0’i ■ ' - ^ •••' 
 
 ' * *♦••• • » mJ*K ’•'?» ■«■• V*** !”’ .x " ‘ • 
 
 
 MINERS’ FEDERATION 
 
 OF 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 FRIDAY, MARCH 22nd, and 
 TUESDAY, MARCH 26th, 1912. 
 
 <30 A La MINES 
 
 Minimum Wage 
 
 13 1 Li Li. 
 
 CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE, 
 
 AND ON REPORT, AND THIRD READING, 
 
 Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair. 
 
 MANCHESTER 
 
 T. Ashton, Junr., Trade union Printer (48 Hours), Toxteth Street, Hr. Openshaw. 
 
OF THE 
 
 U N I VERS ITY 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 331.26142 
 
 G79c 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/coalminesminimumOOgrea 
 
MINERS’ FEDERATION 
 
 OP 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 FRIDAY , MARCH 22nd, and 
 TUESDAY, MARCH 26th, 1912. 
 
 eo7*l^ mines 
 
 Minimum Wage 
 
 CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE, 
 
 AND ON REPORT, AND THIRD READING. 
 
 Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair. 
 
 MANCHESTER 
 
 T. Ashton, Junr., Trade Union Printer (48 Hours), Toxteth Stret t. Hr. Opensbaw. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3Sh.^tfZ 
 
 Gr r J c j 
 
 Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill. 
 
 CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE. 
 
 FRIDAY, MARCH 22nd. 
 
 Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair. 
 
 Clause 1. — (Minimum Wage for workmen employed underground 
 
 in Coal Mines.) 
 
 
 
 (1) It shall be an implied term of every contract for the 
 employment of a workman underground in a coal mine that the 
 employer shall pay to that workman wages at not less than a 
 minimum rate settled under this Act and applicable to that workman, 
 unless it is certified in manner provided by the district rules that 
 the workman is a person excluded under the district rules from the 
 operation of this provision, or that the workman has forfeited the 
 right to wages at the minimum rate by reason of his failure to 
 comply with the conditions with respect to the regularity and 
 efficiency of the work to be performed by workmen laid down by 
 those rules ; and any agreement for the payment of wages in 
 contravention of this provision shall be void. 
 
 For the purposes of this Act the expression “ district rules ” 
 means rules made under the powers given by this Act by the Joint 
 District Board. 
 
 (2) The district rule shall provide, as respects the district to 
 which they apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the 
 minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen, and shall lay down 
 conditions with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work 
 to be performed by the workmen, and provide that a workman shall 
 forfeit the right to wages at the minimum rate if he does not comply 
 with those conditions, except in cases where the failure to comply 
 with the conditions is due to some cause over which he has no 
 control, 
 
4 
 
 The district rules shall also provide for the decision of any 
 question whether any workman in the district is a workman to 
 whom the minimum rate of wages is applicable, or whether a 
 workman who has not complied with the conditions laid down by 
 the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, and 
 for a certificate being given of any such decision for the purposes of 
 this section. 
 
 (3) The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a 
 minimum rate shall operate as from the date of the passing of this 
 Act, although a minimum rate of wages may not have been settled, 
 and any sum which would have been payable under this section to 
 a workman on account of wages if a minimum rate had been settled 
 may be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time 
 after the rate is settled. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE TERRELL : I beg to move in Sub-section (1) 
 after the word “contract” (“It shall be an implied term of every 
 contract”) to insert the words “ in writing.” 
 
 I do not propose to take up much time with this amendment, 
 but it seems to me that if we have State interference in regulating 
 wages it is a very desirable thing that all contracts entered into 
 between employers and the workmen should be in writing. It is 
 quite a simple matter. It means that the men have to sign a book 
 or document to make matters clear. We so often have disputes and 
 suggestions made that the men have broken their contracts that I 
 think we ought to have some established record so that when 
 suggestions are made that the men or the masters have committed 
 a breach of the contract we shall have a document to refer to. This 
 amendment does not limit the operation of the Act to any large 
 extent. To contracts not in writing this Act would not apply, and, 
 I think, that would be desirable. The introduction of the words 
 “ in writing ” would tend to simplify matters and then we shall 
 always know where we are. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs) : I do not 
 think it is necessary to take up time with this matter, because 
 it is a point of no substance. The object of the provision is to apply 
 to every contract whether written or verbal, and the statute must 
 apply to every document. 
 
 Amendment put and negatived. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), 
 after the word “ workman ” (“ That the employer shall pay to that 
 workman wages ”), to insert the words “ reasonable living.” 
 
 This amendment raises an important distinction between a 
 reasonable living wage and a minimum wage, because the former 
 
5 
 
 may mean one thing and the latter quite another thing. I fancy 
 the distinction between the two goes deep down into the causes 
 which have produced this Bill. The honourable Member for Ince 
 (Mr. Walsh) demands a reasonable living wage in order that the 
 men who work in abnormal places may have a fair day’s wage for a 
 fair day’s work. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : On a point of order, I wish to point 
 out that we are dealing with a Bill to provide a minimum wage. Is 
 it in order to introduce words which have a different meaning. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS : The purpose here is to define exactly 
 the mode in which the minimum wage is to be arrived at. A 
 minimum wage by itself means practically nothing or anything, 
 but a reasonable living wage defines the mode in which that 
 minimum wage is to be governed. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I have gone into the point raised by the 
 Attorney-General and I came to the conclusion that I could not rule 
 this amendment out on that ground. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS : On this point of a living wage I will 
 quote from the speech of the honourable Member for Ince. 
 Speaking on the First Beading of this Bill he based his whole 
 support of this measure on the variation in the cost of living, and 
 with regard to the schedule he argued that a reasonable living wage 
 must be different in one place than another. This is what the 
 honourable Member for Ince said : — 
 
 “ The conditions of living have caused the variations in the 
 schedules. Would any person say that for the Forest of 
 Dean or the Bristol district or Somerset, where the workman 
 is half miner and half agriculturist, where the cost of living 
 is very much less than in Lancashire and in Yorkshire, we 
 ought to put forward the same claim for the miner in those 
 districts that we should do for those working in Lancashire 
 and Yorkshire ? It is unthinkable. We had to take into 
 consideration fair living conditions, the standard of living, 
 working conditions, and the general economic conditions, 
 and we have framed our schedules accordingly.” — (Official 
 Report, 19th March, Cols. 1752-3.) 
 
 That is the position taken up by the honourable Member for 
 Ince, and the honourable Member for Hanley, but that is not the 
 position clearly taken up by a large body of supporters of this Bill. 
 It is the position of the old-fashioned trade unionists, but it is clearly 
 not the position of the Syndicalists. It is the position of honourable 
 members below the Gangway, but not the Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs who went very much further. In his speech the 
 
6 
 
 right honourable gentleman took this question of a minimum wage 
 very much further than it has been taken by any honourable members 
 below the Gangway, for he took it almost as far as it has been taken 
 in some quarters outside this House. He said : 
 
 “ Parliament may have to meet other attempts from other 
 trades. ... A door has been opened with regard to the 
 minimum wage which cannot be closed again.” 
 
 And the Secretary of State defined his idea of a minimum wage as 
 one differing with the rates of profit — an entirely different proposition 
 from that of honourable members below the Gangway. I want to 
 know which is right, that of the members of the Labour Party or 
 that of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who apparently 
 represents the Government. The most important statement in his 
 speech was : — 
 
 “ The intention of the Bill, and, I believe, the result of the Bill, 
 will not be to damage existing rates of wages, not to fix an 
 unduly low minimum, but on the contrary to ascertain and 
 to achieve the highest minimum which the coal trade can 
 bear” — (Official Report, 21st March, 1912, Col. 2175.) 
 
