal we must increase the hours of labour." But there is something behind it. Some of us here say, "But you can make savings on reorganisation." "Not at all," say the Government; "Oh, no." We must not forget the Debates that have gone by. Spokesman after spokesman representing the Government got up and said, "Oh, yes, we can save a penny or two on reorganisation, but what does it amount to? Very little." We have said, "Nationalise the royalties." "Oh, yes,"
  1062
  said the Government spokesman, "but when you have done it, how far does it carry you? Not very far." We have said, "Establish municipal agencies for selling coal," and they said, "Yes, yes, but how far does that carry you? A very little way." And so it went on. All through proposals have been made for reorganisation for the purpose of making economies in the trade, and every time the Government have said that they did not meet anything at all. We find now that the Government have done one thing, and one thing only, in order to reduce the cost of production, and that one thing is the introduction of this Bill. Yet they say that the Bill is to be temporary. It is absurd; it cannot fit into the scheme.
  Suppose that the Bill runs for only five years. Suppose that 'during the five years you are supplying cheap coal to the consumers of the country, and suppose that during the five years the Government have been proved to be right about economies. Is this Government, or any Government that is in power going to reorganise the industry thoroughly and going to ask this House to allow this Bill to go by default and the eight hours to go by default? Not at all. Every sensible miner who has read the speeches of the Government spokesmen, who remembers his experiences, who thinks, knows that pledges and intentions uttered by the most honest and sincere men mean absolutely nothing in the working of life unless some other guarantee has been created to supplement the guarantee of words. Every honest and sensible miner regards this Bill as not temporary, but prepares himself to fight it as a final suggestion, so far as there can be a final suggestion, for reorganisation of the industry.
  That is the business side of the proposition. What is the origin of it all? We have not had that question answered. It is not in the Commission's Report. It is in no Commission's Report. We have had a series of arguments addressed to us by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg). Have hon. Members read the evidence given to the Sankey Commission, and to the Macmillan inquiry, to the Report of which I would like to pay a tribute that has never been paid, for it is the ablest document on the mining industry that has ever been issued,

  1063
  far abler than the Royal Commission Report, if shorter. Those arguments were brought before those inquiries. They were brought before the Royal Commission, even the argument that foreign laws are not administered with the same rigidity as ours. And the answer is there in the Report. Not a single one of those Commissions or inquiries, composed of more or less impartial men, having heard those arguments and having sifted them, having cross-examined the witnesses, has reported in favour of the conclusion asked for. The Royal Commission has reported against this Bill. I was amazed at the ingenuousness of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in quoting the last sentence of Chapter II of the Report. Referring to a lower standard of living the Report said:
  "The last is a price that may have to be paid, in wages or hours or unemployment."
  The Minister cooly got up and said that there the Commission had that in its mind. He did not tell hon. Members who have studied the Report that this is laid down by the Commission as a sort of subject for further discussion. In Chapter 12 the Report deals with wages, the first way for reducing cost of production, and in Chapter 13 it proceeds to deal with hours. What are its conclusions about hours? The first conclusion is to be found on page 172, where we find this:
  "The comparison with other countries, so far as it bears on the standard of life that we should seek to establish for miners here, tells against the proposal of the Mining Association rather than in its favour."
  On the next page of the Report, in the last paragraph on page 173 we read:
  "All that can be said is that the hours in this country do not differ from those in other countries so substantially as to constitute a very serious handicap."
  That was after considering evidence upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Belper about the slacker administration of foreign laws. Then what is to be the effect on the costs? It says:
  "It is clear that if all miners work an hour longer for practically the same remuneration as at present, and work as hard during each hour of the longer day as during each hour of the shorter one, each ton of coal will be produced at a substantially lower cost than at present. On the figures submitted to us, an average reduction of 2s. per ton is probably under rather than over the mark."
  1064
  Yet it is suggested that the Commission, which has shown that on the owners' figures a large part of the production is at a loss of over 2s. a ton, thinks the industry is going to be cured of its evils by an economy which it calculates does not amount to more than 2s. a ton. It goes on to say that there will be 130,000 men unemployed, and it says it rejects the alternative of unemployment. It says:
  "On this alternative, as on the other, the gain through the lengthening of working hours is not a net gain, either to the country as a whole or to the mining industry, if that be taken to include the miners themselves. There is a heavy loss, in unemployment and distress and expenditure to relieve distress, winch must be set against the apparent gain."
  It goes on, moreover, to point out that any gain made by an eight-hours day would very soon be absorbed in the industry and that no alteration of an eight hours' day would be possible unless very substantial economies of a new kind happened to be discovered, and, like business people, it goes for the discovery of the economies before it commits itself to a plan that might deteriorate the industry all the time. We were told about a 42-hours week as being recommended by the Commission, but that was an inaccurate quotation. I will make the quotation accurately. After having rejected the Mining Association proposals, after it says that if there is to be a reduction, let there be a reduction in wages and not in hours—the Report says that, because, it says as soon as trade revives itself, it is easy to recover lost wages, but it points out that if trade revives itself on the basis of an eight-hours day, you cannot recover it, because that basis has become settled in the industry. Having done that, it says—and this is the part that the hon. Member left out:
  "While, however, we cannot advise that the State should go hack on the action taken in 1919 and endeavour to force upon the miners the acceptance of longer hours of work, certain suggested changes of practice deserve serious consideration."
  One of the changes of practice was a lengthening of the hours in the case of a breakdown in the pit, and the other was that it might be advisable in some districts to have a weekly limit instead of a daily limit, and it said that that must not be done without the consent of the miners. The Government have rejected

  1065
  that proposal that the hon. Member thinks would do so much good to the industry. The final conclusion of the Commission is this:
  "In conclusion, while we do not recommend the State, of its own motion, to make any change of working hours or to endeavour to force upon the miners a. longer working day than at present, this does not mean that, if both employers and workmen were agreed in proposing a change, the State should refuse to accede to their joint request."
  Has that happened? Only by one party, I think. I do not know if the Government are under the optical delusion that one party, if it is the owners' party, is equal to two. The Report goes on:
  "It is at least possible, though we hope not probable, that the amount of wage reduction or the alternative of unemployment that will be imposed upon the industry, if it is to continue with the present hours, may be such as to lead the miners to consider whether they should not escape from these troubles by some extension of working hours. If the Miners' Federation came forward with such a request, it would be difficult to argue that the State should refuse it."
  It is upon that foundation, apparently, that this Bill has been introduced. The Report continues:
  "The important objections to an extension of working hours would remain unaffected. Extension of working hours at this time of depression is not a natural but an unnatural way of reducing costs and meeting the immediate difficulty. On the other hand, looking away from the immediate difficulty to the time when the various measures which are proposed for reorganisation of the industry shall have had their effect, we see no reason why the standards of living and leisure already won should not be maintained."
  It really requires a great deal of effrontery to try to justify the Government's action upon anything that is in the Report of the Royal Commission, but it is familiar to me, this Government programme, I must confess. On that fatal Friday when the first breakdown in negotiations took place, I was handed a letter to see. It was a letter sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Herbert Smith, in which a reference was made to a letter sent to him by the owners making their proposals. In that letter is the foundation for this Bill. The Government have thrown over the Royal Commission's Report and accepted the mineowners' letter. The only thing is that apparently the Government have got worse as they go along. The last pro-
  1066
  posal that was made about an extension of the hours of labour to an eight-hours day was that it would only last till 1929. That was the latest proposal, but now this Bill is till 1931. Probably we shall get an explanation of how that came about.
  Lest, again, some of these extraordinary false points should be raised, both the Government spokesmen up to now have marvelled that we should refer to the Royal Commission's Report, and this is their argument: "You are in favour of nationalisation. You have never said that you agreed to the Royal Commission's Report. Why are you so anxious about it?" No, but the Government have said that they do believe in the Royal Commission's Report. If we were in the position of the Government, we should have to say whether or not we agreed with the Royal Commission's Report for the purpose of legislation and administration, but I am interested in the Government's position, because, unfortunately—very, very unfortunately for the country and for the trade and industry of the country—it is the Governments position that is the important one, and not the position of the Opposition. The Government say: "We reject nationalisation, we reject this, we reject that, we reject every proposal that has been made to us during the negotiations from the other side." I hold in my hand an extract from the letter which the Prime Minister will remember he received in reply to his of that Friday. I will not read the germane extracts, but it shows that proposals were made. Quite within their rights, the Government said: "No, we do not believe your proposals are right, but we do believe one thing, we do believe in the Report of our Royal Commission." We ask, then, where is their justification for this Bill in the Report of the Royal Commission There is none.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the other day that he was authorised to make certain statements to this House from the owners. Well, I am sorry to say that, for some reason or other, he immediately proceeded to act as though that word "authorised" meant something more. This is purely an owners' Bill. There, really, is no use mincing words on this matter. This is an exceedingly serious situation. If I believed that this was temporary, if

  1067
  I believed that it was of no importance, if I believed that the miners could be honourably and reasonably asked to do this, well, I would take the consequences of my belief. I believe this is a terrible step to take, and my difficulty is this: The Prime Minister once himself stated—and I remember commenting on it—that the great trouble in the coal industry is this, that there is no industry in the country where the friction between the owners and the men is so great as in the coal-mining industry. There is no industry in the country that has got a history like the mining industry. I saw, I think, Mr. Herbert Smith said yesterday that he had seen 47 or 48 strikes or lock-outs in the industry, and is there a living trade unionist in the country who has been working in any other industry, however bad it has been, who can give us that record? There is not.
  8.0 P.M.
  Instead of feeling resentment at the passionate emotion which some of my hon. Friends feel, it tells its tale, it indicates what you have done, it indicates the blunder that the Government have made in the action that they are now taking. This is not peace; this is a sword. It may be, of course—why need we deceive ourselves—that the statement made by the hon. Member opposite is true, that he knows miners who will go in. It may be, but is that what you want? Is that the ending of the lockout, or the dispute, or the struggle, or whatever you like to call it, that you want? Do you want this ending—not only to continue the friction between capital and labour in the industry, but to create caves and sections within labour itself that will only increase the trouble? That is a fool's game. Go on with this Bill; let the expectation announced in so many Tory papers in the last few days be fulfilled, that men will break away; give the owners power to make the position of labour that they must accept the Eight Hours Act, as it will then be. If I were a miner, I would not trust them beyond my sight. Give them that power. This great fundamental industry of ours, this industry, which it is the ambition of every man in authority in the State and in industry to put on a sound footing, is wrecked more than ever it was wrecked before, is troubled more than it has ever
  1068
  been troubled before. Every Prime Minister in his day and generation has tried to bring peace to this industry. For that peace we all pray and work, but this proposal can bring no peace.
  This Bill has never been defended upon its business consequences. It cannot be. This Bill is not an emanation of the Royal Commission; this Bill is reported against by the Royal Commission. This Bill has never been approved by anybody outside an owners' committee until in these latter days the Government have given it their approval too. This Bill is not a peace Bill. This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman must have seen, has raised feelings, hot feelings, angry and passionate feelings, feelings that have been shown here, but are only the reflection of the feelings that are all over the coalfield. I shall certainly, when the time comes to-night, vote against this Bill as a friend of the mining industry. I shall vote against this Bill as one who strove to prevent trouble and who, when the trouble was on, has always been willing to give my services in order to smooth difficulties over. Now that this Bill has been produced, the Prime Minister must really clear his mind of any hope of such a. reasonable accommodation as will enable the foundation to be laid for an honourable, lasting and goodwilled peace.
  Mr. BENNETT: We have just listened to a most interesting speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not sure that at the end of it we have got any nearer to a solution of the mining problem. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) who said yesterday that he had never taken part in a coal Debate because he had no expert knowledge of the industry. I have not taken part in any coal Debate during the time I have been in the House for quite a different reason. As a matter of fact, for the greater part of my life I have been connected with mining. For over 30 years I have managed, developed, amalgamated and controlled mines. One thing that I learned very early in my experience was that there is nothing more dangerous in mining than to dogmatise, from the experience one may have of mines in a particular district, as to what may be the best method of managing mines—I will not say in another country, for my experience has all been in foreign countries—but even in another district.

  1069
  This Bill deals more with the economic side of the coal mining industry than with the technical side. On that I will not presume to speak. I mean to speak in no provocative sense. I think that to bring in passion and sentiment into a purely business proposition of this kind, however justifiable it may be, does not really help the solution of the mining problem. We have had a most comprehensive, voluminous and pertinent Report by the Coal Commission. Certainly anyone who has taken the trouble, as I have, to read through all the evidence in the three volumes that were published, should by now have sufficient data on which to form his own opinions. What struck me most, after reading all this evidence, were two main facts, which I am going to state, and I think I am going to carry most hon. Members opposite with me in my conclusion.
  The first fact is that the causes which have produced the present crisis have, on the whole, had really nothing to do with either the coalowners or the coalminers. In exactly the same way it is entirely beyond the control of the industry itself to apply a remedy. It is also beyond the control of the Government. The only remedy that has ever been suggested from the Government point of view is the continuants of the subsidy, which, I am quite sure, not a single hon. Member of this House believes can be a permanent solution. The other fact that emerges is the gravity of the crisis. I have been connected with mines all my life, and I cannot ever remember such an unprecedentedly grave situation. It is well illustrated in the Royal Commission's Report, where it is stated that, in the last quarter of 1925, 73 per cent. of the mines of this country were working at a loss. The gravity is still better shown by another figure in the Royal Commission's Report that, during that same quarter, practically every ton of coal that was produced for export was being sold at a loss of about 3s. a ton. Everyone knows that the export of coal is nit only of the greatest importance to the coal industry but is the basis of the whole industrial system of this country. The mines that produce for home consumption were in a slightly better condition due to the fact that, for one reason or another, it was possible to get a higher
  1070
  price from the domestic consumer than it was possible to get from the foreigner, but, after all, that anomaly cannot last. The Commission seemed to come to the opinion that equilibrium would be reached probably by the price of export coal coming nearer to the parity of the price of domestic coal. Quite frankly, I do not agree with that. If you take a world view of the coal industry to-day, I think it is far more likely that the domestic price will come down to the level of the export price. The problem stripped of all verbiage is that the coal export industry of this country is producing at a loss of 3s. a ton and that 73 per cent. of the whole industry is producing at a loss.
  I come now to the question of remedies. I have listened to a great many speeches from hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I have yet to hear any proposals which would provide a real remedy. We have had many suggestions, but I propose only to refer to some of those made by the Royal Commission. I do not mean to weary the House by referring in detail to some of those which would take too long to carry out, and which, even if successful, would not affect the cost of production very much. I mean such matters as the nationalisation of royalties. Whatever opinion we may hold about that, the miners will not, as far as I can see, be any better off if the minerals are nationalised than if they remain in private hands. As I understand the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the conditions of the present leases are not to be altered. After all, they are the basis of coal production in this country, and most of them have 40, 00, or 100 years to run. Then there is the question of allowing municipalities to sell coal. I do not believe in that, but there is ground for difference of opinion. I believe it would take a long time to bring into effect, and, even if it were as successful as hon. Members opposite think, it would not materially reduce the cost of coal.
  I come now to the more important recommendation of the Royal Commission, namely, the reconstruction of the industry. We hear much now about amalgamation. It has the same sort of hypnotic effect as the blessed word "coordination" has had since the War, a word which covers a multitude of sins.

  1071
  I have had something to do with amalgamations. As a matter of fact, I carried out an amalgamation of a large group of mines, including coal mines, with a capital of about £12,000,000. I am not suggesting for a moment that amalgamation would not be useful in the coal mining industry, but I am quite sure that, if Members opposite really look to amalgamation for a big decrease in the cost of production, they are leaning on a broken reed. I shall tell the House exactly what happened to us. We amalgamated for different reasons than would apply to coal amalgamations in this country. It was to avoid competition iii purchasing mines and ore. I do not think similar conditions prevail in this country, as most of the leases are already established. We also wanted to obtain the interchangability of the large amount of hydro-electric power we used. That was a question of safety, because we found that, through a particular power system breaking mines were often flooded. There was also the question of finance; it was easier to raise large sums of money for a big company than for a smaller entity. That, again, does not apply to the coal industry, as when it has been prosperous there has never been any difficulty about raising capital.
  From the points of view I have mentioned I do not suggest that our amalgamation was not successful, but I also hoped that by amalgamating we would save a great deal in overhead charges. There I found myself absolutely wrong. The reason was just this, that we overlooked the human element. I think it was the Minister of Labour who, in referring to this question of big amalgamations, said that one of the difficulties was to find the right type of man to manage them. We found it almost impossible. It requires a super-man. I cannot say that we have ever found him, I mean one combining all the necessary qualities, although we had some very good men, and although the salary is £12,000 a year. There is not only the difficulty of getting the right type of man; you have got to pay for their greatness. A super-man is never satisfied to leave well alone. To give a concrete instance of the result of amalgamation. We owned exactly 50 per cent. of a mine and another company owned the other half. You would have
  1072
  thought if there was ever a typical case which would have been helped by amalgamation, it would have been this. Eventually we did amalgamate. We have never since then produced as cheaply as we did before, and the reason is this: When we were managing the mine and only part owners our manager, a Scotsman, took a special pride in proving to the other owners, who happened to be Americans, that he could manage a mine cheaper and better than they could. They, too, were always watching results, and as a result we had real efficiency. As soon as we amalgamated it was quite different. That friendly rivalry no longer existed [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you putting that forward as a serious argument against amalgamation?"] I am. It is the human side of the problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) talked about unification. By that I presume he means the amalgamation of all the mines in the country. If that ever comes about, the cost of production will certainly go up, not down, and, after all, the crux of the whole mining problem is how to reduce costs. I repeat, therefore, that one cannot expect too much from amalgamation or reconstruction. I will not say much about the suggestion of forming selling syndicates, though I have also had experience of that. We have had in the nitrate of soda industry combinations to limit production which have developed into a selling association. Every mine has its export quota and is not allowed to exceed it, and the association does the whole of the selling. It carried on for some years fairly successfully but it has fallen down now. The result was the raising of the price of nitrate to a point at which it cannot compete against Germany and the present situation of the industry is as bad as it ever was. Unfortunately, it is a fact that however good your intentions may be to start with in the way of using these organisations to reduce cost, inevitably they result instead in increasing the selling price, and that is one thing you cannot do with British coal. If you do that, our industry is ruined and the country with it.
  Therefore, if 'you consider all these remedies which have been suggested, there is little in them. Even if they were as successful as their advocates