 That is an entirely different position from that taken up by the 
 representatives of the miners in this House. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : On a point of order. Are we to refer to the 
 general debate on the Second Reading in discussing an amendment 
 of this kind ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : It is impossible to rule that nobody can 
 refer to the debate on the Second Reading, but of course I do not 
 propose to allow a Second Reading debate over again. The object of 
 the amendment, I understand, is to give a closer or different definition 
 of “ minimum ” wage. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS : I am not raising the question of 
 whether or not there should be a minimum wage. I have my own 
 opinion very strongly against any minimum wage imposed by law ; 
 but I am not arguing that. I am assuming that the House has 
 decided to impose by law some form of a minimum wage, and what 
 I want to ascertain is whether it is the minimum wage as put 
 forward by the trade unionists, or the extraordinary definition given 
 by the Foreign Secretary, namely, the highest minimum wage the 
 coal trade can bear. That is exactly the claim of the Syndicalists, 
 neither more nor less. Their proposal in any of their documents is 
 that you should gradually raise the minimum wage point by point 
 until you get the highest price any particular trade can bear. I 
 know the Foreign Secretary, if he were here, would take refuge 
 
1 
 
 under the word “ unduly,” with which he made so much play last 
 night. But the word “ unduly ” cannot be put into a Bill. Either 
 you must accept the position which the Labour members here have 
 voluntarily accepted in all their speeches, or you must accept the 
 position set up by the Foreign Secretary. Speaking on behalf of a 
 large number of Conservative members, I want to say that we are 
 not opposed in any way whatever to a rise of wages. Many of us 
 desire that wages should increase to the highest possible point so 
 long as they increase in due accordance with the economic condition 
 of the trade. I cannot help feeling that that is the position taken 
 up, not merely by the two members to whom I have referred, but 
 also by the leader of the Labour Party himself. There was a 
 discussion here some three weeks ago as to what should or should 
 not constitute a minimum wage, and the honourable Member for 
 Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) made it perfectly clear what 
 the Labour Party wanted. He said : 
 
 “ If you are going to carry on an industry you must carry it on 
 with reference to one condition, that the men and women 
 engaged ought to have a wage that will enable them to live 
 by their labour.” 
 
 That is a minimum living wage, not a wage calculated on 
 profits, not a wage calculated at the highest rate a particular trade 
 can bear, but a wage that will enable the worker to live in decency 
 and comfort. Everyone knows that the minimum wage does and 
 must vary in the Post Office and other places in accordance with 
 the cost of living in each locality. I want to test the bona fides 
 of this claim for a minimum wage by inserting these controlling 
 words, providing that it shall be a reasonable living wage. 
 The demand for a reasonable living wage is the cause of this 
 strike. If it is the desire of the miners to have a wage which 
 will enable them to live in decency and comfort, my amendment 
 will secure that to them. On the other hand, if the interpretation 
 is that put forward by the Foreign Secretary, I say that the Bill is 
 not in accordance with the honest straightforward demand of the 
 trade union leaders, but is nothing more nor less than a surrender 
 to the extreme views of the Syndicalist party outside the House, 
 which are not really the views of the genuine trade unionists of the 
 country. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Government cannot accept this 
 amendment; it is quite unnecessary. The whole discussion, not 
 only during the last few weeks, but during a considerable period, 
 has proceeded upon the use of the term “ minimum ” rate, which is 
 quite understood by both parties. You already have a minimum 
 tonnage rate and a minimum time rate in connection with this 
 industry, and there is no difficulty whatever in understanding the 
 term. Moreover, in this particular case what we are dealing with is 
 a minimum rate to be paid to a man in a particular trade in the 
 
8 
 
 circumstances applicable to his work. That is the real question that 
 will have to be determined by the Joint District Boards. Those 
 Boards will have to take into account the various circumstances, the 
 class of work, and the kind of workman, and say what is to be the 
 minimum rate. It is not quite right to say that it is to be a 
 reasonable living wage. That is not a sufficient statement of the 
 case. In dealing with this Bill, and with this class of work, you 
 must always consider the risk of life attached to this particular 
 labour, which must form a very important element in determining 
 what is to be the minimum rate applicable to this trade. A man 
 may work for a certain number of years ; then comes one of those 
 lamentable accidents, and he loses his life. These risks must be 
 considered in fixing the wage. That is why the term “minimum ” 
 is a much better one to apply than that proposed by the 
 amendment. 
 
 Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : I am not at all satisfied with 
 the reply of the Attorney-General. He has stated that the term 
 “ minimum ” is well understood by the people who will have to fix 
 the wage under this Bill. My belief is that “ minimum ” means 
 “ lowest,” and all that this Bill says is that the District Boards are 
 to fix the lowest rate of wages that shall be paid to any workman. 
 There is no definition of any sort or kind as to the line they shall 
 take in deciding what is the lowest rate to be paid. My honourable 
 friend says, “We will define the line upon which the District Boards 
 are to go. The lowest wage that is to be paid is to be fixed upon 
 what is a reasonable living wage.” I myself am strongly opposed to 
 State interference in the matter. I wish it to be perfectly under- 
 stood that in supporting the amendment of my honourable friend I 
 only do so because the House of Commons has foolishly committed 
 itself to the principle of the Bill. But having done so, surely it is 
 our duty to give some instructions to the District Boards so that 
 they may know what was in the minds of those who passed the Bill. 
 The only argument brought forward by the Attorney-General which 
 had any shadow or semblance of substance was that this was a 
 dangerous trade, as the men might lose their lives. That is true, 
 but it is compensated for under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 
 Of course, the Labour Party do not want the wage to be calculated 
 upon what is a reasonable living wage for the people engaged in the 
 particular industry. It is not a reasonable living wage that they 
 want : they desire to extort as much as they can from the coalowners, 
 and until we get a definition of this sort it will be quite open to the 
 trade unions to say that the lines on which you are to proceed are 
 that the coalowners shall get only a certain share of the profits. In 
 fact it has been stated in correspondence in the Press that the 
 owners are only to have four per cent, on their capital. We want 
 to guard against that, and unless honourable members are prepared 
 to say that that is not the real point I cannot see how they can vote 
 against the amendment of my honourable friend. We have heard a 
 great deal about the necessity of enabling men to make proper 
 
provision to maintain their families. That is exactly what my 
 honourable friend wants to do, and unless the amendment is 
 accepted I venture to say the hollowness of the whole proposal will 
 be exposed, and it will be seen that the real object of honourable 
 members is to put the mine owners in such a position that the 
 Government will be forced to nationalise the mines. If that is not 
 their object let them get up and say so here. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The question raised by the amendment 
 is a very large and important one, but this is not the moment at 
 which it should be discussed. I am asked “Why not?” The 
 answer is that we are discussing a definite proposal to meet the 
 situation and crisis which has arisen, and if we debate more or less 
 abstract propositions it will tend to defeat the object which the Bill 
 is meant to serve. What the honourable member who moved the 
 amendment was arguing for has already been accomplished. The 
 minimum wage is not to be a stereotyped uniform fixed sum 
 applicable to the whole country. The working of natural economic 
 laws has produced variations in the rates of wages in different 
 districts. These will still continue to obtain when the Bill becomes 
 law and under these circumstances in view of the amount of work 
 we have to do I respectfully suggest that the amendment should be 
 withdrawn and that we should be allowed to deal with other points. 
 
 Lord ROBEBT CECIL : I quite feel the force of a great deal 
 that has fallen from the honourable member. I have no desire to 
 enter on theoretical discussions as to what is the proper wage to be 
 secured under this Bill. But there is a real difficulty here as there 
 is no definition at all of what is meant by a minimum wage. The 
 Attorney-General says everybody knows what it is exactly but we 
 have had no fewer than four entirely separate definitions of it in 
 the course of these debates. In the first place there is the reasonable 
 living wage which my honourable friend wishes to put into the Bill. 
 Then the honourable Member for Ince gave a quite different 
 definition when he said that what was desired to be secured was 
 what a man might get working under ordinary circumstances. Then 
 there was the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary, that it was to 
 be the highest possible wage the trade could bear ; and finally we 
 have the Attorney-General’s definition that it is to be a reasonable 
 living wage, and that you must also take into consideration the 
 danger run by the men. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : Among other circumstances. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : When this matter comes before the 
 District Committees there will be no indication whatever of the 
 intentions of the Bill as to what is really meant by “ minimum 
 wage.” Each Committee will go on entirely different principles, 
 
10 
 
 and that will not be conducive to peace in the industry, as in one 
 district you may have the living wage standard and in the other the 
 highest possible wage the industry can bear, and there will be such 
 inequalities between districts that there will inevitably be further 
 disputes. Though I do not want to press this amendment on the 
 Government, I do think some indication of the intentions of 
 Parliament in using the phrase “minimum wage” ought to be 
 included in the Bill. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES : I wish to point out very briefly that 
 there is nothing in the objection at all. When the District Boards 
 meet the men will press for a certain minimum wage and the 
 employers will give their arguments against that. The question is 
 not whether it is to be a living wage, an average wage, or anything 
 else. It is to be a minimum that is to be fixed by the District Board. 
 It may be fixed either with or without the casting vote of the Chair- 
 man, but it will be the minimum for the district. It may be on a 
 living wage basis or on an average basis, but it is a matter which 
 must be settled in each district, and will not depend on any definition. 
 Therefore I urge that there is no reality in the point raised by the 
 honourable member opposite. 
 
 Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS : I think the speech we have 
 just listened to has emphasised the difficulties which we are trying 
 to avoid by getting a reasonable definition of a minimum wage. The 
 honourable member pictured what would happen before a District 
 Board. There would be the arguments of the men and of the masters, 
 and then the Chairman of the District Board would have to make up 
 his mind as to what is a minimum wage. The District Board is 
 given no guidance whatever by this Bill. If this Bill is intended to 
 settle this strike, as we hope it will — that is its only justification — 
 surely the House should give a little more guidance to the Arbitrator 
 or the Chairman who is going to attempt to define what the House 
 intended in putting this Bill forward. We have to remember that 
 the Prime Minister and all the able members of the Government 
 who have been supporting him in the Conference during the 
 last two or three weeks, aided as they have been by the greatest 
 experts representing the miners, and by the masters, have failed 
 to come to any conclusion. The reason why I voted last night 
 against the Bill was because the Government have thrown the 
 difficulty which they have been unable to meet upon the District 
 Boards, without the slightest definition in the Bill for the guidance 
 of those District Boards. This is not to be dealt with here as an 
 abstract question, but as a practical suggestion for the purpose 
 of making the Bill effective. The Attorney-General said that 
 the minimum was to be fixed on the kind of work done, and 
 the class of workman, and that the risk to life was also to be taken 
 into account. How can we say that those considerations will not 
 apply if this amendment is accepted. They will apply to any 
 
11 
 
 condition. There will be the protection that the minimum wage 
 shall not be fixed at lower than a living wage. That is an advantage 
 which ought not to be lost sight of. So far as I am personally 
 concerned, and I believe the same is true of many members on this 
 side of the House, the Government would assist immensely our 
 position in the matter if they would accept this amendment, because, 
 while we object to the interference of the State in the settling of 
 wages, we are not hostile to a living wage. We do not want to see 
 a fresh cause of endless dispute thrown into the various District 
 Boards set up under the Bill. 
 
 Sir ALFRED CRIPPS : I wish to say one word to explain 
 why, if the amendment is pressed, I shall vote against it 1 agree 
 that it is desirable to define the minimum, if possible, but to define 
 it in this way would be equivalent to accepting it without having 
 regard to the conditions of this particular trade. I think that 
 would be absurd. It is altogether outside the general question. I 
 merely say that in order to explain the reason why I should vote 
 against an amendment of this kind. 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I am inclined to think that I agree with 
 the observations made by my honourable friend (Sir A. Cripps). 
 The point of view from which I regard it is that it is not all a 
 question of making the amount less by this amendment. It might 
 easily happen that if a rule is laid down that a reasonable living 
 wage is to be given in all circumstances, it might be found to be, 
 instead of an advantage, a hardship. I rise chiefly to express the 
 hope, and I am sure it is the belief that we all share on this side, 
 that there is no desire of any kind to delay the proceedings on this 
 Bill. For that reason, and because the question is certainly one 
 on which there is room for difference of opinion, I hope my 
 honourable friend will see his way to withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS : Of course, I could not fail to accept 
 the suggestion of my right honourable friend and leader. I am 
 quite prepared to withdraw the amendment at once. At the same 
 time I want honourable members above and below the Gangway to 
 feel that this was a genuine amendment, and was not in the 
 slightest degree intended to delay the Bill. In the circumstances I 
 am glad to accede to the request. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. KING : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word 
 “than” (“wages at not less than the minimum rate ”), to insert 
 the words “ 5s. per day, if that workman is engaged for fixed wages, 
 and not less than 2s. per day if the workman is a boy, and in ail 
 other cases at not less than ” 
 
12 
 
 This amendment raises a very great and vital issue. I wish to 
 say at the outset that it has nothing to do with either Socialism or 
 Syndicalism. I am neither a Socialist nor a Syndicalist. I have 
 not been got at by them nor held up by them. Undoubtedly if this 
 amendment were inserted in the Bill it would mean that the miners 
 would be back to work at the very earliest opportunity. I regret 
 very much that, in the circumstances, no assurance can be given 
 that that will be the case. Those who have miner constituents, as 
 I have, composing an important but by no means a predominant 
 part of the constituency, or those who have not such constituents, 
 but who have gone fairly into this question, must be aware of this : 
 that if we can only insert 5s. a day for the fixed daywages, and 2s. a 
 day for the boys, that would bring the miners back to work at once. 
 That would attain the object for which this Bill is introduced. That 
 is my first and chief reason for moving this amendment. But there 
 are other reasons. I was struck, as I believe the whole House was 
 yesterday, by the speeches from the honourable Member for Hanley 
 (Mr. Enoch Edwards), and the honourable Member for South 
 Glamorgan (Mr. Brace), speeches which I venture to say, in weight 
 and dignity, m moderation and eloquence, are rarely equalled in this 
 House. The direct appeal of both those speeches was that we 
 should insert these two amounts as the fixed points of the minimum 
 wage in the Bill. I think I may say that the attitude of the leaders 
 of the coal strike, the men who are able to speak with most authority 
 in this House, and indeed anywhere, for the miners, is that they 
 are ready to accept this Bill and go back to work if they can have 
 these fixed points in the minimum wage. I shall be met by the 
 argument that the minimum wage is a dangerous doctrine, that the Bill 
 itself is dangerous, but that to put fixed sums into the Bill makes it 
 still more dangerous. In that connection, in many employments we 
 have already a minimum wage. Our sailors, our soldiers, the whole of 
 our Civil Service, the whole of our municipal service is based upon 
 the principle of a minimum wage. The minimum wage is fixed 
 in all these services, and if a man is not worth that he is not 
 employed. On the other hand, if a post is open they do not go about 
 to find the cheapest man they can for the job. They announce a 
 minimum wage for that employment and only recently we have had 
 a great demand put forward by another and generally conservative 
 class of society in connection with this minimum wage. I refer to 
 the doctors under the Insurance Act. We have seen a great and 
 united movement of doctors arising to get a minimum wage for their 
 work, and how has that demand been met by honourable members 
 opposite ? The honourable member (Mr. Hewins) yesterday stated 
 that the introduction of this Bill was something far more revolu- 
 tionary, dangerous and ominous than ever the introduction of Tariff 
 Beform, because it is the introduction of the minimum wage and 
 the very men who are stating that are supporting the doctors in 
 their proposal to get a minimum wage for their work under the 
 Insurance Act. Let us, therefore, on both sides of the House rid 
 ourselves of cant for one day at any rate. Let us realise that after 
 
13 
 
 all the minimum wage is only another way of saying that a man 
 who works is worthy of his hire. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I think this is a speech which should have 
 been made yesterday. I hope members of the Committee will 
 support me in not reverting to the Second Reading. 
 