  1073
  believe, I do not think you would get a reduction of 6d. a ton on the coal produced. That means about £10,000,000 a year. I do not believe any or all of these remedies would produce £10,000,000, and what is 6d. compared with the present difference between the cost of production of coal and its selling price? By a process of elimination therefore we come down, as the Royal Commission had to come down, to the question of wages and hours. You may hate to do it, but there it is. It is a purely business proposition, As between the two I say quite honestly if I thought this was a passing phase and that we could contemplate that in six months or a year that the selling price of coal would have increased enough to bridge the gap between the cost of production and the selling price, or if I thought the reduction in wages necessary to bridge it now would not be greater than 10 per cent., I should, without hesitation, vote for a wage reduction and not for an eight hours' Bill, but it is not so. Hon. Members opposite who know anything about the situation know that 10 per cent. would be too much in certain districts, such as Nottingham, Yorkshire and the better pits, but nothing like enough in the exporting areas—Northumberland, Durham; and South Wales. There if you are to reduce, your cost, as you must, to an economic basis by a reduction of wages, you would have to ask the men to accept a wage which would mean absolute starvation You cannot face that. It is not fair therefore to make the men believe that this question can be settled merely by a reduction of wages.
  This eliminates all the remedies anyone has ever suggested, and you come down to the Eight Hour Bill. I am only giving you my opinion and I have given you my reasons why I shall vote for the Bill. This Bill is not an alternative to a. reduction of wages. Let us be frank about that. It means eight hours and a reduction of wages. In some cases it may not be necessary to reduce wages at all. I am told that in the Midlands it is not necessary, but in the exporting districts, even with an Eight Hour Bill, you have to reduce. If any other solution can be found no one would he more delighted than I have represented miners and I like them. They are jolly good sportsmen, even though they did
  1074
  kick me out. It is no use, however, making party speeches and trying to arouse passion unless hon. Members have a proper alternative to put before the country and before the House, and so far—I have listened very closely to the leader of the Opposition—that alternative has not been vouchsafed. Under these circumstances all of us on this side of the House have no option but to support the Bill, not in the interests of the mineowners, but in the best interests of the miners.
  Dr. J. H. WILLIAMS: I am glad of this opportunity of saying a few words against the Bill. I am neither a miner nor a mineowner, and until to-day I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was not, but I was surprised to read to-day:
  "In the latest list of shareholders in the huge concern called 13aldwins, Limited (return 1st January, 1926), there is an entry which shows that the right hon. Stanley Baldwin, P.C., M.P., owns no less than 194,526 ordinary shares and 37,591 preference shares. Baldwins, Limited, employs over 2,000 miners."
  Therefore the Prime Minister himself is pro tanto a mineowner. The leader of our party has called this a Mineowners' Bill. I say it is a criminal Bill. In the first place, it is completely outside the scope of the Royal Commission. This is the testimony of a leaderette in the "Nation." It says:
  "By committing itself to the policy of longer hours the -Government has made a mistake which, unless it is promptly retrieved will, will, we believe, prove disastrous. But what is the use of marshalling the arguments against this policy. The Royal Commission stated them in their Report lucidly, forcibly, and fully. Our Ministers and. our mine owners have studied this Report, and the former profess for it a great respect. Yet it is evident that the Commission's powerful arguments have made no impression on the minds of either."
  A research committee have been making investigations during the last few years, and they have come to -the conclusion that workers working under ideal conditions, with the maximum amount of sunlight-, the maximum amount of air and the best temperature, reach a maximum output in an eight-hour day. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the miner works under different conditions. He works deep down in the bowels of the earth, sometimes 4,000 to 5,000 feet deep, in utter darkness,

  1075
  deprived of sunlight and fresh air, and often in a temperature which is quite abnormal, anything from 90 to 100 degrees. I have been down the mines in my area, sometimes to collect the mutilated remains of some poor unfortunate man who has been buried under a fall of earth.
  I have seen the conditions under which the miners work, and I can testify that the work is arduous. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) compared the fisherman's job with that of the miner. You cannot compare them. The fisherman works under ideal conditions, according to the Report of the Research Committee. He gets the maximum amount of sunlight, the maximum amount of open air, and he works in normal temperatures. The miner works under abnormal conditions. The air below ground is often perfectly stagnant; I use the word advisedly. They cannot burn a lamp. The flame of a candle would go out, not because of firedamp, but because of the fact that the air has been used up by the men underground and has been deprived of its oxygen. There is not the slightest doubt that if the maximum number of hours a workman can work and produce his maximum output under ideal conditions of a maximum of sunlight, a maximum of air and the best temperature, is eight hours, the miner ought to work less than eight hours. The movement ought to be in the direction of shortening the present working day, rather than lengthening the working day. That was anticipated in the Report of the Sankey Commission when they suggested a six-hour day.
  Not only is the miners' occupation arduous, but it is dangerous. One hon. Member opposite objected to the statement of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) in regard to the use of halters. Halters are used in my area. The reason why no compensation is claimed is, because the halters produce such a condition that it cannot be proved that it is due to the halter. I have seen boys in my area who have had ruptures for years, due to the wearing of the halter. The miners have to work under conditions which are absolutely unnatural. Some work in seams not more than 18 inches thick, and they have to work lengthwise, in a contorted position, where it is impossible for them
  1076
  to work longer than seven hours. They are below actually seven hours and 40 minutes, on the average.
  There can be no doubt that if we pass this Bill there will be an increased number of accidents. After the Seven Hours Act came into force, it is a significant fact that the number of fatalities were reduced. The number of accidents were also reduced by 55,000. It is equally significant that when wages were afterwards reduced the number of accidents was increased. That was due to the fact that the men were on a reduced standard of living; they had to eat less because of their lower wages, and they became more careless and were more easily fatigued. Their condition was also due to over-anxiety. The effect of the absence of light on the eyesight of the miner is serious. It has been said that the men ought to be examined in regard to their eyesight before they go down the pit. That is nonsense. Their bad eyesight is due to the fact that they work in defective light, and it is also due to fear. Fear as has much to do with it as anything. It is a psychological condition. If this Bill becomes law I have no doubt, judging from my own experience of going down the mines and seeing the men at work, that it will increase the fatalities and the non-fatal accidents, and it will also increase, according to the Report of the Commission itself, the number of nystagmus cases. For these reasons, I oppose the Bill.
  Sir FRANK SANDERSON: My reason for taking an active part in this Debate is because I regard it essentially as a business proposition to deal with a business difficulty, rather than a political one. I have been surprised at the remarks made by hon. Members opposite to-day, and in the previous Debate, to the effect that the Government are proposing a Bill to insist upon a working day of eight hours. No Government has any power to insist upon an eight hours working day, or to insist upon any man working at all. All that the Government are doing in this Bill is to make it possible for such miners as may deem it expedient to work for eight hours rather than the present seven hours. Although I support the Bill I feel that, as far as is practicable, it would be wise that there should be no real attempt to introduce an eight-hour day for five and a

  1077
  half days a week. I can speak from certain experience, that there are industries where it is to the advantage of all concerned that eight hours should be worked in one day, but not necessarily for more than five days a week. My point is, that whilst I am in favour of the introduction of an eight-hour working day, I am not wholly in favour of the miners working longer than 42 hours a week.
  I am convinced that this Bill in itself cannot possibly remedy the evil' and the difficulty with which the coal industry is confronted, and I am equally convinced that a reduction in wages will not in itself overcome the economic difficulty with which we are faced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) has suggested that the only means by which this industry can be placed on a sound footing is by amalgamation. The words used in this evening's paper are that we must have one huge combine. I have had some experience of combines, and whilst I am convinced that much good would accrue from the amalgamation of certain mines in given districts I am equally convinced that one large amalgation of this or any other industry would be fatal, because it is possible for an industry to become so large and so gigantic that it is not possible to devise the necessary machinery to run such a concern economically. I am very much interested when I hear hon. Members apposite developing schemes on the basis of these great amalgamations. I remember well, when I was not a Member of this House, reading the Debates that used to take place here in which criticisms were constantly being hurled at the Government of that day because of the general tendency for amalgamations.
  The right hon. Member for Ogmore, in a recent speech, referred to unification, and the Secretary for Mines, in reply, said that he was much interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and regretted that he stopped short just at a time when he became really interesting. The Secretary for Mines suggested that he should have developed his argument and deal with unification. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore spoke on the later occasion he developed that argument on
  1078
  the basis of nationalisation, I should have thought, after we have seen the results of nationalisation not only abroad, but also in our own country during the period of the War, when so many of our great industries were suffering from the deplorable effects of nationalisation, that no one would have put that forward as a serious proposition at the present time. It has been proposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House that selling syndicates should be formed, and I should like to say a few words on this topic. I am of the opinion that selling syndicates, as such, would be found in practice not to be entirely unworkable, but extremely difficult, and the industry cannot be organised in sufficient time to enable us to derive any benefit from it, in this year or in the immediate future.
  I want to put forward a practical scheme, a scheme which in my humble opinion might form a basis upon which to build a prosperous industry. I sent a copy of it to the Prime Minister towards the end of last month, and I should like to give the House a few extracts from it. Its underlying principle is that all mine-owners should agree to be satisfied with their proportion of the trade and be secured either in obtaining this or receiving compensation in a form which I will develop later. The object of the agreement is to distribute the volume of coal required in any one year equitably amongst the members of the trade at present engaged therein.

  (1) A central committee to be set up by the colliery owners who shall be entrusted with the general management of the scheme, and this committee to appoint a firm of chartered accountants to attend to the financial administration of the scheme.

  (2) Each colliery to furnish to these accountants a certified return showing the total tonnage of coal produced during the preceding 12 months, or such other period as may be determined.

  (3) The returns so obtained to be added together and each colliery to be given an index percentage figure, calculated on the proportion of coal produced by each respective colliery to the whole total of coal produced during the above period.

  (4) Each colliery also to furnish a weekly statement giving the quantity of

  1079
  coal produced, and a statement to be issued by the accountants to each colliery owner showing a summary of the preceding week's work, particularly his own percentage of the total of coal produced during the same week, and the amount by which his index figure has been increased or decreased.

  It should be noted that the tonnage represented by the index figure will not be a fixed one, but being on a percentage basis will vary directly with the total weekly tonnage produced, the percentage only remaining constant.

  (5) Each colliery will be required to pay into a central pool an amount equal to 2s. 6d. per ton for every ton of coal produced in excess of its index figure, or will receive payment out of the central pool at the rate of 2s. 6d. per ton for each ton by which its production is less than its index figure. Adjustments in the index figure could be made to meet the circumstances of exceptional cases.

  (6) Any dispute or question arising out of the operation of this scheme to be settled by the General Committee.

  Let me say here that I have not pursued this scheme earlier because I was hopeful, when I sent it to the Prime Minister, that it might receive consideration, and I was very anxious to do nothing which would make it difficult for the Government to develop any scheme in order to bring the coal difficulty to a satisfactory conclusion. The recommendations which I made include:

  (1) That pits which are universally acknowledged to be uneconomic shall not be parties to this agreement. If 80 per cent, of the coal-mining industry would give consideration to the scheme it would work satisfactorily.

  (2) That hours of working and rates of pay should remain unaltered until such time as the Report of the Royal Commission has been agreed upon and put into operation in all its recommendations.

  (3) That an appeal be made to the miners, voluntarily, to increase output at existing rates of pay and hours of working by, say, 10 per cent., and that a bonus be paid to the miners on all increased output over and above 10 per cent.

  1080

  (4) Assuming that £3,000,000 Government subsidy is to be granted, that this be appropriated for the purpose of aiding the coal export trade by reducing the railway charges upon coal for export to the rates prevailing in 1914.

  In connection with that I would say that I am thoroughly opposed to any form of subsidy, and I claim that the subsidy which was paid by the Government did not help, but hindered the coal industry, taking the long view of the situation. The advantages of the above suggested agreement are: (1) It would prevent unhealthy competition and make it possible to convert loss into adequate profit. (2) The margin of difference between loss and profit being so small, it is not anticipated that the scheme would restrict trade or materially reduce output, nor would it in any way interfere with the activity and initiative of the individual. (3) It would result in much closer co-operation between mine-owners. (4) It would relieve the coal-mining industry from political interference and finally eliminate the Government subsidy. (5) It entails no sacrifice on the part of the miners and, given a spirit of good will and co-operation between owners and men might bring about an increased output which would in itself be a solution of the problem. (6) It converts an unprofitable industry into a profitable one, taking the coal industry as a whole. (7) Due to the elimination of unhealthy competition already referred to, it is not anticipated that a large amount of money by way of payment and compensation would change hands. If the scheme which I have ventured to outline were developed I am convinced that the serious difficulties confronting the industry to-day would pass away. This scheme is by no means a new idea. It is carried out in other industries and has proved beneficial to those industries. The mineowners should accept favourably any such scheme for two reasons. First, the mineowner who has an uneconomic pit and is losing, let us say, from 2s. to 7s. a ton under the present conditions, would be in the position of reducing his output and of being content, more or less, with the demand for coal in his particular locality and would not compete for the trade in an extended area. Such mineowners would receive from the central pool 2s. 6d. per ton, which would

  1081
  cover their overhead charges and leave them a profit of approximately ls. a ton, whereas under the present conditions they are facing heavy losses. Secondly, at the other end of the scale the mine-owner who is running a profitable business to-day, would be in the position that he would not have to pay into the central pool until his output was in excess of the index figure of output.
  It should be acceptable to the miners, because if the scheme were carried through it would not necessitate any loss to them or any concession in increased hours or redaction of wages. It should be acceptable to the Government because it would relieve them of any further responsibility in the coal mining industry, should the scheme prove successful, as I have no doubt would be the case. If we look at the figures shown in the Commission's Report we cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that over a long period of 40 years there was, according to these statistics, only one time at which a loss was shown, that being the loss in 1925. I can only come to this conclusion, that the coal mining industry, on the whole, has been very prosperous and I fail to see why one particular industry should be picked out to receive so much sympathetic consideration and financial support at the hands of the Government Other industries, equally important, have suffered and indeed are suffering to-day. They have their difficulties, but the masters have come together and devised ways and means and schemes for overcoming their difficulties. I would like the coalowners to come together and to work out a scheme which would develop on the lines I have indicated. I hope the Government will be able to express their views upon the scheme which I have propounded. It is not new; it has been before them for about a month, and I would like to know if any attempt has been made by the Government to put this scheme or any such scheme before the mineowners.
  Mr. OLIVER: I have listened with great atention to the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I shall be interested to watch how he votes to-night. If I understood his scheme aright, it lays down two cardinal principles. One is that the seven-hours day should be continued, and the other that the present wages
  1082
  should be continued. Unless he votes with us, I do not see how he will he able to justify himself or reconcile the scheme which he has proposed, with the action which the Government are taking. That must be left to the hon. Member to explain in a future speech. I want to say that, though I have not the advantage of being a miner, I have the honour to represent a mining constituency. I do not want to give a silent vote to-night on this very, very important question. I, like those who represent mining constituencies, have followed from time to time, the many voluminous Reports which have been issued regarding this very important industry. It must have become obvious to everyone who followed the course of the industry, from 1919, to the Report of the Samuel Commission, that when the Prime Minister on 24th March referred the Report to the two sides to come to an agreement, that a lock-out from that day was inevitable. In the Report there are many suggestions for reorganisation. These were not new, they had been put before the coal owners before. What hope was there that they would be more ready to re-organise when this Report was issued than they were before?
  Dealing with the Bill now before us, want to ask whether hon. Members have read the very interesting article in the May number of the "International Labour Review," which is the organ of the International Labour Office, and which deals with coal production and consumption of the countries of the world. The article says:
  "The United States Geological Survey examined the stocks of coal in 1924, and calculated that the world's coal industry had been built up to meet an anticipated demand of one and a-half billion tons by 1924. It now found itself able to utilise only four-fifths of its production."
  This means, that we are producing coal to-day one-fifth of which the world cannot find a market. The article goes on to explain the causes of this diminution of the use of coal. It shows that in Scandinavia and Switzerland the developments of hydro-electric activity; and in Spain, Italy and France the development of electricity have allowed a great industrial expension without increase of coal imports. The article further draws attention to

  1083
  the fact that, while in 1914 coal provided 88 per cent. of the power for the worlds fleets, to-day that has fallen to 66 per cent. In addition some startling figures are given about the increased production in various countries. The writer of the article says:
  "That the three continents, Asia, Africa, and Australasia produced 23,000,000 tons more in 1924 than in 1913, a quantity equal to one-fourth of Britain's best export record. Add to this the growth of production in Holland, which was 1,873,000 tons in 1913 and 5,877,000 tons in 1924; in the Saar, from a negligible quantity in 1920 to 14,000,000 tons in 1924; while in France the figure was 38,543,700 tons in 1923 and 48,033,564 tons in 1925, and it is clear that the great exporting nations like Britain and Germany must be encountering unprecedented obstacles."
  9.0 P.M.
  What I want to ask is if these are the conditions, and more coal is actually being produced than is being utilised, how does this Bill propose to meet that difficulty? How does it set out to solve the question? It is not a question of producing more, but cheapening the coal that is already produced. The Coal Commission, I am glad to say, devoted its attention almost exclusively to that point, and in its recommendation of reorganisation stressed reorganisation first and wages next. In the Bill which is now before us the very thing that the Commission did not recommend we are discussing as the policy of the Government. This was turned down by the Coal Commission, and turned down by the miners. The extension of hours has been turned down by the best economic opinion in the country. The only people who support the extension of the hours are the mineowners, and this it is which makes one ask: Is everyone out of step except the mineowners? It is quite evident from the evidence taken at great trouble and expense by the Coal Commission there is not much prospect of the extension of hours meeting the needs of this industry. It is quite true to say had that been so the Commission would have put it in the forefront of their recommendations.
  For the constituency that I represent I can say that while the Government may
  1084
  pass an Eight Hours Bill, it will be a very different matter getting the miners to work it. You may bank on the "knock-out blow" in this industry, but the knock-out blow in the past has been a very costly business for the country. Remember we have had three stoppages of this kind within the last six years. Unless the causes which have produced this result are thoroughly altered these disputes will recur and recur as time goes on. What we are out to establish is not only a formula that will end this dispute, but we want to find a basis of solution that will make these disputes less and less frequent in the future than they have been in the past. This Bill will not do that. This Bill will legislate discontent of the most appalling type. It will demonstrate that the Government have prostituted the powers of this House to the advantage of the mineowners, by lengthening the working day, which alone the mineowners have recommended out of the volume of evidence which has been submitted.
  Not only are we legislating now for the miners of this country, we are legislating for the coal-producing countries of the world, because when the eight-hours day is established here the extension of hours will soon apply to our competitors in other coal-producing countries. Let me read a paragraph from the Report of the Coal Commission dealing with this matter.
  "At home it will increase absenteeism, and so cause a loss of output. In the second place, the change could hardly fail to produce reactions in other countries. If Britain lengthened her hours, these other countries would certainly consider whether they should not follow suit. In this way, any gain in power to compete with foreign coal might he swept away, and all that would have been achieved would have been a general lowering of the standard of 1e:sure in all milling countries."
  It does not look well to see a Prime Minister of this country, upon whose honour so much stress has been laid, and out of whose integrity so much political capital has been made by the party opposite, coming forward with a Bill of this kind in 1926. It is the greatest legislative reaction we have had for some time. It is strange that it should come from a Government—returned to Parliament, it is true, on a

  1085
  minority of votes—with an unprecedented number of Conservative supporters in this House. We should have to go back a long way in political history to find an exact parallel in the way this Government has dealt with working-class questions. It was this Government which took £1,500,000 from the Unemployment Fund, and made some thousands of unemployed workers destitute. It was this Government which raided the surpluses of the approved Societies, thus violating the sanctity of contract. Now this Government has come forward to extend the hours of work for the miners. When these facts sink into the minds of the great working class democracy of this country, I am quite sure, whether this Bill go through to-night or not, that the people will have something to say on the first opportunity that presents itself.
  Mr. KIDD: It seems to me that there is a case against this Bill to be stated from this side of the House, and I wish to submit some considerations on it. Before I come to that, however, I would like the House to notice that the only constructive suggestions from the other side are for the nationalisation of the mines, the nationalisation of royalties, and the municipalising of the sale of coal. As regards the first, I submit to hon. Members opposite that, however attractive nationalisation may have been in other days, when coal occupied a supreme position as an agent of lighting and heating, the position is changed to-day. One of our troubles to-day is that coal has lost its supremacy and is threatened with competition from other agents. With regard to the nationalisation of royalties, let us not mislead the miner into thinking he can gain anything from that. It shows a reckless disregard of truth, or a consummate ignorance of royalties, to preach that doctrine. I speak with some knowledge of royalties, though not as a royalty owner. The nationalisation of royalties would only result in the State instead of the individual taking an average of 6d. per ton on coal, and the burden is on the industry again. From the 6d. which the private owner of royalties gets at the present time deductions are made for rates and taxes and Super-tax; he is left with something like a net sum of 2½d. per ton. That 2½d. is not a very serious burden on the industry, but the industry
  1086
  is not going to escape it. If there ever is to be nationalisation of royalties, Scottish representatives will require to watch it very closely. At the present time the State is not liable in law to pay any local rates, whatever it may do ex gratia, The private royalty owner however, in Scotland is liable to pay those rates. In mining areas our local Government is largely sustained by rates on royalties, and if nationalisation of royalties is to come along, then the mining areas must take care to see that before the State receives the royalty the local area gets an equivalent of what it receives at the present time from the private owner of royalties.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will you tell us on what the royalty owners pay rates?
  Mr. KIDD: They pay rates in Scotland. I am not talking now about England.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: What you are saying is misleading the House.
  Mr. KIDD: I made a special appeal to Scottish Members to watch that point. If my hon. Friend had been listening as he ought to have been listening, he would have heard that. With regard to municipal trading in coal. Who sells coal at the present time? The competition is between the co-operative societies and the private traders. The merit of co-operative trading is that it can occasionally capture trade against the private trader in fair competition, the consumer being thus protected. If we had municipalities selling coal in competition with private traders and co-operative societies, every co-operator knows that the municipalities would be run off their legs in less time than I take to say it. If, to escape competition, the municipality sought a monopoly, and to obscure its losses on sales lay the burden on the rates, who would be the first to object? Who but the co-operator? My surprise is that any co-operator, while objecting to municipalisation in the sale of coal, should advocate nationalisation in the production of coal.
  With regard to criticisms against the Bill from this side of the House. Those who heard the Minister of Labour yesterday were struck by the fact that he seemed to regard this Bill as being but a