 Mr. KING : With absolute respect I return to the point. 
 Seriously, we must all realise that this amendment is one of the 
 most serious in the Bill. We shall be met by its being stated that 
 there will be a difficulty in carrying this simple amendment into 
 operation, for this reason, which anyone who knows anything about 
 the coalfields is aware of, that in many places houses are given at 
 less than the economic rent, and in many places coal is given to the 
 families of miners either gratis or at a very reduced price, and it 
 will be urged that the fixing of a minimum rate will cause dislocation, 
 difficulties and doubt in connection with these arrangements. I fully 
 realise that, and I shall be prepared, if the amendment is carried, to 
 propose arrangements later on by which that difficulty can be met. 
 The greatest argument in favour of the amendment is that it would 
 satisfy the miners, and it would assure them that we are fair and do 
 not wish to get any advantage for the mine owners or for the 
 community out of this trouble, and above all, that it would bring 
 the miners back to work at the earliest possible moment. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I listened with 
 attention to my honourable friend, but I confess with not so much 
 illumination as I am in the habit of receiving from his speeches. I 
 did not gather that he laid down any grounds either of fact or 
 argument for the particular figure which he proposes to insert in 
 the Bill. Quite apart from his observations, this is undoubtedly a 
 point of considerable substance, though more importance is 
 attached, particularly by those who represent the miners’ interests, 
 to these figures, than they really deserve. Speaking for myself 
 with such knowledge as I possess — I do not claim to have more 
 than other people — on a very technical matter, I should certainly be 
 disposed to think that these figures of 2s. and 5s. were reasonable 
 figures. In Scotland, where the matter has recently been the 
 subject of an agreement entered into between masters and men, I 
 think I am right in saying that the minimum for boys is 3s. and 
 the minimum for men is 6s. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : That is the average. 
 
 Mr. PIKE PEASE : I think that is the hewers. 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I am informed by the Scottish coal- 
 owners that that is not the case. The average rate in the mine is 
 6s. It is not the minimum but the average. 
 
14 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER: At any rate the boys get a 
 minimum of 3s. As I say, to an outsider that does not look like 
 an excessive wage when we remember the conditions under which 
 the work is carried on and its exacting character, and the perils to 
 which persons working underground are exposed. But these very 
 considerations lead me to the conclusion that when a matter of this 
 kind is brought, as it will be under the Bill, to the consideration 
 of the District Board with a perfectly impartial Chairman, 
 the probability is enormous, overwhelming, as far as one can 
 forecast probabilities in this matter. Of course one cannot give 
 assurances or make promises, but the probabilities are enormous that 
 the boys’ wages will not be lower than 2s., and except where local 
 conditions prevail in the case of the men, it is very unlikely to be 
 fixed at less than 5s. That will be my forecast of the probabilities of 
 the case under the Bill as it stands, but I must go a good deal further 
 than that. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, it 
 is undesirable to name a figure in the Bill, and I say that in the 
 interests of all parties concerned. In the first place, as we have 
 become more and more conscious in the course of these recent 
 discussions, the conditions of our coal mining industry are so complex 
 and so various that it is quite impossible for any central authority to 
 name, even as regards any particular area, still less as regards the 
 country in general, a particular rate of wages for a particular class 
 of work. I do not believe Parliament is equipped with the infor- 
 mation or the materials which would enable it to come to anything 
 more than a highly conjectural speculative conclusion upon a point 
 such as that. I myself, in the course of the last three or four 
 weeks, have been immersed more or less in the details of this 
 matter and very soon came to the conclusion that as regards wages 
 in general the only possible way of dealing with them was by 
 referring them to a local body armed with local knowledge and 
 dealing specifically with the special conditions of the area. I say 
 that on general grounds, but I say, further, that I am not disposed 
 to set the precedent of fixing a figure of wages in an Act of Parlia- 
 ment. That is not at all involved in any way in the purpose and 
 scope of this Bill, the restricted objects of which I explained in 
 introducing the measure, and which were emphasised by my right 
 honourable friend the Foreign Secretary last night. I am not 
 disposed to enter upon that experiment. I want to point out to my 
 honourable friends who represent the miners the peculiar dangers 
 which the adoption of this proposal might lead to. If you once put 
 in an Act of Parliament as expressing the considered judgment of 
 Parliament a particular figure, say 5s., as a fair minimum wage for 
 a particular class of workmen, you may depend on it that would be 
 treated as a maximum and as an indication that that Parliament 
 thought it fair and right, and you would have enormous difficulty 
 when the matter came before the other tribunal, and when 
 comparisons were made between that wage and the wage of other 
 classes of workmen, in persuading that tribunal that they should 
 
15 
 
 entertain any other figure than 5s. I think it would be very 
 disastrous to the interest of the men themselves. 
 
 There is another point of view which affects the men, and 
 which, I think, also affects the general community. It is this. If 
 you once put a figure like this into an Act of Parliament, is it not 
 perfectly clear to those of us who know about electioneering that it 
 must become the subject of agitation — I do not want to use offensive 
 phrases — and of bidding and counter-bidding in constituencies where 
 a particular class of workers are affected ? It is the most natural 
 thing in the world to go to a constituency and say, “ Well, 5s. is not 
 enough, suppose we say 6s.” I am afraid we would get the 
 competition of rival bidders who conscientiously believe that they 
 had not taken a figure in excess of what the trade would bear. 
 That would have most demoralising results. These seem to me to 
 be two very serious considerations, so serious that the Government 
 is unable to accept this amendment. We have from the first 
 maintained, and we shall continue to maintain, a definite and 
 perfectly intelligible position, namely, that we ought to get 
 Parliament to give legislative recognition of the principle of a 
 statutory wage, subject to proper safeguards, and the moment for 
 the ascertainment of the amount, and the developing of proper 
 safeguards, should be left to the only set of people who are really 
 competent to perform such a task, namely, a local representative 
 body under the guidance, if need be, of an impartial and independent 
 Chairman. There you will get the flexibility which everybody 
 thinks to be necessary, and in regard to most classes of wages you 
 will get the local knowledge of which this House and the Government 
 are necessarily deficient or only partially possessed. You will get 
 an impartial and final decision, and you will get, I believe, the most 
 absolute security to the miners of this country of what they desire 
 — the ensuring that no man will be employed at a minimum wage 
 which is not reasonable and adequate, having regard to the dangers 
 of the occupation. 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : The right honourable gentleman 
 has opposed the amendment on theoretical grounds, and I may say 
 that as regards nearly everything he said I entirely agree with him. 
 But there are practical grounds on which we can view the 
 amendment, and looking at it on these grounds, we cannot possibly 
 agree with the honourable member who says a 5s. minimum wage 
 for everyone who works underground should be established. One of 
 the practical objections to that view is this. In a great many of the 
 mines of this country it is impossible that that wage could be paid. 
 It is therefore not desirable that the owners should be called upon to 
 pay a wage of that description on economic grounds, because 
 consequently he might be unable to open and work the mines which 
 are at his disposal. This is the economic argument to which I wish 
 to call the attention of the House. There are economic laws which 
 
16 
 
 this House cannot possibly get over. However much we might 
 wish to lay down a minimum wage for men engaged in a particular 
 kind of work, if that work cannot be done at a profit, then the 
 mines will go out of operation, and a great deal of unemployment 
 will ensue. There are many honourable gentlemen in this House 
 who have not considered the question from that point of view. 
 There is, for example, the honourable Member for the Mansfield 
 Division (Sir A. Markham), for whom I have great respect, and, if 
 I may say so, a great admiration, because he has taken time by the 
 forelock, and in all the mining operations in which he has been 
 engaged, he has introduced modern improvements and endeavoured 
 to bring up his mines to a state of efficiency which must command 
 our admiration. But that is not so in the case of mines all over the 
 country. 
 
 It is impossible in some mines all over the country to bring 
 them up to the standard we would like to see. The reason is this. 
 With a minimum wage of too great a character and under the 
 conditions by which coalowners are hampered, it would mean that 
 many of these mines must go out of operation altogether. I wish 
 the House to realise that when this is done the output of coal will 
 be greatly reduced, and a great many will be able to pay the 
 minimum wage by means of their reduced output and the 
 increase in the price of coal, which must inevitably fall upon the 
 consumer. That is a point I should like the House to consider. I 
 do not think it was put forward in its entirety upon the Second 
 Reading of the Bill yesterday. It is a matter of economics, 
 which we must consider in all its aspects. When the honourable 
 member opposite (Mr. King) rises in his place and from philan- 
 thropic motives says that every individual who works underground 
 should receive a minimum of 5s. per day, my answer is that 
 I entirely agree. I should like everyone who works underground 
 to get a minimum of 5s., but owing to economic conditions 
 it is an absolute impossibility. We heard a great deal yesterday of 
 the policy which, we understand, is being put forward in different 
 parts of the country by different individuals who desire to see a 
 system established which must destroy all profits. That is the system 
 which is known as Syndicalism. I do not propose on this occasion to 
 discuss that question, nor should I be in order in doing so, but as it 
 touches the matter now before the Committee very closely I should 
 like to say that I wish honourable members in all parts of the House 
 who are not acquainted with mining conditions to understand that 
 this is a question of economics, and if you are going to establish a 
 minimum wage of too high a degree, it means that you are going to 
 drive out of operation a great many mines that are being worked at 
 the present moment. The result will be that those owners who 
 remain in the trade will be able to pay the minimum wage, to reduce 
 output, and to put up the price of coal to the community, and that 
 will bring about a great deal of hardship and misery that does not 
 exist at the present moment. 
 
17 
 
 Mr. RAFFAN : I am sure that the House is delighted to find 
 that the noble lord has discovered that if the burdens upon the 
 colliers are too heavy, then, owing to the operation of natural 
 economic causes, the collieries will require to be closed. The royalty 
 owners of this country have not hitherto 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I may point out that these remarks would 
 be more appropriate on a Second Reading. 
 
 Mr. RAFFAN : May I put my argument in this way ? We 
 are told that it is impossible for the industry to stand a minimum 
 wage of 5s. a day. We are informed that as the result of natural 
 economic causes, if this House decides that that must be the 
 minimum wage in future, the result will be that a large number of 
 collieries will be closed, and a great deal of suffering will be 
 the result. I hope that I am not out of order in pointing 
 out that collieries have been conducted in this country without 
 profit for a great number of years, the royalty owners insisting 
 that their minimum should be paid whether there was a profit 
 to the coalowner or not, and whether the wages paid to the 
 workers were fair wages or sweated wages. I do suggest that it 
 is for the House to consider that what is possible for a royalty 
 owner, a minimum income, ought to be possible for the miner who 
 is engaged in this arduous work. After all we can conduct the 
 collieries of the country without the royalty owners. That is possible. 
 But we cannot conduct the collieries of the country without the 
 workmen. That is impossible. I do suggest that when you are 
 approaching the question of minimum, you are entitled to contrast 
 the minimum which has been demanded by the royalty owners with 
 the modest minimum which is now 7 required. On the broad general 
 question, I am sure this House listened with the very greatest respect 
 last night to the argument of the right honourable gentleman the 
 Foreign Secretary, that it is difficult, if not impossible, for this 
 House to take a schedule of prices varying from 4s. lid. to 7s. Id., 
 and, without variation and examination, to accept it and include it in 
 the Bill. There is great force in the argument that that is a matter 
 which could not be decided by this House with its present information, 
 and that it is naturally a matter for inquiry in the various districts. 
 But I do submit that the question of the day workman is in an 
 entirely different category. The question whether a reasonable living- 
 wage for a man is 5s. a day, or a smaller amount, is a question which 
 this Committee can decide as well as any District Wages Board in 
 this country or anywhere else. That particular question is not a 
 question for local investigation. We have been told over and over 
 again, and it has not been contradicted, that on an average the miners 
 in this country work four and a half days the week. (Honourable 
 Members: “ Five.”) The difference is not much. In the one case 
 a man would earn 22s. 6d. a week and in the other case he would 
 earn 25s. I submit to this House that without further examination, 
 
18 
 
 without any inquiry by a Wages Board, it is not unreasonable to say 
 that any man who undertakes this arduous and dangerous work is 
 entitled to a wage of 7£d. an hour for every hour when he is 
 engaged down in the mines, and amounting in the aggregate to 
 22s. 6d. or 25s. for the week, even if the man is in full employment 
 all the year round. Therefore I submit that this question is on 
 an entirely different basis from the question of schedule of rates 
 with varying circumstances and conditions. This is a question 
 which the House itself may fairly and reasonably determine. When 
 it is suggested that it is dangerous to take a particular figure, I 
 would suggest that this figure is not unduly high, and that it is not 
 more dangerous than to deal with the question of minimum at all. 
 Dealing with the question of minimum has been the subject of acute 
 controversy. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. But 
 the House has made up its mind with regard to that. Having done 
 so, it does seem to me that the House would be well advised in 
 taking a further step and saying that it is not unreasonable to grant 
 the figures which my honourable friend proposes. 
 
 Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS : Since I entered the House and 
 have heard speeches by various members I cannot consider that this 
 House considers that 5s. is too high a figure or that 2s. is too high a 
 figure. But whether this House believes it or not the rejection of 
 this suggestion will carry that impression to the miners of the 
 country. I repeat that, whether this House believes it or not, it will 
 carry that impression to thousands of men who are struggling for 
 this principle. I had hoped that we should find the Government 
 agree to these two things. The Federation are charged with seeking 
 to swallow all the profits of the industry. From my place I 
 repudiate any such suggestion. It has never been discussed. What 
 has been discussed is that a boy entering a pit at fourteen is entitled 
 to 2s., and that a man working in a pit is entitled to 5s. I defy any 
 man to stand up in this House and say that either figure is unjust, 
 unfair, extravagant, or unreasonable. It must be borne in mind that 
 we have a great industrial struggle between two parties. Our side 
 have not asked that this should be settled by Act of Parliament, and 
 to refuse to recognise the points where there is the least difference, 
 the least ground for difference, the least room for difference, between 
 anybody is a very serious matter indeed. I had great hopes last 
 night that the Bill, including those two features, would commend 
 itself to the good sense of both sides. I am seriously afraid that we 
 are running a risk which may be costly in saying what, after all, it 
 is so difficult to explain to anybody, that there is any ground of any 
 sort for refusing to acknowledge that 5s. a day is at any rate a figure 
 below which a grown man of experience working day after day in 
 those particular classes should not be asked to work. 
 