  1087
  slight variation, in one particular, from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is something very much more. My submission to the Government is that this Bill cuts right across the whole scheme underlying the proposals of the Commission. What are those proposals'? The Commission start with this fact, elaborated By previous speakers, that we are suffering at the present moment because we have reached saturation point in the supply of coal to the world. There may be legitimate doubts as to whether one can ever reach the point of saturation with a primary commodity like coal, but the case of the Commission is that that point has been reached; and for that reason, leaving aside all other reasons, they object to a general extension of the hours of labour.
  That is the position at the present time. If you have a general extension of the hours of labour how will it affect a colliery at the present time working seven hours only and able to pay the necessary wage. If you have a general extension of hours you will only increase the handicap in favour of that colliery against the poorer colliery and notably collieries North of the Tweed. While it is true that the Coal Commission objects to a general extension of the hours of labour they say that, there should be some relaxation of the seven hours day when locally this may be necessary to maintain employment. What they have in view is that in particular districts, on the initiative of the management and men of those districts, representations might be made for some relaxation and an opportunity afforded of giving this. By doing that you might assist to make more equal the position of the poorer mines as against the richer mines without adding seriously to the supply of coal to a saturated market, whereas if you give a general extension you crush out the poorer mine by aggravating its conditions inasmuch as you give a larger handicap in favour of the richer mines.
  My submission is that the Government ought to have taken the line clearly indicated by the Commission. There is no recommendation in the Coal Commission Report in favour of this general extension of hours, but there is a recommendation in favour of a Measure which would enable the local mines, where the desire
  1088
  exists, to have an extension of hours. It is a mistake to speak of this as a permissive Bill. You cannot call it permissive in view of the terms of that Report, which opposes this general extension. It is one thing to permit greater elasticity in the matter of hours locally when wanted, and it is quite another thing to leave the richer coal masters with a power which if exhausted will make matters worse as indicated. Speaking from this side of the House, I think it only right that I should put forward that view.
  The Royal Commission went on to suggest that some reorganisation of the industry should take place with economies resulting. We have heard a great deal about amalgamation and unification, but what did the Commission mean by amalgamation? A speaker opposite has referred to the speech of Lord Aberconway, who is no novice in this business. He did not have before him the idea that amalgamation should be a synonym for the richer freezing out the poorer mines. Take this position. You may have two collieries; one with great potentialities but lack of capital. Under present conditions it would be impossible to finance that pit with fresh capital. Does amalgamation to-day mean that the richer mine with the larger resources (c)imply has to wait for the moment when the poorer mine may he captured 1 That is not Lord Aberconway's view, and I think he has. correctly understood the recommendations of the Commission. What does amalgamation on the lines of those opposite indicate? If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore means by unification something like nationalisation, then those of us on this side will oppose. We will have no such tinkering with the coal industry by attempts to create a monopoly and an artificial price, because by doing so you will simply exploit the public, and that would finish in the destruction of the employment of thousands of miners.
  With regard to the Bill now before the Committee dealing with the reconstruction of the mines I entertain the greatest hope, and before it leaves the Committee I suspect we shall find that it represents a great step in the right direction. Let the Government concentrate on that side of the question. The Commission have indicated in one of their recommendations

  1089
  the ideal to be aimed at is to discover a unity of outlook in the industry. They recommend that the workers should go into the industry as something more than wage earners. The Bill now before the Committee makes provision for that. The Prime Minister has urged that view time and again, and he did so a fortnight ago in the speech he made at Chippenham in which he said he hoped that the time was coming when we should see a start made with a new industrial system, when employers and unions would co-operate, the latter investing for the worker, and he indicated that the Government were ready to offer facilities in this direction. I submit to the Opposition that instead of going along with no constructive proposals, the time surely is ripe for taking this constructive line. You want to identify the worker with his industry in the fullest sense. The common outlook is the best assurance of increased production and a reconstruction of the industry on a sound basis.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I suppose the whole of the Members of this House are agreed that there is not another industrial country in the whole world whose economic difficulties are greater than those which confront the British nation to-day. On several occasions I have spent some time in Germany and other European countries, and I had the opportunity last year of going to the United States of America. I am perfectly convinced that the problem of 43,000,000 people in Great Britain, the problem of re-adaptation to new conditions, is greater for the British people than for any other or. the Continent of Europe. We have exhausted one great pioneering effort in the building up of modern industrialism. We are, as no other people, utterly dependent upon the reestablishing and rebuilding of new.relations in the world's trade and commerce. We have had for 25 years very clear indications as to the paramount necessity of changing our attitude in our fundamental industries. I think the Prime Minister and his Government could be forgiven if they gave the stock answer which has been given for 100 years in regard to this problem, if it was the first time it had been given. I have never known since the days of Waterloo a time when we were in difficulties industrially that the owners did not
  1090
  propound the same solution as at present, that the way to industrial recovery was by longer hours and less wages, and that the way back to prosperity could only be found in that direction.
  When we stand, as we do to-day, confronted with the doctrine of higher wages and the fact that we cannot discover markets either in or out of the Empire because of the low purchasing power of the mass of the working population, then it is perfectly clear that a body of employers, or owners, or a Government; which merely repeats the formula of industrial recovery that we have used until it has become hackneyed and tragic, is guilty of the greatest disservice to the British nation in this hour. Whether we like it or not, we arc, as a people, running our heads against a stone wall. The whole future life of our people is imperilled by the reactionary policy which has been established by the present Government in handling this industrial situation. We have had not only warnings, but four distinct Commissions of Inquiry set up by the most powerful Governments of modern times to tell the nation what to do with its basic industries. The Prime Minister could be pardoned if he said that to transform the British coal mining industry from a series of private joint stock companies into a corporation is a Socialist recommendation and must be rejected. Mr. Justice Sankey, in 1919, summoned before the judgment bar of the nation the best men it contains to give the nation, and not a party, solemn advice as to how to get out of its difficulties and readjust itself to the requirements of twentieth century industrialism.
  The present Prime Minister and preceding Prime Ministers have had for seven years the solemn advice that there was only one way out; that the British nation must pull itself together and readapt its conditions, if we were to lift ourselves out of the bewilderment, anarchy and declension of our power in the world market. When we are confronted with that solemn fact and that we have had records of recommendations made by Royal Commissions for seven years, and that the advice has been systematically neglected and ignored, then I say this present Prime Minister stands confronted, not only with an act of base

  1091
  neglect, but with grave imperilment of the power of Great Britain in future years to recover and re-establish her power and prosperity among the industrial nations of the world.
  We have heard a great deal about America. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) indicated last week some of the difficulties that confronted Americans from the industrial point of view. I wish he had pursued those inquiries further. The whole analysis of American mining life goes to show that the problems they are confronted with are very largely the problems with which we ourselves have to deal. If he had gone further in his inquiries, he would have found that if the American mining industry is to be put on a sound and prosperous basis the eight-hour day, which they themselves are working, will require to be overhauled. The whole tendency of American life, from the point of view of increasing efficiency and prosperity in the mining industry, lies in the direction of the reduction of the working day. For the last 30 years American miners have played one-third of the working day year by year. In 192–2 they only worked a little more than half the approximate working year. At, this very hour, in the important bituminous industries of America, men are only working two to two and a-half and three clays a week on the average. Take some of the best companies in Indiana, one of which I visited five weeks ago. With 15 first-class mines with between seven and eight feet thick seams, 14 of those 15 mines were shut down. I submit that even America, which is our chief competitor, in handling her problem has had to confess that the long working day is the road to anarchy in their country as in ours. The United States Mining Commission is running exactly in the same direction as the inquiries in our own country. While they are not prepared as a younger nation to admit the full value of the public corporation as the instrument for regulating the life of the American mining industry, they say definitely that coal has a special place in the life of the American nation and therefore must be regarded as having a quasi-public character, and must have attached to it the principle of public regulation if that industry is to be
  1092
  restored to conditions of harmony and prosperity. Therefore I say we are confronted on all sides with the plain evidence that for seven years we have had advice from our best experts that we are literally at the end of an economic period just as we were in 1760. We have to strike out in new ways.
  If we look back on that period, the movement we made from that national system of agriculture and the building up from 1760 onwards of this modern system of industry, we can see a tremendous amount of social and industrial waste in the driving of our people from the country side and the breaking up of the system of common ownership. There was at least this to be said of those who laid the foundations of our modern industrial system, that they did give us a productive industrial system. Here to-day, when we are having to seek a new place for ourselves, we have the leaders of our basic industries and the royalty owners setting up deliberately an anti-social policy. It. is not a policy that leads to production or the service of the nation but a policy which lets the nation go to beggary as far as they care. Therefore, I say that, in the circumstances, we have a right to protest in the name of the Labour party. We who are in this party derive our very life from England. We have no investments in the cotton mills of Bombay; we have no investments in Africa; we have no investments scattered about over the whole world; we cannot sit back if England goes down; we live upon the labour power we can apply here, and only here; and I protest, not only in the name of the Socialist party, which I have the honour to represent, but in the name of the nation, that we have at this hour a Prime Minister who has abdicated, a Prime Minister who has merely become the tool and mouthpiece of a number of owners and royalty owners, whose sole policy is that of class monopoly and class privilege and class gain at the expense of a nation that groans in anguish and cries out for light and leading towards a new period of industrial development.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I cannot enter into the technical details of the working of the coal-mining industry, because I am not qualified to do so, but I think it is not a bad thing that, at some time in

  1093
  the course of this Debate, some Member who represents primarily the consumer of coal should intervene, just to put the point of view of the consumer. I represent a particular class of consumers of coal, namely, the fishermen. They may not be very important, but I think they are a fair example of the average moderate industry in this country, which has to make its way by buying coal, and, tile cheaper that coal is, the better they are able to carry on their work and the higher profits they will make. That applies to a large number of industries in this country. I simply rise to-night in order to protest against one or two general economic assertions which have been made, notably by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), which have been supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and which I do not think ought to go altogether unchallenged. I have said that I cannot deal with the technical details of the coal industry, and I should like to say in that connection that I have listened, as I am sure every hon. Member on this side of the House has listened, with great respect and deep sympathy to the speeches of those who represent the coal miners, because their sincerity and their trouble is obvious to us all; but, from the point of view of the consumer, I cannot so listen to wild economic assertions such as were made this afternoon, not with regard to the coal industry particularly, but with regard to industry generally, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston.
  The right hon. Gentleman divided his speech roughly into two parts. In the first part he dealt with what I may, perhaps, call the price problem. He dealt with the question of the price of the coal which we export from this country, and he maintained that, if we added another hour to the working day of the miners in this country, the Germans would retaliate, and so on, and the standard of living in Germany would be reduced in exact proportion as the standard of living of the miners in this country was reduced. [Interruption.] He left it in doubt, and he proceeded to develop his theme that nationalisation, or something on those lines, would and could be a remedy. It could never be a remedy for that particular problem. It cannot affect it. There is only one thing
  1094
  that can ever affect that particular problem, and that is, if and when we can come to it, an arrangement and agreement with Germany, Belgium, France and the other coal-producing countries of Europe. If we could do that, we might be able to check the international problem between the countries, and might be able to stabilise the price of coal. That, however, in my judgment, cannot come about for a very long time. Long negotiations will be entailed; we shall have to get some form of selling agency in this country in order to negotiate, say, with the Ruhr, and it will have to cover a very long period. It is not an immediate solution for the problem which confronts us to-day.
  The problem which confronts us to-day is the problem of the price which coal is fetching in the general markets, both at home and abroad. If we cannot produce coal at such a price as will command purchases, either in the home or the foreign market at the present time, we shall never be able to pay the miner any wages at all, and what we have got to settle at the present time is bow we can produce coal at such a price that it will command purchases in the world markets or in the internal market at the present time. It is no use saying that we can come to an agreement with Germany, that we can form a coal consortium for Europe, in the immediate future. It is a matter of years. I agree that that is the ultimate solution, but in the meantime we have to direct our whole attention to the immediate problem. The next question to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston directed the attention of the House was the question of what he called increasing the purchasing power of the people of this country, and that was repeated by several hon. Members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he talks in that glib way about increasing the purchasing power of the people of this country? He means a subsidy first of all. That is the obvious thing. He has advocated a subsidy for the coal industry. All I can say is that, if the coal industry is to be subsidised, the agricultural and fishing industries ought to be subsidised—a dozen industries ought to be subsidized—
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Beet sugar!
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I see no reason whatever why the State should subsidise the coal industry particularly, if it does not subsidise other industries. Supposing that we follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, and agree with him that the only way to increase prosperity is to increase the purchasing power of our people. That can only be done at the present time by a succession of subsidies applied to nearly every industry in the country. Who is to find the money to do that? It can only be found in one way, namely, by inflation. It can only be done by printing pounds sterling until they become worthless paper, and that is the ultimate fallacy of the Labour party at the present time. It is the same scheme which Mr. Oswald Mosley has put forward in what is called the Birmingham proposal. The result of that would be that the pound sterling would be turned into worthless paper inevitably in the end, because, once you start inflating, you can never stop. We all want to increase the purchasing power of the people of this country, and it is going to be increased in exact proportion as production is increased and a market found for the goods produced. Then there is an increase of genuine purchasing power. If you start artificially increasing the purchasing power of the people of this country, you find yourself involved in inflation, and have to go through all the horrors that Germany, Austria, and Poland have gone through in the last three or four years. That is inevitable.
  Hon. Members opposite have been very busy this afternoon attacking the Prime Minister. They have called him heartless, they have called him a twister—I do not know what they have called him. They have said that he has betrayed the miners, that be has gone back on his word, and all the rest of it. For the life of me, however, I cannot see what else the Prime Minister could have done at this time. I would ask hon. Members opposite who were the first people to accept the Report of the Coal Commission? The Government. [Interruption]. Who were the first people to reject the Report of the Coal Commission? [HON. MEMBERS: "The owners!"] Not at all. The miners were the first—[Interruption]. I quite agree that the owners proceeded afterwards to reject it also, and they made a very bad mistake. I hold no
  1096
  brief for the owners. I think that they handled their case extraordinarly badly right through, and in that they have been excelled only by the miners. The Government were confronted on one side by the Miners' Federation and on the other side by the Mining Association. What was the wretched Government to do? They were in an impossible position, with two impossible sets of people to deal with, and of the two the miners have proved themselves to be the more impossible. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, because they had the sympathy of a very large percentage of the people of the country behind them, and if they had played their cards well they could have put themselves into an absolutely impregnable position.
  The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) accused the Prime Minister of preparing for a general strike. It is the elementary duty of any Government to ensure that the people are fed and that the essential services are kept going. The Prime Minister would have been grossly lacking in his ordinary duty if he had failed to take the necessary steps to preserve the community as a whole from a hold-up, such as the general strike was. As far as this Bill is concerned, looking at it from the outside and not as a member who has any intimate knowledge of the coal industry, but merely as one whose constituents consume coal for their livelihood, I say that I think it was inevitable and essential that the Government should leave the widest possible field for the conduct of ngotiations. The Government cannot impose a settlement on either side, but it can remove any obstacles that may lie between a settlement and a prolongation of this disastrous quarrel. By this Bill the Government- are merely widening the basis of negotiation. The Coal Commission reported definitely and finally against an extension of hours. That may not be the view of many miners, and it may not be the view ultimately of the Miners' Federation. We do not know. We merely say that no stone should be left unturned which may assist towards a settlement of the dispute.
  Hon. Members opposite have made very much too much of the purpose of the Bill. We are not trying to impose an eight-hours day on the miners. We cannot impose anything. No man can force another man to work, and the

  1097
  miners can continue to withhold their labour. I am convinced that the only object that the Government had in introducing this Bill was to widen the possible basis of negotiations. To the outsider the question of selling seems to be almost fundamental in any reorganisation of the industry. I hope that the spokesman for the Government will be able to give us some indication that the Government intend seriously to tackle this problem of selling. I do not know anything about subsidiary companies. There may be a great deal in that idea. But there is no doubt that, before we can reach any agreement with European Powers with regard to stabilisation of the price of coal, we must form some sort of selling agency here for the purpose of making those negotiations possible, in so far as the export of coal is concerned. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of inducing the mineowners, in conjunction with the miners, to set up some form of selling agency, in order that ultimately we may be able to reach some agreement with the Continent, which is the only way by which we can keep prices and wages at a decent level on both sides of the water. In the meantime, it is an absolute tragedy to see this country savaging herself in this way, doing no good to anyone, fighting an internecine war while faced with a problem which ought to be solved by the people engaged in the industry. Until employers and men in individual industries realise that their interests are identical and that they must themselves work out these very difficult economic problems in a way that no Government can ever do, I see no hope for the future prosperity of the country.
  Mr. SMILLIE: I would like at the outset to say to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that there is a close affinity between the mine workers of this country and the fishermen of whom he spoke. We miners have a great deal in common with the fishermen. The dangers faced by those who gather the harvest of the seas and the dangers faced by the men who win the coal underground establish that affinity. We do not desire to do anything that would necessarily raise the price of fuel consumed by the fishermen and the agricultural workers or any class of the community. Our people sometimes
  1098
  are consumers of fish, but they would rather do without fish than feel that the fishermen were receiving starvation wages or working too long a time.
  Viscountess ASTOR: They are doing so.
  Mr. SMILLIE: If it is physically possible the fishermen ought to have reasonable hours and conditions of work. It is the duty of the Government and the nation to do everything within its power for the safety of the fishermen. The hon. Member spoke against a subsidy for the mining industry. He said that no industry should be subsidised. To some extent agriculture has already been subsidised, and to a small extent the fishing industry has been subsidised, in the sense that money has been spent in the building of lighthouses, and so forth. That, of course, is a small thing. I would like to see the fishermen subsidised to the extent that the Government provided them with their ships, so that they might get the whole benefit of the harvest which they gathered. But we have not reached that stage yet. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) spoke especially to Scottish Members. I would like to call attention to the facts with regard to Scotland. The hon. Member said that the owners of the land and minerals paid from the mineral royalties which they received a considerable amount in Imperial and local taxation. I think he said that from each sixpence they paid 3½d., leaving 2½d. It was pointed out that on royalty rents rates were not paid in England. Then the hon. Member called the attention of Scottish Members to the fact that in Scotland mineral owners had to pay rates.
  I would like to refresh his memory as to the history of mineral royalties in Scotland. In 1592 an Act was passed conferring all the metals and minerals on the Crown, which meant on the nation. More than that, the King of that day was chiefly responsible for the passing of a law in the interests of the milling community, and in the preamble to that law the statement was made that because of the dangerous, laborious, and uncomfortable nature of the employment of the miners, they were to be freed for all time from taxation, Imperial or local, and they were to be freed from service in the Army. So much did the King think of the miners of that day that he said: "An injury done to any