 I was more than hopeful that this House would realise, in 
 these days, that 2s. a day for boys of fourteen, engaged in this 
 
10 
 
 industry, is a very proper thing for that class of labour, with all its 
 risks. I decline to draw any sort of picture before this House of the 
 horrors of the miners’ calling, of which we are accustomed to hear. 
 I would prefer that the House should face the fact that in this 
 industry which is surrounded with these difficulties and dangers 
 men are asked to toil, and are expected to perform this work for this 
 minimum wage. Unless it be suggested that there may be general 
 malingering, it may be said that the figures proposed would be 
 realised. That may be the reply to me. If that is so, where is the 
 objection? If this House believes, honestly believes, that the 
 Committees under Independent Chairmen will give that figure, 
 what is our position then ? Surely no one will deny the fact that 
 the great mass of men who look at this question do not now regard 
 it, not as they did three months ago, nor as they did a month ago, 
 after the great fight and severe struggle through which they have 
 passed, and it should be very difficult to convince them that this 
 House does not believe that men working below ground are 
 deserving of 5s., and the lads of 2s., a day. But the great mass of 
 men who cannot be brought under direct influence at this moment, 
 will form the conclusion, in their little cottages, in their smoke 
 rooms, and in the groups formed at street corners — if this proposal 
 be rejected — that the opinion of this House is dead against paying 
 5s. a day for men and 2s. for boys. I am trying to put to the House 
 what will be the impression of these men. In the case of these 
 crowds of workers, we cannot get near them to advise them, and 
 we cannot accept responsibility for what may arise when, with the 
 discussion of this House before them in the Press, they find it has 
 been decided that 5s. a day cannot be paid to men and that 2s. a day 
 cannot be paid to boys. I say it is a most regrettable incident, and 
 closes the door which did appear yesterday to be open, for a 
 settlement immediately. 
 
 This will not shake my particular desire for a settlement, 
 but surely I am entitled to put to the House that by the rejection 
 of the proposal the position is made a thousand times more difficult. 
 I am entitled, I think, to ask the House to reflect and consider 
 before this door is closed, with all that it means. I am not going 
 to enter into economic reasons, not for a moment. You cannot 
 enter into economic reasons with a million of men, and a few other 
 millions, as to the amount of the day’s wages — not at this hour of 
 the day. It seems to me such a small thing, I say that with all due 
 respect to everybody who hears me, to establish a 2s. rate for boys 
 and a 5s. rate for men, and so enable us to give to these crowds of 
 workers some sort of assurance that at any rate the principle for 
 which they are fighting is not to be treated in an offhand manner by 
 an actual refusal to recognise these two things on which there is so 
 much agreement between thousands of men and of employers. I do 
 appeal to the House to reconsider what is going to be the effect, if 
 the House refuses, on the lowest rung of the ladder to endorse the 
 
20 
 
 5s. and the 2s. I repeat that I sincerely trust that the House will 
 reconsider the matter and give us, at any rate, some hope of getting 
 this business through, 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I am bound to say that, in common, I am 
 sure, with every other member of the House, I have listened to what 
 the honourable member has said with the utmost sympathy, and 
 I will go further and say that if the men for whom he has spoken 
 will read the reports of the debate in this House, they will not be 
 able to say that there is one member of this House, wherever he sits, 
 who would not be glad to see at least 5s. paid to every miner who 
 goes down the mines. I am sure, also, that the House thoroughly 
 understands the difficult position in which the honourable member 
 himself is placed. He has told us that he is not one of those who 
 desire to destroy private property by taking away all the profits of 
 the mines. I am sure that is true. Without going into the big 
 general question which has made this whole business so difficult, 
 I am inclined to say to the honourable gentleman that in reality we 
 who are fighting against the very demand which he is compelled to 
 make are now fighting his battle as well as our own. That brings 
 us to the whole ground on which I, for one at least, under the 
 conditions in which the industry is carried on in this country, think 
 it is impossible to fix any minimum rate of wages to give the miners 
 a living wage without running the risk that by so doing you will give 
 a living to some men who are employed and take away all the 
 wages from other men in the same employ. That is the reason, 
 under the present conditions, why it seems impossible to put such 
 a scale. I would point out to the honourable member what seems 
 to me to knock the bottom out of his whole argument. They 
 themselves in their schedule have fixed 4s. lid. as a limit in 
 some of the districts. They have done that after consideration. 
 They realised there are a number of cases where the mines will not 
 stand even as high a wage as 5s. That is the whole case, but there 
 is something different in the claim in this case from the point of 
 view of a minimum wage from almost every other industry in the 
 country. That trade can stand such a wage better than most 
 others. When honourable and right honourable gentlemen speak 
 of this question as if there was a contest between masters and men 
 they are entirely mistaken. I heard the honourable gentleman the 
 Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), last night point out that 
 he was not influenced in any way by personal considerations in 
 being in favour of a living wage. I am sure that is true, but I 
 never suspect any member of this House of being influenced by 
 money considerations so much as by other considerations which 
 affect all of us. But the fact remains that if I were the owner of a 
 mine with all modern appliances and with the best seam of coal, 
 instead of losing by fixing the minimum which would close other 
 mines I should actually gain by the process, and if I were thinking 
 only of my own interests I would welcome such a settlement, 
 
because I would have the perfect certainty that the price of coal 
 would be based not on the cost price of the best pits, but on the 
 average cost price of only the pits supplying the demand. 
 
 I am perfectly certain if as the result of this Bill, and I am 
 afraid it will be the result, in spite of the settlement, you do raise 
 the cost of coal, you are injuring all the men who are now working 
 in mines which will be closed. But it is more serious than that, 
 because coal is, to a certain extent, a monopoly, and must be had for 
 every industry, and because there is no possibility of competition 
 outside. The effect of this is that every addition to the price 
 of coal means an addition to the cost of production of every article 
 in this country, and the giving of a reasonable wage to miners, 
 which we should all like to see, may be the taking away of any 
 wage from vast masses of the people of the country who depend on 
 the reasonable price of coal. This is not at all a question, and I am 
 sure everyone realises it, of want of sympathy with the men who 
 are working at those rates. My own feeling in all these subjects 
 is really that we should always have in our minds the deplorable 
 condition of vast masses of our fellow countrymen in this country, 
 and that we should always keep that in our minds, but that we 
 should never bring it to the surface unless we see some really 
 tangible method of improving their condition, and that we should 
 never use it as a means of gaining cheap sympathy or support for 
 our own views. There is no one who has taken the trouble, which 
 I have taken for the last few r days and weeks, to try to find out what 
 are the conditions of this trade who does not know that there are 
 some mines to-day which in competition with others cannot be kept 
 open even if a very low minimum wage were given. I am quite 
 prepared to agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs last night, that there are circumstances where the 
 conditions of the people are so bad and where they are such a 
 disgrace to our civilisation that, in spite of the effects, it is worth 
 our while to run the risk of taking away the employment rather 
 than allow such a condition of things to continue. I really think 
 that is true, though it is a very debatable point. For that reason I 
 supported the minimum wage in regard to sweated industries. I do 
 not think there is the slightest doubt that there are some mines 
 which could not stand even a low minimum wage and continue. 
 For those reasons, which I am sure the House will realise are not 
 from any lack of sympathy with the views of the honourable 
 member who has just spoken, and also because the Government 
 could not possibly have taken any other line, though I have no 
 special wish, I need not say, to make it easy for them, it is perfectly 
 evident they could not agree to this, for every one of the ministers 
 who has dealt with the subject has pointed out, the basis of it is that 
 there must be an examination to see whether or not the trade will 
 stand the compulsion which the House is going to impose on it. To 
 depart from that now would have been utterly impossible to any 
 
22 
 
 self-respecting Government. They could not have done so. For 
 this reason, as well as the others to which I have referred, I shall 
 vote with the Government on the amendment. 
 
 Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: This is not a question of 
 whether 5s. or 2s. is enough. The honourable Member for Hanley 
 (Mr. E. Edwards) refrained from referring to the horrors and the 
 difficulties of the trade, but I am sure that those horrors and those 
 difficulties will be in the minds of the men and of the masters and of 
 the Boards, and especially in the minds of the Chairmen of the 
 Boards when they are locally dealing with these matters. My 
 impression is that in the enormous majority of cases the minimum 
 fixed will be above the 5s. and above the 2s. “ Then,” the honourable 
 
 member says, “why not put it in the Bill ”? I think the reasons 
 for not putting it in the Bill are overwhelming. What is the 
 principle of the Bill? The principle of the Bill is not to fix the 
 minimum wage, but to set up a tribunal which will fix the 
 minimum wage and then to support the decision of that tribunal. 
 That is as different as chalk from cheese for this House fixing 
 the definite figures which should be paid in any industry. We are 
 quite capable here of deciding what would be a suitable tribunal to 
 decide the wage, but we are not a capable body to decide what that 
 particular figure should be in each locality. I agree that 5s. and 2s. 
 are eminently reasonable, far too reasonable ; but there are special 
 cases, and in some of those special cases, it may be necessary, as the 
 miners themselves in their own schedule indicated, to depart from 
 that minimum, and those cases are precisely the ones that ought to 
 be settled locally and by the men who have local knowledge. 
 