  1099
  miner will be taken as an injury done to His Majesty the King." Would to Heaven the mineowners or the nation thought as much of the miners to-day as was thought of them by the King in that day. It may be true, and I think it is true, that a law was passed in England handing back again to private ownership the minerals which were previously State property, and an attempt was made to get a law of the same kind passed to return again to private owners the metals and minerals of Scotland, but this House had not time during that Session to do it. That was some 60 years ago, and it has not been done down to the present time. We may say that the law has fallen into abeyance through disuse, but if you want to prosecute any of the workers of the country, you can go back a long way for a law in order to secure what you want, and down to the present time that is the law of Scotland.
  I am not sure that I would have intervened in this debate were it not for the fact that I had some little responsibility for the passing of the Seven Hours Act. I was one of those who had advocated, on behalf of the miners, for many years, shorter hours of labour. The hon. Member who has just spoken said he could not speak from any technical or inner knowledge of the mining industry, but I claim that I can speak from practical, technical, and inner knowledge of the mining question. Like many others on these benches, I spent many years of my life underground. As a lad, I worked for 12 hours per day underground. The work, it may be stated, was not so very laborious, but it was sufficiently laborious for a boy, and I want to say that it was a crime to have any boys underground for 12 hours, and 24 hours continuously at the week-ends, when we were changing our shift, without seeing the face of a living soul during the whole of that time. I have worked at the coal face, I have worked at practically every job underground, and I know the exhausting labour of the mines. Miners to-day work a great deal harder and spend a great deal more physical energy per hour than we did when we were working 10 hours a day, but it would have been absolutely impossible for the miners of 25, 35, or 40 years ago
  1100
  to have continued for the 10 hours expending the energy per hour that they now put into it.
  10.0 P.M.
  It has been denied here that an increase in the hours or labour in the mines would increase seriously the death and accident rate, but is this House not aware of the fact that authorities on the matter, having gone into the statistics for years and years of accidents in the mines, find that the largest proportion of accidents take place in the last hour that the employés are employed underground, showing that, as they get exhausted with their labour, they are not sufficiently alert mentally and properly to look after their safety? It is calculated that there will be 25,000 more fatal and non-fatal accidents through the increase of the hours of labour by one hour. The Sankey Commission was composed partly of experts. There were three leading mining representatives, three miners' representatives, practical miners, who knew a great deal about the industry, three experts in economics, and three well-known public business men. That Commission went exhaustively into the whole thing and came to the conclusion that the hours which the men were working, eight hours a day, were too long, considering the nature of their employment, its dangers and its discomforts. They recommended to Parliament immediately to bring in and carry through a seven-hours Bill, and they added to that that if the output could be raised up to its pre-War amount, this House should reduce the hours still further to six hours per day.
  The Government of the day told us when we accepted the Commission that they could not legislate on hours and wages, and on mines nationalisation, and important question of that kind, until they had taken evidence from all the interests concerned, and until it was proved that it would be right to carry through such legislation. They had evidence sufficient to justify them in recommending that there should be a. seven-serious matter for this Government, or any other Government, in any country, first to appoint a. Commission to inquire first to appoint a Commission to inquire into certain grievances of the workers in an industry, to tell them that they would carry out the findings of the Com-

  1101
  mission if they could prove their case—and, as a matter of fact, this House din partly carry out the pledge given and passed the Seven Hours Bill—and thee to be sitting here to-night and to go back on that by lengthening those hours again. Personally, I protest against this House, having established a seven-hours day, going back on that seven-hours day until they have consulted the nation on the matter. We are told that this Bill is not compulsory, but permissive. If the Secretary for Mines understood mining, and if he knew the mineowners as well as some of us here know them, he would know how permissive the Bill is. When it is finished, if you carry it through, the Bill will fix certain hours as winding hours, and between those winding hours men will not be allowed to ascend from the pits unless they are ill or are certified to require specially to go home for something. If men under the Eight Hours Bill, if it passes, went down a mine and went to the coal face and stopped at the end of seven hours, they would not get out of the pit until winding time. Is that permissive? No, and before they go down at all, if you pass this Bill, the owners will make it a condition of employment that they must work eight hours.
  It is not a permissive Bill. When we are told that it is only those who are desirous of providing for their women and children that need work it and others who do not care about their women and children need not work it, that makes the matter more serious. I venture to say there is no industry known to any of us, unless it is, perhaps, the old style of stoking on board ship, in which the workmen spend so much energy as they do in the coal pit. I feel sure, if hon. Members were passing along one of the main streets in London and found a number of labourers opening up a street to put a pipe underneath or for some other purpose, and those men were working as the miners do at the coal face, every one of them would be certified as insane and sent to an asylum. Every one of these miners working at the coal face is in a bath of sweat from the time he goes down the pit until he returns to the surface.
  We are strongly opposed to any alteration of a downward character in the pre-
  1102
  sent mining legislation. I feel sure it is a case of the old saying that—
  "Evil is wrought for want of thought
  As well as want of heart."
  I feel sure if all of you Gentlemen on the Government side went down with us to our mining districts, went down, 10 or 12 or 14 of you, into each pit, and went to the coal face with us, not to swing a pick or to do any work at all, but to watch our men for seven hours, you would come back to this House and no power on earth could get you to vote for the extension of the hours.
  I remember some of the early legislation, not from personal observation but from reading, for in addition to paying strict attention to the mining industry I have also studied the early times of British industries, and I have read of the time when the children and the women were in the mines. I have read very closely the discussion which took place when it was proposed to abolish the employment of little children of seven, eight and nine years of ago and when it was proposed to take. women out of the mines. I give all credit to those who initiated that legislation and to those who could feel for the children, whether in the mines or elsewhere—wherever they were being exploited. I worship the memory of those men. They were not of our class; they were, not Socialists, but they were goodhearted, kindly folk, and they brought in that legislation. I almost thought I was reading again some of the statements made in Parliament at that time when I heard sonic of the statements made in this House this week. The colliery owners opposed the Bill to abolish child labour in the mines, and Lord Londonderry rose in his place and said:
  "If you put the children out of the mines you will ruin the English coal industry."
  Again, he said:
  "Those mines are ours. No Government is entitled to appoint inspectors of mines to go down and inspect the mines, and your inspectors, if you force that legislation on us, may go down the mines, but they may have trouble in getting up again."
  Happily it proved the nobility of the House at the time that when that statement was made—and the Bill then had only had a Second Reading—it was taken back again and a Clause put in making it an offence against the law for anyone to interfere with inspectors who might go

  1103
  down the mines. But when I heard some of the arguments put forward to-day it reminded me of that early legislation.
  I feel sure that had there been a Federation of British Industries in existence in the year 1846, the mining laws of that day in regard to children would not have been passed. Their influence would have been added to the influence of the owners of the day, and the House would have rejected the proposal to legislate for the prohibition of child labour. I can see the finger of organised capital in the Government's present Bill. Are we entitled to claim equality before the law? Are the mining folk entitled to claim equality with what are called the better classes before the law? I want to claim that equality and that justice here to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines stated in this House to-day with regard to the lock-out that it would have been a breach of the Seven Hours Law for the miners and the owners to have opened the mines on an eight-hours day. It would have been a breach of the law if they had done that, yet the miners are locked out because they would not commit a breach of the law. Notices were posted that on the 1st of May the mines would be re-opened on a substantial reduction in wages, and an increase of an hour per day. Had the miners resumed work on the terms laid down by the owners of an eight-hours clay instead of seven hours, not only the mine-owners but the miners also would have been guilty of a breach of the Act, and could have been prosecuted for it.
  I ask the Members of this House, are we not entitled to your support and sympathy for upholding a law passed by this House, and for refusing to be guilty of a breach of the law? Are we not entitled to ask you, instead of passing an eight hours Act to please the owners, to initiate a prosecution against the owners who were not only going to break the law themselves but tried to incite the miners to go down and break the law? If you are not prepared to initiate a prosecution against the mineowners for trying to incite the miners to break the law, then you are not dealing out evenhanded justice to the miners of this country. I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what has been said by quite
  1104
  a number of speakers to-night who know all about it as to the necessity of a continuance of the seven-hours day. It is not merely a question of a proposed increase of hours of labour at present, and perhaps a serious reduction in wages. We claim that the wages that were being paid to the mining community prior to the lock-out were not more than sufficient, and in many cases not sufficient, to keep the families in a state of comfort. We claim that the miners are entitled, in view of the fact that any reduction of wages they have suffered would have made it impossible for the children in many cases to get the necessary food or decent clothes, to refuse to work longer hours or to accept a lower rate of wages. It is on that ground that the miners are idle at present. Many people seem to hold quite as high an opinion of the miners now as they did from 1914 up to 1918. Some, I feel sure, do not. Some who sang their praises when they were asking them to obtain more coal or to go to the front have changed very considerably their opinion of the miners from that time down to the present, and many of those who encouraged the men to go abroad, for the purpose, in the first place, of repelling the attack of the Germans, as they were told, and, in the second place, to defend our homes, were told that when that was done our people would have a new heaven and a new earth after the War was finished. The treatment they are receiving at present is not like the treatment they were promised when it was necessary for them to produce coal and to provide men for the Army.
  We are not merely fighting against an increase in hours of labour and a reduction in wages. We are aware that an increase in hours and a reduction in wages will not help us much to meet foreign competition. It is not the price of home coal that is used so much for breaking down wages and increasing hours as it is to meet foreign competition. It is pointed out, and statistics seem to prove it, that the mining industry has been in a bad way for a considerable time. I have known the mining industry since 1874 very closely. I have seen, from 1874 to 1879 and 1880, scores almost of colliery owners, small and great, in the Bankruptcy Court during those eight or nine years after the

  1105
  Franco-German War. I know the mine-owners during the last fifty years have been losing money day by day, week by week and month by month. For some years there was scarcely a day that I was not at some colliery office with a deputation, either protesting against a reduction in wages or asking for an increase on the ground that the men were receiving very low wages, and in every case for years they were losing money. I have known men beginning with nothing and losing money for 30 years dying worth £150,000. I am not prepared to believe there has ever been any serious loss to the mining industry. We have more highly-skilled and willing workers in Great Britain than anywhere in the world. I have seen them at work in Germany and France. Our men are as good as any, and I feel sure that with the industry reorganised as it ought to be we shall be able to take our place and meet foreign competition and supply home consumers for our industries and our home fires at a reasonable price to our people.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgman)rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Baldwin!" "Prime Minister!"
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) was listened to, and I must appeal to hon. Members to give a fair hearing to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Why does not the Prime Minister speak?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Baldwin!" "Prime Minister!" "Divide!"
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why does not the Prime Minister meet the request of the House?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Baldwin!" "Divide!"
  Mr. SPEAKER: I appeal to hon. Members to give fair play.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It is all very well for Members of Parliament to get fair play, but the miners are not getting fair play.
  Mr. BECKETT rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Baldwin!"
  Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Are there any means by which this House can object that on an important Bill like this neither the President of the Board of Trade, the Prime Minister nor any other responsible Minister is dealing with the Bill but only the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is a kind of stone-waller, always put up when the Government have nothing to say?
  Mr. SPEAKER rose—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: How can we respect the House?
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Mr. BUCHANAN: We cannot have respect for the house of Commons when it drives people like this. It has gone back a century, and men are being done in and killed. It is villiany.
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Gorbals—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not playing the game.
  Mr. WESTWOODOn a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am addressing the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The right hon. Gentleman who has risen to reply is a Member of the Cabinet, and speaks with responsibility for the Cabinet. He has been responsible throughout for the negotiations.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and I must ask the House to give him a fair hearing.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. A definite charge was made in the House this evening—and I want your ruling on it—that the Prime Minister has over 200,000 shares in Baldwin's Limited, and that he interfered with the Royal Commission by sending for the Chairman, and dictating exactly what was to be put in their Report. I ask you whether hon. Members on this side of the House are not in order in demanding that there shall be a reply to charges of this kind.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In so far as any statements have been relevant, the First Lord of the Admiralty is competent to reply.
  Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether on a Division being taken a Member with the financial interest the Prime Minister is stated to have in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—is going to be allowed to vote on a matter in which he is financially interested and which is going to mean a profit to him.
  HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
  The PRIME MINISTER: The order of this Debate has been arranged with the full knowledge of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, but I propose to say two or three words in answer to the observations which have just been made, which I have not heard before and which I was not aware had been made in the Debate at all. The answer to the second point raised is that it is an unqualified misrepresentation. There is not a syllable of truth in it. I do not know whether the House will take my word. I do not know exactly what the charge is in the first allegation which the hon. Member has made. As a matter of fact, it has been brought to my notice that the statement has been made in a paper edited by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). In one respect it is absolutely true, and it represents the hulk of what I had, but what it did not tell anyone was this, and I will repeat. it to the House. Had I taken advantage of the War—[Interruption.]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the miners?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Had I taken advantage of the War, I might to-day have been a very wealthy man, with my money in Government securities or invested abroad, and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley would have known nothing about it. All my life I have consistently refused to invest my money abroad. My money, for good or ill, has always been in British industries, and it is for that that I am being attacked to-night. The large block of shares to which the hon. Member has alluded, and for which, as I say, I could have realised a fortune in the War, but declined to do it, would not, I think, be taken off my hands by anyone at the present time. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley forgot to mention that for five years I have received nothing from them, nor do
  1108
  I expect to receive anything from them for some years to come. Whether hon. Members really believe that because, in this old family business of mine, it happened that portion of its profit contained some coal profit, which is but a small proportion of the whole of that business—whether they think that because of that, I should fall so low in my own estimation as is suggested, I do not know. But whatever the hon. Members who have raised this point may think of me, I do not think the House on either side will think that I have fallen so low in my own estimation or in the estimation of men whose opinions I value.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I made the statement in this House with regard to the first point on which the Prime Minister has replied, and I quoted my authority. My authority is the "Sunday Times," a Tory newspaper owned by one of the biggest colliery owners in South Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Sir William Berry, and I think the Prime Minister will know that individual. In the issue of the "Sunday Times" of
  14th March, 1920, the following appeared:
  "In Ministerial circles the Coal Commission's Report is considered to he a first-class analysis and survey of the situation, but as an aid to a settlement rather like the landlord's claret which did not get the tenants any forrader'."
  Mr. ERSKINE rose—[HON. MEMBERS "Order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) is making a personal explanation in regard to a matter which has been suddenly raised in the House.
  Mr. GRAHAM: The paper goes on to say:
  "Still, the document, is for the instruction of the ignorant who ate many in the House of Commons"—
  I agree with that Tory observation—
  "as they are outside, and this alone is of value for a problem which, if thoroughly understood, is on tire way to solution. Originally the Commission decided to recommend the continuation of the subsidy, but the Government felt very strongly that if this appeared in the Report, they would lose the last card which they could put on the table to reconcile labour to any reduction of the mini4num wage."
  That is the statement which appeared in the "Sunday Times" by its political

  1109
  correspondent. [Laughter.] I do not know the man at all, and I do not know why it should be a laughing matter to hon. Members opposite. It is a statement made on the authority of a newspaper which is run in their interests, and it makes a, charge against the Government that they interfered and influenced the Commission to change its Report. The statement is definite here that the Commission had agreed to recommend the continuation of the subsidy.
  Colonel GRETTON rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman rise to a point of Order?
  Colonel GRETTON: Yes, and the point of Order is this: Is an hon. Member entitled to read a statement in this House for which he does not make himself personally responsible? Does the hon. Member who is reading that statement make himself personally responsible about the statement which he makes?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) is making a personal explanation, as I understand it, to show the authority, such as it is, on which he relies in making that statement. He must not go further than that in his personal explanation.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: The statement is denied.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have informed the House, that statement is absolutely unfounded. I have had no communication, direct or indirect, nor had any Member of my Government, with any member of the Commission during the whole of its sittings.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. D. GRAHAM rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member was proceeding to say what he had to say, and the House must listen to him.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order on a personal explanation.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—In any case the statement is made by the political correspondent of Sir William Berry's newspaper. I stated in the House, Mr. Speaker, when I made the statement, that if it were true, then there. was a reflection upon the Government, and that the Prime Minister should take the first opportunity of clearing the Government from the aspersion. If it was not true, then they ought to deal with the newspaper which spreads reports of this kind. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: It will be my duty to stop the hon. Member if he goes beyond the scope of a personal explanation.
  Mr. LANSBURY: A personal explanation, Mr. Speaker. I understand from the Prime. Minister that the only subject of complaint he has against: myself is that I was not aware of all the private matters connected with the business. I do not understand that the right, hon. Gentleman ehallenges the truth of the statement that I am responsible for publishing. I took it from the returns lodged in Somerset House on 1st: January. The reason I did so is that for 35 years f have been a local administrator, and during all that time I have held the view that a man had no. right to vote public money, or to take part in a discussion of voting public money, if some of that money might come his way. I object to that. Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member going into an argument, which is not permissible.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I shall not take two minutes.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: It must be purely a matter of personal explanation. The hon. Member must not go into matters of argument. The Prime Minister Imo not denied the facts.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No, but he said a lot of other things and I want—[Interruption].
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into that question now.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose—
  Mr. BECKETT: I only want to ask you—
  HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
  Mr. LANSBURY: The only thing I want to say, and I cannot help but say it—[HON. MEMBERS "Order;"]—is that neither the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—nor the Secretary for Mines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—nor the President of the Board of Trade, who are intensely interested in the mining industry, have any right to vote.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose—
  Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption..] May I ask you, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]—whether it is in order for a man who has used his position in the Government to conceal the profits in this industry. [interruption.]
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Mr. BECKETT: Lane Fox gets—[Interruption.]—Let him tell us—
  [interruption]—for doing nothing except sitting down.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not be on his feet when I am standing.
  Sir H. CRAIK rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose—
  Mr. BECKETT: You crush and starve men and get rich on unclean profits.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. BECKETT: If some of us get suspended for telling the truth about you, all the better.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: if it. be the desire of hon. Members to go to a Division, I will proceed to put the Question.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left. out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 355: Noes, 163.

  Division No. 303.]

  AYES.

  [10.46 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Craik, St. Hon. Sir Henry

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Broun Lindsay, Major H.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Apsley, Lord

  Burman, J. B.

  Daiziel, Sir Davison

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

  Burney. Lieut.-Com, Charles D.

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Burton, Colonel H, W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Atkinson, C.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil

  Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Calne, Gordon Hall

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Campbell, E. T.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cassels, J. D.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Dixon. Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Edmondson. Major A. J.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Cecil, Rt, Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Bellairs, Commander Carryon W.

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

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Elveden, Viscount

  Bennett, A. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset Weston-S.-M.)

  Berry, Sir George

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Bethel, A.

  Chlicott, Sir Warden

  Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Christle, J. A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Birchall, Major J Dearman

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Fairfax, Capain J. G.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fermoy. Lord

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Finburgh, S.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cope, Major William

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-colonel Francis E.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Gates, Percy

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Gilmour, LL-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Savery, S. S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  McLean, Major A.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. H on. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meller, R. J.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Hanbury, C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Neville. R. J.

  Tempicton, W. P.

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

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

  Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Hills, Major John Walter

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

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

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Thine, J. A.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Oakley, T.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Waterhouse. Captain Charles

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Pielou, D. P.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pilcher, G.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshetor

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Iliffne, Sir Edward M.

  Preston, William

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Centrl.)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Radford, E. A.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Jacob. A. E.

  Raine, W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Jephcott. A. R.

  Ramsden, E.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Kindersley. Major Guy M.

  Remer, J. R.

  Withers, John James

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Remnant, Sir James

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rantoul, G. S.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Lloyd. Cyrll E. (Dudley)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Ruggles.Brise, Major E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Looker, Herbert William

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

  Lord. Waiter Greaves

  Rye, F. G.

  Colonel Gibbs.

  Lougher, L.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Batey, Joseph

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barnes, A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Barr, J.

  Briant, Frank

  1114

  1115

  Broad, F. A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bromfield, William

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Bromley, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sesser, Sir Henry H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smillie, Robert

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherh the)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, H, B. Lees (Keighley)

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kennedy, T.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D

  Stamford, T. W.

  Connolly, M.

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawson, John James

  Sullivan, J.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lee, F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lindley, F. W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. Jamas H. (Drby)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lunn, William

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dennison, R.

  Mackinder, W.

  Thorne. E.

  Duncan, C.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Townend, A. E.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  March,

  Varley, Frank B.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Murnin, H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gibbins Joseph

  Naylor. T. E.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Gillett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gosling, Harry

  Owen, Major G.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon-Josiah

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Welsh, J. C.

  Graham, Rt. Hon Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Paling, W.

  Westwood. J.

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Ritson, J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Windsor, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wright. W.

  Harney, E. A.

  Scurr John

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Sexton, James

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Charles Edwards.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bill read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Churchill.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Royal burgh of Inverness, which was presented on the 5th day of May, 1926, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Bonhill, and parts of the parishes of Row, Cardross, Dunbarton, old Kilpatrick. New Kilpatrick, and Kirkintil-
  1116
  loch, in the county of Dunbarton, which was presented on the 18th day of May, 1926, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. in respect of the urban district of Ampthill and parts of the rural districts of Ampthill and Biggleswade, all in the county of Bedford, which was presented on the 1st day of June, 1926, he approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Byres Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  LONDON ELECTRICITY COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  LONDON ELECTRICITY COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (REGULATION).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (REGULATION).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
  HOME-MADE SPIRITS.
  HOME-MADE SPIRITS.
  TRAVELLERS' SAMPLES (CUSTOMS EXAMINATION).
  TRAVELLERS' SAMPLES (CUSTOMS EXAMINATION).
  PERPETUAL PENSION.
  PERPETUAL PENSION.
COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  RETAIL PRICES, DUNDEE.
  RETAIL PRICES, DUNDEE.
  COAL COMMISSION REPORT.
  COAL COMMISSION REPORT.
  SHIP BUILDING INDUSTRY.
  SHIP BUILDING INDUSTRY.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  DISINFECTANTS.
  DISINFECTANTS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ALIENS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ALIENS).
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SUBSIDY.
  SUBSIDY.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, LONDON.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, LONDON.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the better protection of the public in relation to the sale of food, including agricultural and horticultural products, and to move that it be now react a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDON ELECTRIC AND METROPOLI- TAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COM- PANIES BILL.
Read 2a.
PONTEFRACT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.

COAL MINES BILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to mention what is familiarly known as the Eight Hours Bill—the Coal Mines Bill. I understand that, in all probability, the Bill will be

615
read a second time this evening in the House of Commons and will pass through all its stages before the end of the week. In that event His Majesty's Government would be very anxious that the Bill should be put upon the Statute Book with the least possible delay and, therefore, that it should be taken in your Lordship's House almost immediately. I hope that I might venture to ask your Lordships to read it a first time either on Thursday night or on Friday and to take the Second Beading on Monday next. I trust that will be convenient to your Lordships.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
EDINBURGH CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ASHTON- UNDER-LYNE EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EALING EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STATE OF EMERGENCY.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to read the following Message from the King:—
  "The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 28th day of June, 1926, having constituted in the opinion of His Majesty a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has
  616
  deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 28th day of June, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  I beg to move that the gracious Message be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in reference to the gracious Message which I have read I beg to move this Resolution:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920."
  Because of the effluxion of time it is necessary to renew the operation which we have already carried out.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it is my duty to move the Second Reading of a Bill which I know is of great interest to many of your Lordships, but, as the main provisions of the Bill have already been explained two years ago and the Bill is substantially the same. I do not propose to weary your Lordships on this occasion by occupying much of your time. The short history of the Bill is that it is based on recommendations of the Departmental Committee for the Protection of Wild Birds, which reported in the year 1919. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland should appoint,

617
respectively, Wild Birds Advisory Committees and that these Committees should advise their Departments on all matters relating to the protection of wild birds. In pursuance of this recommendation Advisory Committees were appointed both for England and Scotland. The Chairman of the Committee for England was Viscount Grey of Fallodon and I very much regret that the noble Viscount is unable to be present here to-day owing to duties elsewhere. Not only do I miss him personally and his support of this Bill, but I should like to pay a tribute to the great work which he has done in preserving rare and most interesting wild birds in this country. I think it is due to his work on this Committee that this Bill in its present state is now placed before your Lordships. The Chairman of the Scottish committee is Mr. H. D. Gladstone, who has also taken a very great deal of interest in this subject and worked very hard for the common end.
I only propose to touch very briefly on a few of the main provisions of the Bill. It is obvious that the ground has already been very closely covered, not only by the Departmental Committee but also by these two Advisory Committees, one for England and one for Scotland, who have had several interviews with all those who are interested, either commercially or otherwise, in the protection and, I may say, the destruction of birds. This Bill is the result of their joint efforts. The Bill is not in any way political, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. Viscount Grey introduced a Bill in 1923 of very much the same character as this measure, and there was a Bill introduced into the House of Commons last year, but it was not successful in getting very far. This Bill is very much the same as that introduced by Viscount Grey of Fallodon. It has been redrafted, but there are no great changes in policy. The Bill is no new scheme for the protection of wild birds. its main object is to simplify the law relating to the matter, to repeal and consolidate existing laws and to make the enforcement of the existing law more easy and sure than it is at the present time.
If your Lordships will look at the end of the Bill you will see that no fewer than nine Acts, passed since 1880, are now
618
to be repealed and this Bill will take the place of those nine Acts. In times gone by a great many local orders have been introduced by local authorities. These local orders are very long, containing the names of an enormous number of birds. They are very difficult to understand and, that being the case, they are very seldom enforced. The main alteration in this Bill is the formation of three categories of birds. That is something new in the law relating to birds. The first category consists of those birds which are very rare and which it is considered advisable in the interest of bird lovers and of lovers of nature should be protected as far as possible in this country. These species of birds nest in this country and under the first category, if this Bill passes into law, they will be absolutely protected both in the nesting season and at all other times. The second category is one in which appear those birds which are British breeding birds but are not very common and are considered to be in need of full protection during the breeding season. The first category protects birds all the time, the second protects birds during the breeding season.
All other birds—and these are not specified—appear in the third category and to a certain extent have to take their chance. These birds do receive protection during the nesting season from the general public, but they are rather common birds and the owner or occupier of land will have the power, if they increase to too great an extent or are injurious to crops, of keeping them down. It is not intended in this Bill to make bird's-nesting in general a criminal offence. It is considered impossible to do so. Powers are given to the police, but it is not proposed, although a great deal is put upon the police, to send them running after every boy or girl who takes thrushes' eggs on his or her way to school. The birds at the present time are not divided into categories and this is a very great alteration. It is hoped by the framers of this Bill that it will not only make the law relating to birds much more comprehensible than at the present time but very much easier to enforce.
Another new provision in the Bill is the extension of the close time from July 1 to August 11. The Departmental Committee took a great deal of evidence

619
on this matter and they came to the conclusion that it was advisable on the whole to have one extended close time instead of different close times for different species. Various county councils have had different close times, but in future there will be one close time, which is to be extended to August 11.
I do not think that I need go into more than one or two of the objections to the present law which will be removed by the provisions of this Bill. One of them relates to bird sanctuaries. At present the sanctuaries are absolutely protected, the good and bad species being on the same footing. One of them is at the Fame Islands, where the general protection has destroyed their value as a sanctuary because equal protection is given to good and bad, the bad being represented in these island by cormorants and black-backed gulls. Under this Bill it will be possible in particular sanctuaries to make such exceptions that the good may be separated from the bad. The Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland are empowered to make certain alterations in consultation with their Committees if any particular species gets too numerous or is suspected, with good cause, of doing harm.
Under the present law there is no power to seize a bird of which a person is suspected of being in unlawful possession. Therefore, the suspected delinquent goes away with the bird and then, when he is brought to trial, produces a different bird altogether, and it is very difficult to prove what bird he had at the time when he was arrested. That difficulty is removed by this Bill. There is also reference to taxidermists and others who are found in possession of protected birds. Under the present law it has to be proved that they are unlawfully in possession of those birds. Under this Bill the gentleman suspected has to prove that he is in rightful possession of the bird, skin, nest or egg. There is also power to grant licences for the taking of protected birds or eggs in the furtherance of scientific objects.
There is another new provision in this Bill about which I ought to say a word. It is a provision, about which no doubt we shall hear something in Committee, which forbids the use of mechanically propelled boats or aircraft for the purpose of shooting or destroying birds.
620
On Sundays there is absolute protection of birds. At present there is a sort of local option in this matter; in some areas birds are protected on Sundays and in others they are not. Bird catchers who catch birds and sell them are required to produce a police certificate. A further change in the law is to the effect that imported birds—and I think this is an important point—are not to be liberated without the leave of the Home Secretary. Many countries have suffered a great deal from the amateur importation of different species. Enthusiastic Scotsmen unfortunately introduced thistles into Australia because they could not get on without them. Others introduced into Tasmania an apparently harmless plant, the sweetbriar, which has grown to such an extraordinary extent that there are now vast thickets of sweetbriar and nobody knows how to extirpate them. Watercress also, which seems harmless enough, was introduced into New Zealand, where it has blocked the rivers and caused large swamps.
You have all heard of rabbits in Australia. These rabbits in new circumstances develop new propensities. There are tens of thousands of miles of wire in Australia which are patrolled by rabbit patrols and still the rabbits increase and spread all over the Continent. They have also developed large nails which enable them to climb these fences, which is a thing they cannot do in this country. They also climb trees to eat the leaves in times of drought. That has been one of the results of introducing rabbits into Australia. Various attempts were made to extirpate them, both by natural means and by spreading diseases. Among them was the introduction of 22,000 stoats and ferrets, but the stoats and ferrets very soon got tired of rabbit and began to eat all the small birds. Then they introduced foxes, and the foxes, too, got tired of rabbits and went to lamb and were as great a nuisance as the rabbits. Coming down to birds, we all know that there are sparrows in Australia and in the United States. Sparrows were introduced into Australia and there was a fine of £2 for killing a sparrow or taking a sparrow's egg. Now there are sparrow clubs all over the country and still the sparrows get the best of it. Sparrows were introduced into New England, have spread to Texas and do damage every

621
year to the extent of 5,000,000 dollars. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that imported birds should not be liberated without leave of the Secretary of State.
There are special provisions also for the protection of the lapwing. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall hear more of the lapwing, both as regards the bird itself and in reference to its eggs. Under this Bill taxidermists will have to keep a register in respect of the two categories of birds. Increased penalties are provided and special provision is made to facilitate the prosecution of offenders and give the police powers of arrest. I think your Lordships will probably agree that there is a universal opinion that the time has now come when there should be a simpler law to protect our rare birds, and although when we come to the Committee stage, and particularly when we come to consider the categories, there will probably be a great difference of opinion, especially among those who know most about birds, I think that the discussion of those differences may well be, left to that stage. I hope that your Lordships will agree regarding the need for a Bill to consolidate the existing law and to make it more comprehensive, and accordingly I trust that you will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise on behalf of various bird societies to say that they support this Bill. It is most important in the interests of the preservation of song birds, birds of beauty and birds which do good to the farmer, that we should have some protection for them. As the noble Lord has said, the law is in a chaotic state at the moment and this Bill does much to remove its present drawbacks. It is thought by many that the matter can be left to itself and that this may be in some respects an anti-democratic measure. But it is nothing of the sort. Nobody rejoices in the songs of birds more than our great democracy, and the establishment of sanctuaries in various parts of the country has been a great joy to every class in the community and has distinctly helped to resuscitate certain
622
species of birds which otherwise would have become extinct. I rise to say, on behalf of these societies, that we welcome the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not rise to take any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill as regards the preservation of rare birds. I think that I am as anxious as any one that proper provision should be made for their protection. But there are two points upon which I should like to ask questions of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. He says that in the main this is a Consolidation Bill. I find on the last page of the Bill that a number of enactments are repealed which I understand the noble Lord says include all enactments at the present time dealing with this matter. I think it is very desirable that we should retain the proper procedure as regards Consolidation Bills. Ordinarily, Consolidation Bills are referred to a Joint Consolidation Committee, which is generally, I think, under the Chairmanship of my noble, friend Lord Muir Mackenzie. That Committee of both Houses is appointed in order to ensure that when you have consolidation it really is consolidation as distinct from new proposals or new provisions in an Act of Parliament. I think that the only way in which you can guarantee the accuracy of Consolidation Bills is to preserve the principle of a Joint Consolidation Committee.
My second point is this. The Bill is not, of course, a Bill for the protection of rare birds only. What is called the third category includes all birds not comprised in either of the other categories. For instance, it includes the sparrow, and the noble Lord said that every year five million dollars worth of damage had been done by the introduction of the sparrow into America. It also includes those farmers' pests, rooks and pigeons. I have had several representations from this point of view. Although, no doubt, the rights of owners and occupiers are safeguarded, yet the general effect of the Bill in including birds of this kind will be very largely to increase their number and the risk of damage. That representation has come particularly from the smaller farmers, who suffer most from the depredations of birds, and I would

623
like to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture is satisfied with the protection given. I have heard great complaints that the protection given will not be adequate, and I should like to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture has been consulted upon a matter of such great importance.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes, the Ministry has been consulted and also the National Farmers' Union.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad to hear that, as I have had constant representations that the provision is not adequate. I also want to know what is to be done with regard to consolidation.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I sincerely hope and believe that this Bill will receive your unanimous approval. I am in rather a difficult position because I am so ardent a friend of birds that I am very anxious indeed to extend the provisions for their protection which this Bill contains. I would like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions upon it. In the first place there is a most salutary provision which prevents a person from taking birds alive for sale excepting under a certificate. I want to know why a certificate is to be granted at all. What justification is there for taking a wild bird and putting it in a cage? It is one of the most inhuman things that can possibly be done. I hope the noble Lord will see what he can do to modify that provision and if it is passed I hope sincerely we may all be spared the shame and pain of seeing a lark beating against the sides of a twelve-inch cage wings which were meant for the sky.
Then I would like to ask upon what principle this First Schedule has been prepared. I differ entirely from the noble Lord who has just spoken as to the necessity of protecting rare birds only. It is not rare birds but all birds that should be protected, unless their existence is a harm to agriculture. Take one or two birds of singular beauty and of immense value and not harmful to agriculture. Take the tomtit, the long-tailed tit, and, in fact, all the tits. They are not only of great beauty, but spend all their time eating insects which are prejudicial to the trees. Then there is the tree-creeper which spends its time running up the bark of trees and pick-
624
ing out the insects. There is the golden-crested wren and the ordinary wren. They have never done any harm to anybody and nobody can say that the golden-crested wren is not rare. It is a bird that is sufficiently optimistic to sing through every month of the year and I do not know any other bird that does that. In these days, when pessimism seems to increase, it appears to me a pity to decrease our optimists. There are many other birds I might mention and I should really like to know why they are to be exposed to attack.
Then, I specially want to mention the lapwing. It is a horrible thing that this bird, one of our most beautiful and most beneficial, should be sacrificed in thousands every year, not for food but to gratify the palates of epicures in London. I should like to see the sale of plovers' eggs absolutely restricted and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to see his way to afford greater protection than is given at present. In many districts the lapwing is getting very scarce; where they used to be the constant companions of people who are fond of the country they are new very hard to find. I do not want to debate the matter further now, but, possibly, in Committee, I shall be able to ask questions about this and other birds in which I am interested. In the meantime I trust that the noble Lord opposite will consider further whether such birds should not have the full protection which the Bill affords.
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to the questions asked me by Lord Parmoor, I should like to consult with him upon the matter of consolidation. This Bill, as I understand, just repeals nine Acts. It is not in any way legislation by reference.
LORD PARMOOR: The benefit of consolidation is that you get rid of references.
LORD DESBOROUGH: At all events I would like to consult the noble Lord with regard to this matter. As to the questions of Lord Buckmaster, I do not know that you could absolutely abolish caged birds altogether. I understand that canaries are a great consolation to maiden ladies.
LORD BUCKMASTER: They are not taken wild.
LORD DESBOROUGH: A little while ago I had the honour of introducing a Bill dealing with caged birds, and it contained regulations with regard to birds in captivity. One regulation was that they were to have a cage of sufficient width, height and depth to be able to stretch their wings freely. That Bill passed into law, and although perhaps it is not sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord, it does, I hope, give protection to these birds. With regard to the lapwing, or plover, I have no doubt that we shall have discussion on that bird at a later stage. The Government have an open mind on that matter. The National Farmers' Union, both here and in Scotland, are anxious to protect plovers' eggs altogether. The Departmental Committee went into the matter carefully and did not see their way to go as far as that. I shall take the opinion of your Lordships' House, when we come to that point in Committee, as to what should be done with both the plover and its enemies.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Lord reply to my question about the tom-tit?
LORD DESBOROUGH: The tom-tit is protected during the nesting season—it is not one of those rare birds which are specially protected at all times. Of course, there are plenty of tom-tits, and I do not think your Lordships' House or another place would pass a clause which put all birds into the first category. It is for that reason that we have got three categories—the first of birds which are absolutely protected, the second of birds which are partially protected, and the third of birds which are imperfectly protected.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, as you are aware, this Bill is intended to carry into effect the recommendations of a Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, a member of the late Cabinet, and by the late Government,
626
whose work, after the late Government went out of office, was continued without a break. The Bill therefore itself depends for all its importance and all its significance upon the Report which it is intended to carry into effect. That follows very accurately and very properly, I think, numerous precedents set with regard to other Universities, and indeed with regard to the University of London itself. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any reference to the Bill, but I think that you would like to know some of the general considerations which have made it, in the opinion of successive Governments belonging to different Parties, a matter of urgent necessity to carry out some broad reforms in connection with the great University to which the Bill refers.
The University of London stands by itself, I think, among all the Universities of the world. There is nothing, as far as I am aware, quite like it. It differs in many fundamental respects from any other University whose constitution I, at all events, have had the opportunity of studying, and some of the difficulties inevitably arise from the fact that it has had a past which has made it the very remarkable body with which we now have to deal. It is not, as some of our English and Scottish Universities go, an old University, and it began with the institution of two separate colleges, both, indeed, having the common end of improving University education, but founded originally upon very different principles, and with very different views. They were, indeed, in their inception, rivals. The first to be brought into being was University College, but very soon afterwards King's College was established, which, in the opinion of its founders, carried out certain educational objects with which University College did not concern itself. It was found impossible to join those organically into a single University until a bond of union was found in the common examination system. That is, of course, quite a novel form of giving unity to a University, and it developed in the case of London into the remarkable system of external students—that is, of students who have, speaking broadly, no important relation with the University from which they expect their degree and to which they have

627
matriculated, except that which is provided by the examination which all students are expected to pass.
That system, so far as the external students are concerned, leaves out a great deal that most of us think very valuable in University life. It leaves out, on the whole, any relation between the University as a teaching body and the University as an examining body, and it leaves out all those imponderable benefits which those of us who are fortunate enough to have had a University training know are some of the most important things which a University can give us. Evidently the external student can hardly obtain those, but we are clearly of opinion that, although the external system is one which nobody would recommend as the general practice in Universities, it does fulfil a purpose which no other system can fulfil, and the Commission and the Government in introducing this Bill are earnestly desirous that nothing should be done which could in the smallest degree imperil the efficiency of this examination system. In my opinion it is quite undeniable that an external student does not get, and cannot get, all the advantages which a full University training gives to those who are fortunate enough to obtain it, but there are many people who cannot obtain it, and it is most desirable in our opinion that we should retain effectively and in full efficiency a system which, although it does not give everything which a University is capable of giving, does give a great deal, sets a standard of learning, gives a stimulus to study, and does bring together as graduates of a single University men of different residence and different training, men whose years of learning have perhaps beeen passed far from the Mother Country, and who can in this way obtain some of the most important advantages which a modern University can give.
I mention this as one of the respects in which London University differs most profoundly from other Universities. But it is not the only thing. London University started with the two more or less rival colleges, University College and King's College, which are now incorporated into the University; but round them, as it were crystallised round that centre, are no less than thirty-six other bodies, making thirty-
628
eight in all, if my memory serves me, of other organised teaching institutions of the most varied character and carrying out an extraordinary multiplicity of objects. Let me remind your Lordships of some of them. The two central colleges, of course, give a full University education and cover the whole ground commonly described as University education. The other colleges also in some cases give a full University training; in other cases they confine themselves to one special branch of learning. There are medical schools, engineering schools and science schools. There are post-graduate schools devoted to research. Some of these bodies might almost be described as very superior secondary schools, so great is the variety of these constituent elements in the University.
But that really is not all. They differ not only in their objects but, in their size. Some of these colleges, devoted to special branches of knowledge and not attempting to cover the whole ground of general University education, are very important from their numbers, their high standing, the extraordinary variety of their professoriate and from their power of contributing, not indeed to the general culture of the people, but to some of the most vital and important parts of the education with which every great community now must, at the most serious peril to itself, see that it is well provided. There are great medical schools. There is the great School of Science and Technology known as the Imperial College. There is the London School of Economics. I will not enumerate them all; I will only remind your Lordships again that the variety of institutions, large and small, general in their objects and particular in their objects, with which any Bill touching upon the London University has to deal has no parallel, so far as I am aware, in this country or perhaps in any other.
There is one special kind of college on which I think I must say one word—the colleges giving a general education and giving that general education in connection with some religious denomination. There is, as noble Lords are aware, a famous school of theology in connection with King's College. There is a Wesleyan College and there are other colleges of the same kind. Their peculiarity is that