 The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he 
 suggested that there is a substantial risk in some localities of closing 
 some pits. If that has to be done, it must be done, but let it be 
 decided locally by the men and the masters closely interested in the 
 matter. Do not let Parliament do it over their heads. It is a very 
 serious thing, and a serious thing for the men in particular in those 
 localities where the seams are thin and the quality of the coal poor. 
 I do not say they cannot pay 5s., but I do say let the men and the 
 masters there settle whether they can or not. What does it mean 
 to those miners ? They cannot move away very easily ; their 
 families are employed in other industries in the locality. They 
 are tied there, and it is a serious thing to involve them in the 
 risk of unemployment. Therefore I say let them settle it locally. 
 That is the principle of the Bill. There is one other point, 
 and it has not been mentioned before. I do not agree with 
 those who say that this is a temporary expedient for this trade only. 
 We are taking a new departure. This principle is bound to be 
 extended, and personally I have no objection to it whatever. 
 It was my fortune to be Chairman of the Committee which 
 investigated the conditions of labour in the sweated industries and 
 to draft the report of that Committee which was the first 
 
recommendation in this country for the adoption of the minimum 
 wage. I felt, when drafting a paragraph in that report recommend- 
 ing a minimum wage, that it meant a departure which would be 
 followed, and I did it with a full sense of my own personal 
 responsibility in the matter. It is inevitable that this principle of 
 fixing a minimum wage should be extended to other industries. If 
 you do it in one trade, you will have to do it in another. The 
 principle of the Bill is that the men and the masters, with an 
 Independent Chairman, should in their respective localities fix the 
 minimum wage, and that should be the policy in the future with all 
 these other trades. To depart from that principle now would, in 
 my judgment, be fatal. We did not recommend it in our report on 
 the sweated industries, and this House, when it passed the Sweated 
 Industries Bill, did not fix a minimum wage for these industries. I 
 am the last to underrate the hardships and the dangers of the coal 
 miners’ lot, but I do say there was in the sweated industries of this 
 country even a stronger case for fixing a minimum wage by putting 
 an amount in the Bill, if you fix it at all. We did not fix it for the 
 sweated industries where some of them were earning 2d. and l^d. 
 per hour, and less, though the case was stronger there than here. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : Is it stronger than where boys in the mines 
 earn nothing to-day ? 
 
 Sir T. WHITTAKER : I was not aware of that. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : You know nothing about that then. 
 
 Sir T. WHITTAKER: I was not aware there were boys in 
 mines earning nothing, but I cannot believe that in any industry 
 where the men and the masters meet together with an Independent 
 Chairman they will ever decide that the boys should work for 
 nothing. I cannot believe it for one moment. I admit I was not 
 aware they earned nothing, but, however hard and difficult and 
 dangerous the lot of the coal miners, there were conditions in the 
 sweated industries which were even worse, and in dealing with 
 those sweated industries, we did not fix the actual figure. It 
 is not that we do not want them to have a minimum wage and a 
 good wage. The difference is merely as to the method of fixing 
 that wage, and I think it is very essential indeed the figure should 
 be fixed in the locality by the masters and men, who are the persons 
 who have the knowledge of the conditions in that locality. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I should not have risen if the 
 honourable Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) had not said 
 he did not think any member would rise in this House and say these 
 rates were not reasonable. I could not help thinking of his own 
 amendment staring him in the face on the last page of the paper ; — * 
 
24 
 
 “ Minimum rates of wages per day for workmen not paid by 
 the piece in all districts with the exception of Bristol, 
 Somerset, and the Forest of Dean : 
 
 For Men 5s. 
 
 For Boys 2s. 
 
 The Joint District Boards shall have power to define the age 
 when a boy becomes a man.” 
 
 By the way, it is remarkable this amendment should be moved 
 by a Member for Somersetshire, which is excluded from the 
 operation of this particular rate by the wish of the miners them- 
 selves. All the masters can say in answer is that if the miners after 
 due consideration think those three districts ought to be eliminated 
 from this general practice, then surely it is possible these Boards, 
 when they discuss the rate fully and impartially, may discover there 
 are other instances in England, Scotland, and Wales which come 
 under the same category as those the miners themselves have put 
 forward. I think I may speak for the coalowners and say that on 
 this point they take up entirely the attitude taken up by the Prime 
 Minister this afternoon. They say, “We are perfectly ready to 
 place the figures before these Boards for them to decide. It is not 
 for us to say whether 2s. or 5s. is a fair rate. What we do is to 
 place our figures before the Board and let them judge, and, if they 
 judge such rates are proper rates, then we shall accept them.” That 
 is the attitude we have taken throughout on ail these points, whether 
 for the hewers, the day wagers, or the boys, and it is because we are 
 glad the Government have so consistently adhered to that attitude 
 that we are grateful to the Prime Minister for his speech this 
 afternoon. 
 
 Mr. MOBBELL : I must say I am extremely sorry the Govern- 
 ment have taken up the attitude they have on this matter. I can 
 perfectly well understand people opposing a minimum wage, but it 
 seems to me, when once you grant the principle of a minimum wage, 
 it is something like mockery to say to the men you are going to give 
 no sort of definition as to how the minimum wage is to be ascertained. 
 The amendment asks the House to lay down what is the lowest 
 amount on which a man can reasonably be expected to engage in this 
 class of work, and I want to show why I think the figures suggested 
 might be accepted by the House as suitable for the purpose. My 
 honourable friend has already shown that for a miner 5s. a day 
 practically means a wage of from 22s. 6d. to 25s. a week. I have 
 here the result of an inquiry made by a man whose authority every- 
 one accepts, Mr. Seebohm Bowntree, published in the Contemporary 
 Review of last September, as to what constitutes a reasonable wage 
 to secure physical efficiency for a man in work. He goes very 
 carefully into the figures as to what would be the absolute minimum 
 on which a family of five, paying 5s. per week for rent, could be 
 maintained in a state of physical efficiency. He works it out that if 
 
25 
 
 you take a dietary more stringently economical than any workhouse 
 in England and Wales, containing no butcher’s meat, and bacon only 
 three times in a week, where margarine is substituted for butter, and 
 where porridge and skimmed milk figures largely in place of the 
 usual tea and bread and butter, you cannot provide a family of five 
 with the nutriment necessary for physical efficiency for less than 
 13s. 9d. a week. He goes on to take up the other figures, and he 
 finally arrives at 23s. 8d. as the absolute minimum on which a family 
 of five can maintain a state of physical efficiency. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Perhaps the honourable member will not 
 pursue that point. We are not now discussing what is a reasonable 
 living wage. That would be quite outside the scope of the present 
 amendment. The question is whether it is desirable or practicable 
 to insert a figure in the Bill. 
 
 Mr. MORRELL : With great respect, I am arguing what 
 figure it is desirable to fix, and as to whether the House is in a 
 position to arrive at a figure. I should have thought that this 
 House was in a position to state whether or not 5s. a day was a 
 reasonable figure for each man working at this class of work to 
 maintain physical efficiency. If the House cannot do that the 
 House is not able to arrive at a resolution of any sort in a matter of 
 this kind. It seems to me it is well within the competence of this 
 House to consider what is a reasonable figure to lay down, and that 
 the figure suggested by this amendment is the very least that we 
 can reasonably decide upon. It is a matter as to whether we should 
 put in any figure at all. I do not think this Bill is of any practical 
 use to miners unless we decide how this figure shall be arrived at. 
 For that reason if my honourable friend goes to a division I shall 
 certainly support him. 
 