629
they desire connection with the London University in so far as their secular University matters are concerned; but, quite naturally and properly, they do not want any interference with that which marks them off as being devoted to the interests of one particular religious denomination. That adds a further and not unimportant complication to the general problems which have to be dealt with by legislation and which, in a preliminary sense, have been considered by the Departmental Committee on whose findings legislation is to be based.
How is this heterogeneous body of autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions governed at the present moment? It is governed by a Senate which, with all its merits and great as is the distinction of the gentlemen who compose it, requires, as the Committee think and as we think, reformation in more than one particular. In the first place, the Senate is required by Statute to be an executive body. It is far too big to be an executive body in the full sense and cover all the things that have to be done in a University so large and so complex as that which I have very roughly endeavoured to describe to your Lordships. It is almost certainly condemned—I will not say to impotence because that would be using language too strong for the occasion; but, drawn as it is from many heterogeneous sources and numerous as it is, its difficulties in acting efficiently and quickly have been the despair of many of its members and have inflicted great difficulties at all events upon those who desire to see the University of London develop with all the strength and all the efficiency of which its admirable materials are most certainly capable.
The Senate of the University of London is too big. It is also composed in some respects of the wrong elements. It contains at present representatives of certain professional bodies of great distinction, great influence and great importance, but which have no connection really with University training. There is no reason why they should have members upon the Senate. They augment its numbers, but they can hardly be said to increase its efficiency. I feel confident that the Committee which reported and whose Report we are considering were well justified in saying that these
630
extraneous elements should be excluded from the Senate, and that in their place should be put certain representatives of University interests which are now, most unfortunately, excluded. The Committee think, for example, and surely the Committee are right in so thinking, that the institutions of which, in fact, the University is composed should be represented as institutions in the Senate, which is the representative of the graduates and others who have had their education at the University. I cannot think that is a doubtful point. It is clear to me that that is right. The teaching body is represented in the Senate as it is; but the places where they teach, the organised institutions of which they are members and through which all their utility comes, have no representation upon the Senate, and it is proposed, as I think most rightly, that they should obtain it.
The result of that change will be to diminish the size of the Senate from fifty-six to forty-eight, I think it is. So far it is not only a reform in the character of the constituents of the Senate, but it is an improvement as regards numbers. I think we shall all admit that the criticism that I have passed upon the number, fifty-six, for an executive body applies almost as much to the new body which it is proposed to create, although that contains forty-eight instead of fifty-six. Forty-eight is an impossible body to carry out executive functions, but the Senate, under existing legislation, though it is itself of the utmost importance, is not empowered to give to the Committee any executive functions at all. They can only be advisory bodies, so that you have important advisory bodies advising the Senate, and some of those advisory bodies, unless I have misread the Report, are themselves advised by other boards. In managing a great University you must have something more than good advice. You must have some management machinery for putting that advice into execution. You must have some-machinery which is capable of doing more than deal with debatable issues. You must have bodies of manageable size to carry out immensely complicated work so that the immensely complicated institution that I have spoken of to your Lordships may be properly governed.
I do not know if it is necessary that I should describe in any detail, or even

631
describe at all, the Standing Committees to which it is proposed to give executive functions, or the possibility of executive functions, but I must mention one which is new. The old ones I need not deal with. There is an Academic Committee, an External Committee—I mean a committee dealing with the interests of the external students—and there is an Extension Committee. The Committee proposed, in addition to this, to have a committee dealing with the separate units of which the University is composed—the separate colleges of the infinitely varied kind and importance of which I have attempted to give some account. That will be another committee and, again, it will advise. But it will not only advise: it can have given to it what it could not have given to it under existing legislation, the executive powers which it is so absolutely necessary that these committees should possess.
There is one other great gap in the committees, the most important gap of all, the gap in any University machinery for distributing money grants that are given by Government, by the London County Council, and which come from other sources. The machinery for dealing with these grants is incredibly unsatisfactory. Any man to whom you referred the matter without his having had an opportunity of previous study would say that if the Government, for example—they are the largest contributors and I take them as an illustration—are to give public funds to the University and the University itself is made up of an immense number of subsidiary autonomous institutions, the distributing authority should be the University. Under the existing system it has been found impossible to make the University the distributing body and it is not the distributing body. The University Grants Committee and the London County Council have got to go over all the thirty-eight institutions making up the University and to consider from the result of their own inquiries and on their own authority how the grant which is nominally given to the University is to be distributed among the elements of which the University itself is composed. That is a wholly indefensible system.
There may be some who are ready to say that it has worked well. Having regard to the admirable character of the bodies who have attempted this
632
tremendous task of distribution, I do not pretend to say that I think it has worked ill, but the distributing bodies themselves vehemently object to having this responsibility thrown upon them. And why should it be thrown upon them? One of the greatest objects that every lover of University education has in view, when he desires support from the Government of the day, is that academic freedom should be maintained, although public money is expended in supporting the University itself. You want to combine the full freedom of University teaching, which is the glory of every University worthy of the name, with well-deserved assistance from the State. But how can you possibly do that if you turn the State not only into a contributor to the University in the form of a block grant, but also into a judge which is to consider all the separate merits of the various elements out of which the University is loosely built and to distribute according to its own discretion and good will the public money amongst them? That is a most improper system, I think, to impose upon the University.
That most competent body, the University Grants Committee, have thrown upon them duties which they carry out to the best of their ability and, if I may say so, carry out with admirable discretion, but they object strongly to having thrown upon them a responsibility which obviously belongs to the University itself, but which they cannot give to the University so long as the University has no better organ for its distribution than the Senate. The result of it all is that the Committee find themselves obliged to advise a new and most important element in the governing constitution of the University. They propose that there shall be established a University Council which shall be supreme in matters of finance, which shall have power to distribute the block grant that, without doubt, the University Grants Committee will continue to give them, without having to appeal to the Senate or to any other body for any modification or recommendation in connection with their proposals.
Do not let your Lordships suppose that in this novel Council the Senate has been forgotten. On the contrary, the Senate is in a bare majority, practically. I do not think therefore the Senate has any

633
reason to complain. You have substituted for the present governing system a system in which the University—and the Senate is the greatest body in the University—have absolute control. It is for them to take the responsibility of dividing the grants which the Commission may give them among the various competitors and I believe in that way you will produce a feeling of unity in the University which its present constitution makes quite impossible. I do not see how, without these new divisions recommended by the Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, without some provisions of that kind, you are going to enable the University to deal with a situation which at present is simply un-dealt with. The University simply leaves to the University Grants Committee the whole weight of responsibility of carrying out a function which it is their business, and their business alone, to deal with, but with which, in the existing imperfection of the machinery at their disposal, they find it impossible to deal.
The general result, therefore, is that the Statutory Commission which this Bill proposes to set up will be instructed on broad lines to follow the Report of the Committee in carrying out the reforms of the Senate which I have described, both as regards exclusion and inclusion. It will carry out the almost incalculably advantageous reform of giving executive powers, or will have the opportunity of giving executive powers, to the various committees of the Senate and it will add to these, committees for the first time an authentic and authorised representation of the subordinate collegiate bodies in their corporate capacity. Above all, it will institute this University Council which will have power, which will have money, which will be of manageable numbers, which will represent all the interests which ought to be represented, which will leave a sufficient majority to the representatives of the Senate to make it certain that if the Senate is unanimous, practically unanimous, upon any course, that course will be adopted by the University Council.
I have deliberately left out a great many of the subsidiary recommendations. I have deliberately tried to turn your Lordships' attention to the broad issues which are at stake, and I think that if
634
these broad issues are considered in the spirit in which I have endeavoured to advocate them, you will admit that the changes proposed constitute a great reform. I am aware, of course—I cannot be otherwise than aware—that changes so important as these cannot be proposed without raising alarm in certain quarters. I hope and believe that these alarms are totally unfounded. I have very ill expressed the views of the Government and the views of the Departmental Committee if I have not made it clear that we want to proceed upon the ancient lines. We want to make, I agree, great changes; we want to make no revolutions. We do not wish to destroy more than is absolutely necessary. We do not even wish to modify more than is absolutely necessary the autonomy of the various constituent elements of which the University is made up. We do want them to work altogether in far closer co-ordination than has been possible with the best will in the world under the machinery which legislation has so far provided, but the idea that we wish gratuitously to interfere with their appointments, with their organisation, with their objects—in particular, with any religious objects which particular institutions may have been founded to promote—that idea may well be dismissed from everybody's mind.
The external student, I think, gains in dignity from the changes that are proposed. He certainly does not lose in power. Those, therefore, who note with jealousy any suggestion that external students are, as it were, a blot upon the University system are labouring under a complete misapprehension. We feel, the Committee felt, the Government feel and I believe your Lordships will feel, that this great reform can be carried out and should be carried out without endangering any legitimate interests, without interfering in any way with the historical development of the University by trying forcibly to make the London University conform to the ordinary idea or practices of Universities very differently situated. Our view is that we must build on the old foundations, that we must preserve the great interests with which the University has concerned itself, that we must not attempt to run it into a uniform mould, and that we must deal sympathetically and justly with all the very

635
different interests which the Senate represents. I feel certain that if that is done no member of the University will look back on the legislation we propose with any feeling of regret, but that when the machinery is in working order, when it is all brought into harmony with the day-to-day work of this immense institution, they will say that the Committee and the Legislature which acted upon the Committee's Report have indeed succeeded in preserving all the valuable peculiarities of the University of London and, whilst preserving those peculiarities, have done an immense work in giving it unity and, with unity, efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it a scandal that this great question has not come before Parliament earlier. That is not a matter of reproach to this Government, nor yet to the last Government, nor to the Government before. It is due to a more deeply seated cause. This remarkable University question has the good fortune to-day to be the subject of a Bill embodying a definite proposition. To me it is a source of very great satisfaction that it should have reached that stage and been so definitely put forward, because there has stood in the way—and this more than anything else—an extraordinary division of opinion among men, men of eminence, men of learning, men of energy, as to the best means to get over the unfortunate situation in which the Metropolis of the Empire was placed. Here is the greatest City in the world without a properly organised teaching University. It is extraordinary that it should be so, and in no other country would it have been tolerated. But it is not so had as it looks. Although we have had no University, we have had growing up the most remarkable congeries of colleges and collegiate institutions that probably the world has ever seen in so small a centre. There are not only the two great University Colleges, University College and King's College, but there are other institutions more modern, such as the Imperial College of Science and Technology which stands as high as anything in the world.
Why is it that with this wealth of colleges growing up in the area of London the
636
proper organisation has not come earlier? The noble Earl will remember that when he and I were in the House of Commons there was a Bill which I think I drew up and pressed though he gave time for it and fathered it. It became the London University Act, 1898. It was a thoroughly second-rate Bill because it took only the most tentative of first steps towards bringing about the establishment of a teaching University in London. There were these admirable colleges, not as large as they are to-day but very large, which trained admirable students, who had to go up for external examinations by an examining body, which is all that the London University, in substance, was. There was no power to examine them and give them degrees based on their record or on the work that they had done under the eye of their teachers. The Bill sought to remedy that position and it met with scorn in the House of Commons. The member for the University moved its rejection. A large number of other eminent people opposed it, and in the end only the conviction of the House of Commons that it went the right way ultimately carried it through Parliament.
Then there was a Commission to draw Statutes to carry it out, over which the late Lord Rayleigh presided, and finally, about the year 1900, a so-called teaching University was in existence. Teaching was one side of its activities and examining another. The noble Earl has spoken very kindly and gently about the external side of the University, and I am not going to depart from his good example, but I wish emphatically to put it on record that a student trained under a distinguished professor, who guides him not only to examinations but in his reading, and in his work in the laboratory with personal counsel, a student who has gone through three or more years of that kind of teaching, is in a very different position from a student who is crammed up for an external examination, perhaps with the aid of one of these professional schools of crammers which have become so very efficient for everything of the kind. The external student is on the up-grade in the educational estimation of the present time, and it was found that in the University of London the conflict between the outlook of the external and internal students was too great to leave alone.

637
In 1909 the Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission, over which I had the honour to preside. Its Report has been so much abused since that I should be doing the noble Earl a, very ill service if I stood here to-day as its strong supporter. That Report, miscalled the Haldane Report and abused under that name, was drawn up by men the weight of whose names at least might carry the thing beyond anything that could tarn on personal considerations. Among my colleagues were the late Lord Milner, the late Sir Robert Morant, Sic William McCormick, who, I rejoice to think, is still alive and has done splendid work for University education not only in London but all over the country, Sir Robert, Romer, Mrs. Creighton and others. We reported unanimously. Why was that Report so ill-received? It was not because of what we did or proposed to do to the external students. We were compelled, for the same reasons as the noble Earl, to leave them severely alone. They were too powerful, they were everywhere—country doctors brought up under the examination system, teachers who had the trade mark of an external degree of some kind from the University and had used it everywhere. The University was helping this business by conducting its examinations in remote parts of the Empire—in Ceylon, in New Zealand and all over the world—so that it had a very powerful body of people to back it up. We looked at the external side and gave it the means to look after itself. What we concentrated on was the student with whom record was more important than examination and who made an attempt to stand for that which an undergraduate stands for in Oxford, Cambridge and other Universities where the student works under his teacher.
That Royal Commission took four years to report and then reported unanimously. What was the pith and substance of its Report? The very thing of which the noble Earl has told us—a smaller Senate. The Senate, then as now, had fifty-six members, and it was a hopeless body with every kind of divided counsel in it and impotent to get through the business. We suggested quite a small Senate, not nominated by partisan influence, but chosen by the Crown and by other bodies, and we proposed to give the University a great court in which it could hold its parliament and, as it were, blow itself off.
638
That proposal has been passed by, perhaps wisely, in the present Report. I never cared for it. The present Report originated, as the noble Earl has told us, in a Departmental Committee appointed by the last Government, of which my noble friend Lord Ernle was at first Chairman, though afterwards ill-health compelled him to relinquish that rather difficult position, and he was succeeded by Mr. Hilton Young. Now we have a Report the substance of which, as the noble Earl has told us, is not a small Senate—that, is waving the red flag in the face of the wild bull—but a small financial council which will manage the business of the University under the Senate, which will counsel the Senate, persuade the Senate and lead the Senate into paths in which the Senate should go—at least, we hope so. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that a small body of that kind is essential, and I also agree with the principle recommended in the Report of delegating executive control throughout the teaching arrangements.
For the rest, the Bill assumes a form which is now very familiar. It takes the Report, it schedules it to the Bill, and says that Commissioners are to be appointed for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the Report, with such modifications as circumstances may lead them to think desirable. I think that is the only way in which the matter could have been dealt with. I congratulate the Government on having tackled a very awkward and thorny question, and I am delighted to think that there is now a prospect of carrying the matter through. When it goes through it will still take a good deal of time to work things out, but at least you will have got this element of difference between the University of London as it stands to-day and the University of London as it will stand. You will have a central mind to which the colleges can contribute, and a mind which can direct and put together the types of study which are there in the University.
Things have changed very much almost within the last few months. The external side of London University drew its students from outside, from colleges which could give no degrees and whose students came up and took the external examination. The new University of Reading was a handsome contributor in that way. The noble Earl will remember

639
other enterprises in which we joined of establishing the new Universities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol and other places. I think we added among us, including the new Irish Universities, ten teaching Universities. These have all taken from those who formerly came up to the external side of the University of London and by the forces of gravitation, or whatever are their equivalent in these days, the internal side of London University is becoming more and more important. Now this common mind will at once set to work to see that this great University area of London represents a real University area, that there is no overlapping, and that there is more adequate provision of laboratories and other things than exists at the present time. The noble Earl has explained to us the purport of the Bill very clearly. I entirely agree with his diagnosis of the situation, and my great hope is that the Bill will become law as quickly as possible.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, in accordance with what we should have expected from him with his ripe experience and wisdom, dealt with simply the large principles which the Bill contains and did not, as he told us, go into details which may properly be the subject of discussion in Committee. But there is one point on which I want to say something, because it does not seem to me to be quite a detail. It concerns the principle of the Bill and affects more than one part of it. I yield to no one in my recognition of the importance of London University to the educational life of England as we stand to-day, but I want to call attention to the importance in that University of the theological faculty, and not only what that is doing, but is capable of doing, and likely to do, in the coming years.
What I am rather anxious about is the virtual absence from the Report itself of any practical reference to the problems raised with regard to the theological schools in the University and the complete absence of such reference from the actual Bill before us. The theological schools now affiliated or belonging to the London University are five in number—two attached to the Church of England and three to other religious
640
bodies, and all of them in active operation, with in some cases the prospect of very greatly increased activity in the coming years. It is of real importance that care should be taken to see that these theological schools do not suffer detriment in any way from the legislation which is now impending. That the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is friendly to that element in University life needs no word from me or any one who knows what his actions have been. I do not mistrust him for one moment, but when we turn from what he expresses to the actual measure itself, or to the Report upon which it is based, we find some marked facts.
One is that the theological part of the University has no representation, under the new measure, on the Senate, and further, that the rules laid down under which the schools of the University are to be admitted or continued seem to require that they shall be very greatly modified if they are to be made applicable to the theological schools. The modifications are not suggested, but any one will see that some modification is absolutely necessary. The Commissioners have some power under the Bill, as drawn, not merely to give effect to the Report of the Committee but to modify it where they see that modification is necessary, but we have no evidence before us that can be relied upon that they will effect such modifications. The argument, I have no doubt, is that you must trust the Senate, that the Senate will have power to act with consideration for all the schools which are affiliated to the University, and therefore for the theological schools along with the others. The answer, no doubt, is that there are to be modifications of the rules to make them applicable to those schools and that the Senate may be trusted to do that.
I am prepared to trust the Senate. In ordinary circumstances I have not the slightest doubt that the thing will be fairly dealt with, but I should like to see the gravity of the situation really recognised. When I heard the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, refer to the theological side I waited with interest to hear what changes were thought to be necessary to safeguard those interests. As things stand the theological schools have some representation, though it is not very marked, upon the Senate, because King's College, which has its theological side, has

641
two members on the body. It is proposed that the college should have one representative only if the Report is carried out, and there is no reason to suppose that the theological side rather than any other will be represented on the Senate.
Much more marked than that, however, is the way in which the schools of the University are described in the rules governing the admission or re-admission of an institution as a school of the University. The first is that the University is satisfied with the constitution of the governing body of the institution and with the Statutes under which it is governed. I do not know that that would require any modification; but then we come to the next:
"That the institution recognises the right of the Council of the University to negotiate on the institution's behalf with public grant-giving bodies, and to receive and allocate the grants available for University education in London."
There are no grants; we get no Government grants for that. The theological colleges are not supported out of public funds at all, but are supported by private contributions; therefore that phrase is inapplicable.
But the next rule goes on to say:
"That the institution undertakes not to issue a public appeal for money without first obtaining the consent of the Council of the University."
The theological colleges receive no money from the Government, and unless the Council of the University consents they could not make an appeal to other people to give it. I do not suppose for a moment that that would be allowed to remain as an obstacle—a modification would be made to meet the requirements; but it ought to be made in some way or other perfectly clear to us from the first that it is intended that the theological side shall be free to act in the way in which it must act if it is to carry on its work at all, and that the Senate and Council of the University would support it in so doing. The last rule reads:
"That the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teacher; as the Senate may determine."
I think I understood the noble Earl to say with regard to that, that he recognised it was obvious that the theological college or school could not relegate to the Senate of the University the appoint-
642
ment of its theological teachers, nor would the authorities of the University desire that it should do so.
All that I want to point out is that it seems to me that when we come to a later stage we shall be anxious to know whether it is not possible to safeguard rather more definitely the interests of the theological department of London University as a, whole, as constituted by its five separate schools, and that some care should be taken to show that their interests are properly remembered and safeguarded. Admirable men—and there is one lady—are named under the Bill as Commissioners to go into that matter. No one of them has special qualifications peculiarly suited for making him the arbiter or adviser with regard to the theological department, but that no doubt is due, I imagine, to the view entertained that in appointing those men it was not desirable that any one of them should seem to be too limited in the range of his knowledge or his experience, so as to make him a representative of, I will not say some partisan body, but of sonic small section only. That, no doubt, is the reason, but none the less we who are interested in the theological side see very clearly that we shall want, if our interests are to be properly secured for the future, some further assurance than we have already obtained with regard to that matter.
It may easily be said, and no doubt will be said in some quarters: "Your theological schools are not asking for money, and therefore we do not see any real reason why, because you still live in London and make use of London University for some of your work, you should ask for any special recognition or special status with respect to the University and its life. You are outsiders in one sense, because you are not the recipients of grants; you might be outsiders in other senses by standing aside from the secular side of the teaching." A thing that I am more anxious to advocate than anything else with regard to the theological teaching in our Universities is that the two things should be not sundered, that the theological teaching should be linked together in the most marked way with the general educational life of the highest branch of education in the country. We hear criticisms often—I will not say they are fair—about the danger that our theological colleges

643
may be isolating from other people men who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, to the great disadvantage of the men themselves and possibly of the University with which they may be associated, and possibly also of the public at large. I believe entirely in the amalgamation and working together of the theological and what we may call the secular side of the training of men, either in connection with the Universities or outside Universities, who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, and I dread anything which might seem to put those men a little apart from the trend and drift of the highest University education by provisions which may now be coming into force.
I know such is not the intention of the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. I cannot believe that it is in the least the intention of the Report as a whole, as it is now worded, or that the Commissioners who have been appointed are men who would do it; but I think we want to be satisfied that there is something a little more marked as to the status, the position and the welcome that is given to the theological side of University life at a moment when, for reasons which I could easily give, it is likely to become more and more important as the years go on, and more and more to call for a linking in the fullest way with the highest educational life of this University or of the country.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I approach the proposals embodied in this Bill from two points of view: in the first place, from the point of view of University College, no inconsiderable or unimportant part of the University, and of which I have been Chairman for the past five years; in the second place, from the point of view of one who has had to work a Statutory Commission and the machinery of a Statutory Commission for the past three years. From both these points of view I wish most cordially to support the provisions of this Bill. I shall not dwell upon the controversies which have been alluded to by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading and by my noble friend behind me. Those controversies have always been with London University, and it is because we all recognise that the position is intolerable at the present moment that we who form the constituent parts of the. University are prepared to
644
give up some of the privileges which we possess at the present moment and welcome this attempt to reform the University of London.
When the Departmental Committee reported, we, in University College, at once took their Report into consideration. We considered it very carefully, not only in the College Committee but also in our academic body, the Professorial Board. The general position of these two bodies was that they wished to give a general blessing to the proposals of this Bill. I do not suggest for one moment that these two bodies were not critical of certain proposals contained in the Departmental Committee's Report, but what we felt was that the machinery of a Statutory Commission offered a solution of the present unsatisfactory position in the University of London, and, as to those matters to which we took exception, the proper stage at which to raise our objections would be when the Statutory Commission began to sit and began to make Statutes; we could then raise the various points of criticism which we had to make against the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, emphasised to your Lordships the position of that important body which is recommended to be set up in the Report of the Departmental Committee—namely, the University Council. That is an entirely new conception, and it is round this new creation of a University Council that the controversy is going to rage. No doubt the noble Earl is familiar with the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee and it is on the relations between the Senate and this new University Council that the main criticism and the main opposition will be based. In explaining the position of the University Council and the real necessity for such a body, the noble Earl informed your Lordships that grants of public money have to be made at present through the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But he did not bring to your notice, and naturally so, the amount of money that is really involved each year in these grants from outside bodies to the University of London. On page 19 of the Report the Committee give the total sums that were contributed both by the Treasury, through the University Grants Committee, and

645
the London County Council, in the year 1924–25. They amounted to £377,695 from the Treasury and £78,366 from the London County Council. I may say that, roughly speaking, the revenue of my own college for the year is somewhere about £172,006 and at least half of that comes from grants by outside bodies—the Treasury and the London County Council.
Having had to approach these bodies—the University Grants Committee and the London County Council—on behalf of University College, I should naturally regret the change from the old state of things, because when one went to the University Grants Committee or the London County Council one found they were bodies who were experts in their subject, who criticised our educational proposals, who watched with very great care how the various departments were progressing, who pointed out some of our mistakes and said: "Do you not think this is hardly worth keeping going?" or "Do you not think that requires a little more money?" From that point of view, the selfish point of view of one who is Chairman of University College, I shall regret that very liberal education which one received from having these meetings with the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But when we considered this question in the meetings of our College we came to the conclusion that the present position was quite indefensible. We felt that, though we regretted having to forego these firsthand dealings with these authorities, we could not resist the proposals, because the true principle was that the grants should be made to the University itself. And when we read the recommendations of the Departmental Committee we felt that we could have confidence in the University Council which is proposed by the Departmental Committee. We felt also that it was essential that these outside authorities—the London County Council and the University Grants Committee—should have complete confidence in the University body which would advise upon and distribute these grants.
May I read one passage from the Report of the London County Council on this very subject last year? It puts the matter bluntly, I might say even rudely, but it shows how strongly these outside bodies feel on the subject. The Council resolved on July 7, 1925:—
646
"That, in the best interests of the University and of the Council, the financial arrangements between them should provide that the total grant fixed by the Council in aid of University education in London should be given as a block grant to the Senate, but that, while the constitution and powers Of the Senate remain as at present, the Council does not feel it possible to adopt this arrangement."
Could anything be more emphatic than that declaration of policy on the part of the London County Council, that so long as the Senate is constituted as it is at present it will have nothing to do with the suggested scheme of financial help?
The Departmental Committee strongly recommend a point which was enforced in the speech of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—that the present Senate is too large for any such work as is suggested. It is said, on page 26 of the Report:—
"We may say at once that we do not regard a large assembly, such as the Senate must inevitably be, as suitable to negotiate with public grant-giving authorities on behalf of the University and its colleges."
The Minority Report of the Departmental Committee suggests that this is whittling away the position of the Senate as the authoritative body and says that there will be difficulties and disputes in future between the Senate and the new University Council. I think the Report of the Departmental Committee makes it clear that the Senate's position is to be supreme in matters educational and that it is only on the financial side that the University Council will come in. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system by which these two bodies can work in co-operation and in harmony.
In this connection I have had to try to arrange at Oxford a system by which the Hebdomadal Council, the Chest and the General Board of Faculties should be able to carry on their proceedings in cooperation and in harmony, and to arrange machinery by which in cases of dispute a deadlock could be removed and the will of one or the other should prevail. There was no difficulty about it by means of the machinery of the Statutory Commission. We kept in the closest touch with all these bodies when we were devising the scheme and through their friendly co-operation we were able to surmount those difficulties. I feel confident that by means of this machinery of

647
a Statutory Commission similar difficulties in connection with the University of London will be overcome if the University bodies, whether the University itself or the colleges, are determined to give goodwill and help. In regard to the machinery of the Statutory Commission, the general words are that the Statutory Commission shall make Statutes in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. That follows the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act of 1923. And then it says "with such modifications as may seem expedient." We interpreted the words "in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee" as meaning that the Statutory Commission was to observe the basic principles which had been laid down, whether by a Royal Commission, as in our case, or a Departmental Committee, as in this; but that within those basic principles it was able to make modifications.
The most rev. Primate mentioned just now a difficulty which weighed especially with him in connection with the theological faculties. It is not my business to make suggestions, but may I respectfully suggest to him that if he refers to what happened in connection with the Universities Act of 1923 he will see that certain bodies at Oxford and Cambridge who had recent trusts, some of them religious trusts, obtained certain protection. I do not suggest that his position is on all fours with that, but, at all events, it would be quite possible if the Government think that the case of the theological colleges needs, and ought to have, a protection, to insert some clause which would give that protection to them as was given in the case of Hertford College and other colleges that had recent trusts. Apart from that there is, of course, the protection which he could always get through the. Statutory Commission when they come to make their Statutes. They would, within the general principles of the Bill, be able to give him ample protection. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships even this short time, and I wish cordially to support the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain you very long. I am only anxious to direct your Lordships' attention to one single point in this Bill and to rein-
648
force, if I can, what has been already said by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wish to voice the uneasiness that is felt by those who are interested in the theological colleges which are associated with the University in regard to this Bill. This is a Bill upon which we should all wish to see a general agreement. I think we owe our thanks to the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, for the most conciliatory manner in which he introduced this measure. But there are theological colleges, including New College at Hampstead, which is Congregationalist; Regent's Park College, which is Baptist; and the Wesleyan College at Richmond, as well as King's College and St. John's Hall, Highgate, which are concerned.
Your Lordships will notice that under the Bill the Statutes are to be made by the Commissioners named in the Bill and they must be made upon the basis of the Report. Whatever the Commissioners may think to be the proper course to take, however much they may think that a Statute should not be made in a particular sense, they must do it if it is so directed in this Report of the Departmental Committee. If your Lordships will turn to page 56 of the Departmental Committee's Report, which has already been referred to by the most rev. Primate, your Lordships will see that under paragraph 10 (b) the Council of the University is to negotiate with public grant-giving bodies. Imagine that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or even the General Assembly of the Church of England, or some of those general assemblies which govern the various denominations that I have mentioned, wish to give donations, it seems to me quite unnecessary that they should enter into negotiations with the Council of the University and that they should not be allowed to engage directly with the governing body of the theological college concerned.
Again, there are existing trusts for theological colleges and there are these denominational bodies to which I have already referred. These are to be forced, according to the scheme of the Departmental Committee, to consult, or rather to negotiate, with the Council of the University and not with the governing body of the theological college concerned. The most rev. Primate has already referred

649
to the condition that they are not even to issue a public request for money without the sanction of the Council of the University. But, most important of all, the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite obvious that it will be very difficult indeed for any theological college to accept a condition of that kind and to hand over to another body, on which there is no guarantee of sympathy, the appointment of its principal teachers. It will be agreed that that, at any rate, is a very strong request to make to these theological colleges.
The safeguards which exist do not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. I may be told that the consent which is necessary under Clause 4 of the Bill will be sufficient and also that it would be perfectly obvious that the Senate would do nothing which would be disagreeable to the council of the theological college. But I should like safeguards a little more substantial than those and I do not think it is an unreasonable request to make. The most rev. Primate suggested that there should be upon this Commission somebody who would represent the experience of the theological colleges. Whether that would be sufficient or not entirely to meet the case I am not prepared to say, but there is, as your Lordships may know, a considerable amount of protest on the part of the Senate and of Convocation against some of the provisions of this Departmental Commission. Apart from those provisions, to which I do not desire to refer, I do wish once more to urge upon His Majesty's Government the importance of making this, as far as possible, an agreed Bill, and giving time between now and Committee stage to allow such negotiations to take place as will permit of the uneasiness to which I have referred being removed and the measure being passed practically as an agreed Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, we have had some very interesting speeches, but I think the only serious criticism of the Bill has come from the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just sat down. As far as I remember, the other speakers were, on the whole, strongly in favour of the measure which I have had the honour to introduce. The noble Earl and the most
650
rev. Primate, however, are afraid that the Bill touches the theological colleges or endangers in sonic respects their position. I am entirely in favour of considering that matter in detail when we come to Committee, but I ought at this stage to say that I believe the fears that have been expressed are really quite groundless. The general policy of the Legislature with regard to the University of London is embodied in a Schedule to the London University Act of 1898, and that provides that no religious tests shall be adopted or imposed and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at any disadvantage on the ground of religious principles. That represents the policy and the last thing the Government desire to do is in any way to modify to their disadvantage the position of the theological colleges.
I cannot help thinking that both the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just spoken are under sonic misconception as to the effect of the Bill. The Bill does not really touch any of the matters of which they are afraid. The noble Earl, for example, called the attention of your Lordships to the last paragraph on page 56 of the Report which requires that a new college of the University must relinquish to the Senate the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite certain that nobody desires with regard to the new denominational colleges that they shall ask the Senate to do what the Senate cannot do, which is to deal with a theological problem. That is as regards the future. That is an observation which touches colleges which are new—religious colleges or denominational colleges which the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl suggest might be brought into existence. I am quite ready to consider that problem in Committee, but I think what was most exercising the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate was whether this clause would effect the interests of existing colleges.
It would not affect them and it cannot affect the interest of existing colleges. If the most rev. Primate will look at the first sentence of the paragraph headed, "Schools of the University" he will see that (d), like (a), (b) and (c), refers to the conditions governing the admission or readmission of institutions

651
to the University. A school which is already a school of the University, which does not ask for admission and does not require readmission, cannot be touched under paragraph 10 on page 56. Therefore, so far as existing interests are concerned, I am quite unable to see how the least peril threatens any of the institutions on whose behalf the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have spoken. If it be thought necessary we might, when we come to the Committee stage, consider the possibility of new theological schools coming into existence and examine whether they are not also protected. I think they are. I believe they are protected, for example, by such sentences as those read out from the Schedule of the University of London Act, 1898. It is quite certain, if anything in this world is certain, that the last thing the University of London as constituted or reconstituted desires to do in the present or in the future is to interfere with the theological side of any subsidiary institution. That is entirely outside its whole method of dealing with things.
Somebody ignorant of the facts might say: "Well, cannot those who have a prejudice on these subjects instinctively use their power of giving or withholding money to the detriment of some of these theological colleges?" But the theological colleges ask for no money. The question of public money does not come in. There is no threat that I can see that can be held out to existing colleges or to any college that may come into existence in the future. It seems to me they are not in the smallest degree threatened by anything in this Bill. The noble Earl and the most rev. Primate may disagree with me on the drafting question, but at all events I hope they will be content with the statement in principle that the last thing we desire and the last thing I am sure this Bill will, in any sense, accomplish is to threaten institutions which within the University have, I believe, done admirable work in the past, are doing admirable work in the present and, as the most rev. Primate suggested in his speech, are on the eve of carrying out an even greater and more important work than that on which they have been engaged.
I think I need not say any more, except, perhaps, on one point. The most rev. Primate expressed his strong opinion
652
that the teaching of those who are to take part in the religious ministry would be far better carried on in institutions not entirely devoted to theological purposes. He expressed that view strongly and as far as I am concerned—of course I do not speak in such a matter for the Government—I most heartily endorse it. I believe it is the very essence of the healthy education of those who have to deal with religious questions of the day, and I should be most unhappy if I thought anything done or suggested by the present Government should tend to destroy a system which in itself I think incomparably better than the narrower view of theological education which prevails, I have to admit, in very high quarters. So far as my opinion is of any value in such a discussion, I am unreservedly on the side of the most rev. Primate.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Obligation to furnish statutory statements.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every person who sells for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle or poultry any article included in the first column of the First or Second Schedule to this Act, whatever may be the name under which the article is sold, to give the purchaser on or before delivery, or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, a statement in writing (hereinafter referred to as a statutory statement) in such form (if any) as may be, prescribed, containing the following particulars:—
(c) where the article, if a feeding stuff, contains any ingredient included in the Third Schedule to this Act, or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes, the name of such ingredient:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes." The noble Lord said: As regards this first Amendment we think that on the whole it is desirable to omit these words. Nearly all feeding stuffs contain some substance which might be regarded as worthless if separated from other ingredients and considered by itself. Moreover, all these worthless ingredients are supposed to be contained in the Third Schedule to the Bill and if they are not so contained they can be added hereafter by Regulation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 2.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Implied warranties]:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), to omit the words "or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes." The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment to the one which has just been agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to the end of subsection (2).—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Consignments ex ship quay]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: The Amendment to this clause is merely a drafting Amendment to conform with other similar clauses in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after ("inspector") insert ("in the prescribed manner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Sales in small quantities.
6. Where an article is sold for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle or poultry in small quantities from a parcel which purports to be labelled in manner hereinbefore provided, and from an analysis
654
of a sample thereof taken by an inspector in the prescribed manner on the premises on which the parcel is kept it appears that the particulars stated on the label are false to the prejudice of the purchaser, or do not include any particulars which are required by this Act to be contained in a statutory statement, the seller shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, before "seller," to insert "owner or." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the taking of samples by official samplers, and it is clear that a sample may be taken by an inspector without actually purchasing it. Hence it is desirable to introduce the word "owner" before seller.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("the") insert ("owner or").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Deleterious ingredients in feeding stuffs.
7.—(1) Any person who sells or offers or exposes for sale for use as food for cattle or poultry any article which contains any ingredient deleterious to cattle or poultry, or has in his possession, packed and prepared, for sale for such use any such article, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert:—
"unless he proves

"(a) that he did not know, and could not with reasonable care have known, that the article contained a deleterious ingredient; and

"(b) where he obtained the article from some other person, that on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom he obtained it, and as to the statutory statement given to him, and as to any mark applied to the article when he obtained it."

The noble Lord said: This is a more important matter. These words are proposed to be inserted in order to prevent a vendor who is morally free from any blame being convicted on a criminal charge. I may mention that this Bill will not prevent his being successfully sued in a civil action, should a civil action lie. I do not think that I need explain these words further. They appear in a similar connection in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Powers of entry and sampling]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: A drafting Amendment to This clause appears in my name upon the Paper, but I propose to move it in a different form, with your Lordships' permission, on the Report stage. I think we can find a simpler form of words.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Provisions as to analysis of samples.
13.—(1) Where a sample has been taken by an inspector or official sampler in the prescribed manner he shall divide it into three parts and cause each part to be marked, sealed and fastened up and he shall send two of the parts to the agricultural analyst together with a signed statement that the sample was taken in the prescribed manner, and the third part he shall send to the owner or seller:
Provided that if the inspector does not know the name and address of the owner or seller it shall be sufficient if he delivers or offers such third part as aforesaid to the occupier or person in charge of the premises upon which the sample was taken.
(6) Where a sample taken in the prescribed manner has been analysed by the agricultural analyst, he shall furnish to the person who submitted the sample for analysis and, where that person is not the purchaser, also to the purchaser and in every case to the owner or seller of the article a copy of his certificate of analysis:
Provided that if the agricultural analyst does not know the name and address of the owner or seller, he shall send a copy of his certificate intended for the owner or seller to the person who submitted the sample, who shall forward it to the owner or seller.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "shall" ["the third part he shall send"] to insert "deliver or." The noble Lord: This clause lays down provisions as to the analysis of samples of feeding stuffs and fertilisers and this Amendment contemplates the case where the owner or seller is present when the sample is taken. It is obvious that in that case it will be quite sufficient to deliver the
656
third sample, which he is entitled to have independently, instead of sending it to him.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, after ("shall") insert ("deliver or").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert "as may be prescribed." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment, but I ought to explain that it is important that a person who may be prosecuted shall be given promptly the third part of the sample, which is sent to him, of course, for his protection.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("seller") insert ("as may be prescribed").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The omission of this proviso is consequential upon the last Amendment. The Amendment which immediately follows is also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 8
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("a copy of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the proviso to subsection (6), to leave out "a copy of." The noble Lord said: We feel that it is important in such a case as this, where criminal proceedings may result, that the actual certificate should be sent and not merely a copy of the certificate from an agricultural analyst.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("a copy of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Financial provisions relating to the councils of county and county boroughs.
17.—(1) The council of any county or county borough may contribute towards the expenses incurred by any agricultural body or association in causing samples to be taken for analysis by the agricultural analyst.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "taken,' to insert" by an official sampler in the prescribed manner." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that, where an agricultural body or association, with the help of public money, causes an analysis to be made, such analysis shall be made in the same manner as is prescribed by the Bill. Otherwise there may be a considerable waste of public money owing to improper or irregular analyses directed by an agricultural organisation.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, after ("taken") insert ("by an official sampler in the prescribed manner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Safeguards to traders.
(2) A person shall not be liable to conviction under this Act for applying a false mark to an article or making a false entry in his register or for failure to state the presence in a feeding stuff of an ingredient included in the Third Schedule to this Act or any worthless ingredient if he proves—

(a) that having taken all reasonable precautions against, committing an offence against this Act he had not at the time of committing the alleged offence reason to suspect the correctness of the mark or entry; and

(b) where he obtained the article from seine other person, that on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom be obtained it and as to the statutory statement given to him, and as to any mark applied to the article when he obtained it.

LORD BLEDISLOE: My first two Amendments to this clause are consequential upon the first Amendment to which your Lordships agreed.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("or worthless"),
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("or any worthless ingredient").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "entry" to insert "or the presence of
658
such ingredients as aforesaid as the case may be." The noble Lord said: This Amendment becomes necessary in order to make this particular line of defence applicable to the failure to state the presence in foodstuffs of a worthless ingredient, as provided by the Third Schedule. As a matter of fact three offences are constituted under Clause 2 in regard to which we deem it desirable that a person should have this opportunity of proving that there is no moral turpitude on his part. We have already referred to two of them but we inadvertently omitted the third and this Amendment is intended to bring it in. For the purpose of greater grammatical accuracy I move it in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, after ("entry") insert ("or the presence of such ingredient as aforesaid as the case may be").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My other Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, leave out ("or worthless").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Regulations.
(3) All regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the regulations are laid before them, presents an address to His Majesty praying that the regulations or any part of them may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the regulations without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "His Majesty may annul the regulations" and to insert "they shall henceforth be void, but." The noble Lord said: The Parliamentary Secretary having intimated that he accepts my Amendment I need only say that it is intended to give

659
your Lordships a similar protection to that provided in all other Agricultural Bills.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I quite agree that this form of the clause gives Parliament greater control, and I am entirely in sympathy with it. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminds me that the word "henceforth" ought to read "thenceforth."
LORD STRACHIE: I will move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("His Majesty may annul the regulations") and insert ("they shall thenceforth be void, but").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have a purely drafting Amendment to this clause which is intended to contemplate the case where a mark is put upon the goods instead of an actual description being furnished with them.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 34, after ("stating") insert ("or indicating").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

FORESTRY 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 Lovat.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, before Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:—
"Account of Expenditure.
"Expenditure by the Forestry Commissioners shall be included in the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture as submitted to Parliament."
660
The noble Earl said: I move this clause for the dual purpose of adjusting what is at the present moment the anomalous position of the Forestry Commission and at the same time in the hope of helping the future development of forestry in this country. At the present moment, if it is desired in another place to ask any Question with regard to the work of the Forestry Commission any member of the House of Commons who happens to be a member of the Commission is called upon or asked to answer the Question. The money that is spent by the Forestry Commission is, of course, Government money, but there appears to be at the present moment no sort of Government responsibility for the answers that are given to members in the House of Commons. It is extremely difficult to raise debates on the work of the Forestry Commission, and here I may say that I am not questioning whether their work is satisfactory or is unsatisfactory.
The first point is a constitutional point. It is really this, that the manner of running an industry, as forestry is, by a national Commission is really somewhat of an experimental departure for this country, and it therefore seems to some of us that it is extremely important that, in this new departure, the exact balance between, on the one hand, too much Parliamentary interference in the running of a technical matter, and, on the other hand, sufficient public control, should be adjusted. The second reason for my moving this Amendment is my desire to help in the future development of forestry. It should be easier to raise direct Questions—directed, that is, to the entity responsible for providing the money—on this vital subject, and we believe that by bringing this Commission into connection with a Department, and therefore under the necessity of having a direct Departmental Vote, we are going to help the development of forestry and increase its importance.
The Amendment asks that expenditure by the Forestry Commissioners should be included in the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture as submitted to Parliament. There are some of us who believe that forestry is a sufficiently important department in this country to deserve a Ministry of its own. However, there is another school which says, I think on the whole rightly, that it is impossible really

661
to separate forestry from agriculture. Progressive and expert opinion that deals with this question is, I believe, coming more and more to the realisation that the best way of developing forestry is by the system known as forestry holdings; that is, by the establishment of small holdings which shall provide work for those who are normally, or at certain seasonal times, engaged in forestry. If that is so it is, I think, impossible to separate these two subjects, and for that reason I move my Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
Finally, I would like, if I may, to appeal to the noble Lord opposite, who I know has the cause of forestry so much at heart. The Bill has received a certain amount of opposition in another place from colleagues of mine, and perhaps I may make it clear to him that they are in no way opposed to the Bill itself, or to the work that he is trying so earnestly to carry out. They feel, however, and I feel, that this constitutional question should, and must, be settled at this opportunity, because this Bill does deal with the constitution of this Commission. This is not a Party question, but at the same time I feel that the noble Lord, by accepting this Amendment, has a great opportunity of stopping this question from becoming a Party one. Until this question is settled there is going to be most determined opposition to the work of the Forestry Commission. This is an opportunity of removing what I might call a running sore, and I would appeal to the noble Lord to accept this Amendment and thereby help us to go forward all together, working for the same cause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in the first place I should like to say how much the Forestry Commission owes to all Parties, and not least by any means to the Labour Party, for the assistance it has received in carrying on forestry work. In saying this, however, I am afraid that the noble Earl cannot expect me to accept his Amendment as it stands. In the first place, it is not included in the Preamble of the Bill; in the second place we should have serious differences
662
in another place should we deal with the privileged question as to how the accounts should be presented in the House of Commons. I am, however, very glad that the noble Earl has raised the question of the relations of the Forestry Commission with other Departments, because it gives me an opportunity of stating what I believe to be the attitude of the Government upon the subject.
May I say straightaway that the question is one which those who have been associated with forestry have envisaged from the very start? When the 1917 Committee sat, on which the Liberal, Conservative, and Labour Parties were represented, it was one of the matters which caused them most serious thought, and on which ultimately they reported unanimously. This matter was also raised in the Cabinet after that Committee had reported, and an examination of the matter was made by people no less distinguished than the late noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, the late Lord Milner and Mr. George Barnes. I am not sure whether Lord Ernle was or was not a member of that Committee. The decision was arrived at that it was most important to keep forestry clear of Party politics, not to have an official head in either House of Parliament, that the money voted for forestry should be voted in the first instance in the form of a block grant so as to ensure funds for a consecutive policy and that to preserve Parliamentary control such a block grant should be drawn on by an annual Vote.
If, to use the noble Earl's own words, we are brought into some connection with the Department of Agriculture, that position will automatically cease. May I point out to the noble Earl that it is not only a question of bringing forestry into touch with one Department of Agriculture; you will have to bring it into touch with both the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, with the result that we in the Forestry Commission will have to report to two separate Departments, and our Parliamentary Vote, instead of being divided into, say, twelve Parliamentary heads, will have to be divided into twenty-four Parliamentary heads, so that the whole of our system of preparing Estimates

663
will be enormously complicated, and eventually it must end in the division of the Forestry Commission into two halves, one for Scotland and one for England. May I explain how this is absolutely unworkable, and how both the 1917 Committee and the Cabinet Committee which sat upon their Report were persuaded on examination that it was unworkable?
Let me give three examples—there are many others which I could give. Between a third and a fourth of the Forestry Commission's money is spent every year in the acquisition of land. At the present moment, being a single Department, we can acquire land in England, or in Scotland, or in Wales as opportunity arises. For the first five years of our work, quite contrary to what was the opinion of those who had studied the question before, it was found that better land was more cheaply acquired in England than in Scotland. Economic and sentimental conditions led to this. If we had had two Departments the Scottish Department would certainly have insisted on a considerable quantity of our land being bought in Scotland, and we should have lost the turn of the market. Now a change has taken place, and in the last six months we have acquired more land in Scotland than in England. That may continue, or it may not. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that if forestry had been divided into two departments, with a hard line between the two countries, there would have been much greater difficulty in getting the best bargains which were going.
If that is true of the administration it is even more true of the personnel. I happen to be at the moment sitting on a Committee at the Colonial Office, and there our main difficulty in recruiting the best agricultural officers is that many of the non-self-governing Colony services are so small that good men will not go into them. We have been sitting for a year and a half, and we are in process of making recommendations to get over this and other difficulties. Surely it would be retrograde and foolish to divide this service into two halves. If you have a single forestry service you recruit better men, because there are more chances of promotion and bigger salaries at the top.
664
Thirdly—and I think this is the most important point—there is the question of research. We have got very little money to spend altogether. We have a definite job set out for us, and we allot such money as we can spare from the more visible work of planting trees to the work of prosecuting research. Running your research from one centre you are able to allot to an individual University or group of workers anywhere certain problems which you ask them to solve. In the same way with applied research or experiment, you have got the whole of your nursery research, the whole of the research into plant growth, the whole of the question of sample plots, of which we have several hundreds running all over the country; we are able to organise all those from one centre and to co-ordinate research so that the ground is covered without overlapping. If this work were divided into two parts, under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the English Ministry of Agriculture, with the best intentions in the world it would be very hard to co-ordinate the effort.
I think I have said enough to show that it would be a great mistake to put the Forestry Commission into a subordinate position to these two Boards of Agriculture. The noble Earl said something about that being the way that thought was tending in other countries. I absolutely deny that. I have only just come from a World Forestry Conference, and I can assure the noble Earl that I was often congratulated that England had started by keeping its Forestry Commission separate from the Ministry of Agriculture, because one and all of the older countries said: "We are always having our money taken away from the long-distance demands of forestry to the short-distance demands of agriculture." That is only reasonable. If you have money voted under a Department which shows its results from year to year how can you expect the head of that Department to allow money to be spent in another Sub-Department which cannot show its results for twenty, thirty or more years? I think those arguments are fundamental, and they are the reasons which induced the Committee of 1917 and the Cabinet in 1918 to decide that the Forestry Commission was not to be subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture.

665
There is another point. If it is not subordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture the only other Department to which it could be subordinated is the Treasury. But we have the very greatest care taken of us by the Treasury to-day. As you will see by the Act of 1919, all payments out of and into the Forestry Fund, and all other matters relating to the Fund and monies standing to their credit must be made and regulated "in such mariner as the Treasury may by Minute laid before Parliament direct." I can assure your Lordships that in the Forestry Commission one cannot employ a clerk or buy an Acre of land unless it is inside the regulations laid down by Treasury. This control by the Treasury is a very real one and not the loose general control indicated by the Estimates Committee Report of 1926.
So much for the question of this Amendment. The noble Earl then raised the matter of Questions in the other House and said that no responsible Minister, but only a Forestry Commissioner, answered Questions in the other House. That is a matter for the Government to decide. If the Government wishes to do so it can authorise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer Questions, without putting anything in the Bill itself. There is nothing in the Act of 1919 which provides that Questions in another place shall be answered by any particular person. All it says is that one member of the Forestry Commission shall be a member of the House of Commons. As your Lordships are aware, the Prime Minister has already dealt with this subject in an answer to a Question in another place. He said, in effect, that while he did not propose to express an opinion one way or the other as to the advisability of having answers given by members of the Government, he thought the matter had best be raised at a time when the review of the forestry position as a whole would take place. That must be in not less than one year from now.
Might I point out to the noble Earl that the Forestry block grant has only a ten years' life, seven and a half of which have already expired. It will be necessary next year to ascertain the views of Par-
666
liament as to what is to be done, so that the purchase of land, the purchase of seed and other necessary measures can be considered in preparation for the next ten years programme. That will afford an opportunity of coming to a decision upon this particular point, unless it is thought necessary to do so beforehand. I shall be only too delighted if Questions are answered and Bills brought forward by one of the noble Lords sitting below me and I believe that my colleague in another place would be equally glad. But it must be remembered that the experiment in connection with the Forestry Commission is being carried out on a ten years' basis, and it is questionable whether it would not be better to finish the period of ten years without alteration. One point I should like to make in this connection—namely, that if the Cabinet decides to answer Questions by a responsible Minister either in your Lordships' House or in another place, this should not be regarded as a step to subordinate the Forestry Commission to another Department. It is of primary importance that the Forestry Commission should be outside Party politics and should have its own block grant voted for a definite period so that it may lay out its plans and carry them into practice. In forestry it is necessary to take long views; the period of preparation for planting operations extends over not less than four years. Your Lordships will recollect that for a very short period our work was interfered with by the Geddes Committee of Inquiry; during that period forestry had a set-back which lasted two years and I calculate that £100,000 was wasted without the least good being done. I am satisfied, speaking with seven years' experience of the work, that any change in control would lead to a corresponding waste of public money.
I hope that the noble Earl will do his best to influence his colleagues to give this Bill an easy passage in another place. The Bill is conceived in the first place in the labour interest. We have fulfilled our promise of bringing on to the Commission a Labour member. We welcome his presence and he is a most valuable member. But we had to accept the resignation of one of our members, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, who has done

667
more work in investigating the problems connected with growing timber at high elevations on peat land than any one in Europe. We accepted his resignation on the definite understanding that he should return to us at the earliest opportunity and at the request of the Prime Minister he acts in an honorary position on our Commission.
The second half of the Bill deals with the question of by-laws. The main object of these by-laws is to control the visits of the public in the earlier stages of forestry and in the latter stages to give the people the freest access to what is after all their own property. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will either be able to curb the anxiety of his Party to have their Questions answered by a responsible Minister or that representations will be made to His Majesty's Government that such Questions shall be answered in the way he desires. I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I shall most willingly acquiesce in the decision arrived at by His Majesty's Government on the subject.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Lord very much for his sympathetic reply to my proposal. He has shown that certain difficulties exist regarding the division of the forestry service into two separate services, though how far it is going to be really necessary to subordinate it, or, as in some ways we feel, promote it to be part of the two Boards of Agriculture, remains to me very doubtful. But in so far as he has shown it to be undesirable, I cannot help feeling that he has proved conclusively the value of the suggestion I threw out—that the solution of this difficulty lay ultimately in the establishment of a special Ministry for forestry, so important do we consider this particular industry. However, the chief point was the question of Parliamentary control, and I gather that while the noble Lord is not prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the Amendment, he is prepared in some ways to use his influence in obtaining a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty that exists. If that is so, I will withdraw my Amendment in the hope that by the time the Report Stage is reached some sort of settlement will have been arrived at. I should warn the noble Lord that unless
668
he can go a very considerable way towards meeting the point, it will not be possible to guarantee quite such an easy passage in another place as I know the Bill will obtain here at the hands of your Lordships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the noble Earl has just said. He has rather intimated that he hoped to bring the matter up again on the Report Stage in this House. I suggest to him that is really undesirable. It is a matter on which a question of privilege will be raised at once and it is far better, having heard what was said by the noble Lord behind me, that the noble Earl should leave the matter to be discussed by the noble Lord with members of the Government and should not endeavour to raise the matter again in this House.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is it the suggestion of the noble Viscount that it should not be raised in another place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That it should not be raised again here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment.

PASSMORE EDWARDS (TILBURY) COTTAGE HOSPITAL CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ALLHALLOWS AND MARWOOD (HON ITON) CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER'S HOS PITAL CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BRIGHTON (LONDON ROAD) CONGRE GATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, this Bill deals with a small matter but one of sonic importance. The object of the Bill is to correct—and I think it is stated pretty clearly on the back of the Bill—an error which got into last year's Criminal Justice Bill, the effect of which was to lake away the power from justices that they have at the present time of dismissing a case on payment of costs. For some reason or other this mistake occurred. I may say that this Bill passed through all its stages in another place in five minutes. The position now is this. Last year's Act comes into force on July 1 this year with this flaw in it and I will ask your Lordships to be allowed to move to suspend our Standing Orders so that this Bin may be passed through all its stages to-morrow in time for the Royal Assent, otherwise there will be an interval between the passing of this Bill and the new Bill coining into force, and in that interval magistrates may very often break the law without meaning to do so by doing what they have been accustomed to do heretofore. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, it is perfectly obvious that this Bill ought to be passed and that it ought to be passed in the summary manner recommended by the noble Lord opposite. Whether the necessity for the Bill ought ever to have arisen is another question.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the
670
Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed, consisting of the following Lords:—Earl of Ilchester, Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford), Lord Colebrooke, Lord Ernle and Lord Darling, with Lord Hylton, who took the place of the late Lord Stuart of Wortley.
2. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:— Marquess of Lincolnshire, Lord Muir Mackenzie and Lord Lambourne, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
3. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Lord Great Chamberlain, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment. Department, made a satisfactory report from the Sub-Committee.
The Committee authorised the sending of a circular letter to Peers asking for contributions, similar to that sent last year.
4. COMMITTEE ROOMS.
The Committee approved of a proposal submitted by the Chairman of Committees for constructing a doorway to communicate directly with the new Committee rooms in the house formerly occupied by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
5. ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS IN THE HOUSE.
The Committee approved of a proposal submitted by the Chairman of Committees to extend the use of the acoustic instruments to the boxes occupied by Black Rod, Officer of the House, and Private Secretaries.
6. HOUSEKEEPER—INSURANCE.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a sum of £7 16 s. 9d. to the Ministry of Health, in respect of payments for contributions under the National Health Insurance Acts for the Housekeeper from the 3rd of January, 1922, to the 3rd of January, 1926, in order to regularise her position and enable her to receive the old age pension, if necessary, at sixty-five years of age.
7. REVISION OF RETIRING ALLOWANCE OF PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.
The Committee sanctioned the revised allowance of £322 9s. 4d. which had been paid to a Principal Doorkeeper who retired on the 12th of February, 1926; the alteration in the allowance was in accordance with the Civil Service practice.
8. PAYMENT OF WAGES DURING SICKNESS.
The Committee gave their formal sanction to the practice which had been pursued for many years as respects payment of wages

671
during sickness. The practice is as follows:—

(1) That weekly wage-earners appointed before the 6th August, Ins, receive sick pay benefits in accordance with the scale sanctioned by the Offices Committee in 1897, that is to say, full pay (including bonus) during sickness for a period not exceeding four weeks in any one year (1st January to 31st December) and three-fourths of the pay for a further similar period, provided that such latter pay be not allowed unless there appears a reasonable prospect of the person returning to work.

(2) That weekly wage-earners appointed after 6th August, 1913, receive the sick pay benefits to which they are entitled under the National Health Insurance Act, with the following small modification which has in practice always been made, namely, that these persons for the first three days of sickness, during which no benefits are payable under the insurance Acts, receive wage inclusive of bonus.

9. GRATUITY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A COAL PORTER (DECEASED).
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity, under the Superannuation Act,
672
1887, as amended by the Act of 1914, to the representative of a Coal Porter (E. Grimsey), who recently died after thirty-one years and four months service. The gratuity amounts to £86 16 s., being at the rate of one week's pay plus 75 per cent. of bonus for each year of service.
The Committee also sanctioned the payment of the Coal Porter's second month of sick leave at full pay owing to exceptional circumstances.
10. ESTIMATE.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for the year ending March, 1927, was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move, That the first Report from the Select Committee of your Lordships' Offices Committee he now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL.
  RAMSBOTTMI URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies.

Pontefract Corporation.

Southern Railway.

Post Office (Sites).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on June 9 and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTIEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on June 17 and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed Thursday next.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC AND METRO POLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [H.L.] (Scarborough Order) and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Guildford Corporation Bill and the Southern Railway Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

HASLEMERE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Haslemere and District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of Birkenhead:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
  PONTEFRACT ORDER.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday and Thursday last in respect of the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order discharged.
NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTEN- SION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Bill deemed to have been reported from the Committee. Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday, July 21.
EXECUTION OF DILIGENCE (SCOT LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Thursday next.