 Mr. JARDINE : I want to appeal to those members who have 
 been influenced perhaps too much by the sympathetic, eloquent, and 
 very fair speeches of the miners’ representatives on this question of 
 the 5s. There are at the present time — and I am very proud as a 
 Somerset member to say so — actually three mines working in 
 Somerset. One cannot say too much for the courage, independence, 
 and consideration of the miners working there. They are working 
 mines which might be called uneconomic mines, containing thin 
 seams of poor coal. Those men are probably the only ones working 
 in the country to supply the country’s needs. If this 5s. is passed 
 these mines will be closed ; they must be closed. (An Honourable 
 Member : “Not necessarily.”) Those mines to-day could only keep 
 going on at the low wage — (An Honourable Member : “ Starving the 
 workman !”) — that the worker is content to receive. 
 
 Mi'. WEDGWOOD : What are the royalties ? 
 
26 
 
 Mr. JARDINE : Honourable members opposite, some of them, 
 know as much of trade unions as I do, and they know quite well 
 that if an unfair wage is being paid in any district, Somerset or 
 elsewhere, that skilled workmen will go and get employment 
 elsewhere. If these men are content in Somerset to go on working 
 then they have no right to be penalised, and it is not right that 
 employers should be forced to close the mines. If the fixing of a 
 minimum wage — I want to impress this upon honourable members 
 on both sides — would mean closing these pits and the loss of 
 livelihood to these loyal and unselfish workers, what would be the 
 general effect of a minimum of 5s. ? Every employer of labour, or 
 trade union leader, knows, or should know, that where at the present 
 time a man who is in a bad pit with difficulty can only earn 5s., on 
 piece-work, if this minimum wage of 5s. is fixed, whether he works 
 hard or not, there will not be sufficient inducement to that miner to 
 keep up the high pressure — or indeed the men in any other 
 occupation. He will go slow, and that result will happen not in the 
 best of mines. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : Does the honourable member know that our 
 proposal will exempt the very places he is speaking of in Somerset, 
 Bristol, and the Forest of Dean ? 
 
 Mr. JARDINE : It is evident that the honourable member has 
 not read his own amendment. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : Yes, it is here. 
 
 Mr. JAKDINE : If the honourable member will be good enough 
 to read it he will see that the minimum wage fixed there is 4s. lid. 
 That is lower than the subject of this amendment. But my point is 
 this. It is a point that some members of the House do not realise. 
 Whatever you fix, if you fix that minimum or not, you will reduce 
 the output in all those cases by, it may be, twenty-five or it may be 
 fifty per cent. That will be the effect of the 5s. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : It is not a piece rate. 
 
 Mr. JAKDINE: My point is this — may I repeat it? If this 
 House passes the 5s. rate it will result in an enormous increase in 
 the cost of coal. It will mean the throwing out of employment of 
 many men and the closing of many mines. It will mean a serious 
 tax upon the rest of the community, and simply for the benefit of 
 one well-organised class, who have the power, I am sorry to say, of 
 insisting against the will of a reluctant Government. 
 
 Mr. RICHAKDS : I would like to remove from the mind of the 
 honourable member who has just sat down, before I proceed to my 
 main point, a misapprehension as to the attitude of the representa- 
 tives of the Labour Party. This is not our amendment which is 
 
27 
 
 being discussed. The amendment that we intend to move upon this 
 subject will be found upon the last page of the Order Paper. We 
 propose to ask the Government to include the whole of the proposed 
 schedule of the particular districts in the Bill, but especially to 
 exempt those particular provisions that we are dealing with at the 
 present time ; so that we are not responsible for the present 
 amendment. Other honourable gentlemen, who, perhaps, know 
 more about it, have stepped in and moved this amendment. Hence 
 the general debate. I would like to make as strongly as I can 
 an appeal to the right honourable gentleman who represents the 
 Government at the present moment for a reconsideration of this 
 matter. I listened to the Prime Minister with profound regret. I 
 remember reading some years ago a speech by the Chief Secretary 
 for Ireland, in which he said, that “ the House of Commons never 
 did anything obviously heroic or conspicuously wise.” In dealing 
 with this great question at the present moment I have been 
 prepared, and have given, the Prime Minister and his colleagues all 
 the commendation that was possible for one man to give for the 
 splendid manner in which they have tried to bring to an end the 
 awful state of this country. 
 
 Having, however, decided to bring it to an end by laying down 
 the principle of the minimum wage to be paid at the collieries, they 
 surely ought to take the heroic step of giving some guidance to the 
 people who will have all the difficulties to contend against when 
 this Bill has passed through the House. Personally, I shall be in 
 the position of bottle-holder to the honourable Member for South 
 Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) and the honourable baronet who sits behind 
 me (Sir A. Markham) when these matters are being discussed in 
 South Wales, and I shall be without any guiding principle at all, 
 simply having the pious opinion of the House of Commons that 
 some minimum shall be paid. Yesterday afternoon, and for some 
 days past, representatives of the colliers, men doing the actual work 
 too, have been in the precincts of the House. I was with them 
 part of the time when one noble lord after another got up to speak. 
 When these names were seen on the indicator the colliers, quite 
 innocently, asked, “ What does he know about the matter? ” My 
 only reply was that “that noble lord” or “that honourable 
 member” were “great on economics.” But this is not an economic 
 question at all. This is a humanitarian question, and a question of 
 services rendered. I would say to those honourable gentlemen who 
 do not know anything about it, and to noble lords opposite who do 
 not know quite sufficient about it, that I do not ask them to go 
 down the colliery and see these men at work ; but I do ask of any 
 honourable member who is going to cast a vote upon this occasion 
 that he should have some knowledge of what we are asking for, 
 and it would be sufficient for them if they would see these men 
 going to work at three, four, five, or six o’clock in the morning, 
 going through snow and storms of various kinds, to the pits and 
 spending eight hours down there. I think that would be sufficient 
 
28 
 
 knowledge to lead them to believe, or at any rate to enlighten 
 honourable members to see, that 5s. per day is not too much to pay 
 to a man who renders such services to the nation. 
 
 What is the class of men to whom the particular principle of 
 our proposals applies ? I am not going to deal with the question of 
 2s. for boys at all. If we are going to put a figure in this Bill at all, 
 
 I think 2s. for boys will be accepted by all honourable members, but 
 this 5s. minimum as applied to men is for a class of men who are 
 least able to take care of themselves. They are generally strong, 
 robust men whom the colliery owners get hold of from the 
 agricultural districts, and they do not perform the least arduous 
 work in the mines, although it is not skilled work, but it is not the 
 skilled man who always works the hardest ; he generally gets the 
 lightest end of it in all occupations. These men, who often do the 
 hardest and most arduous toil in the mines, do it in the most 
 difficult places; and it is one of the most difficult parts of our 
 mining industry. They are sent into these places chiefly at night, 
 where there is often a want of ventilation, because it is not able to 
 reach those further parts, and there is a very high temperature. 
 We do say that it is not too much to ask the House of Commons to 
 provide that men who do work like this should be given a wage of 
 5s. a day. They are not a very large percentage of the the total 
 number of men employed. Speaking for South Wales, I think the 
 number of those who are at present in receipt of less than 5s. a day 
 would be possibly from ten to twelve thousand. I want the House 
 to remember that it is not dealing with an economic question. 
 These men are chiefly employed in the poorer collieries of South 
 Wales. I made that statement outside in the presence of the 
 gentlemen who own the collieries, and I repeat it here. It is not an 
 economic question at all in South Wales. The men who pay the 
 highest wages in South Wales are the men who are most susceptible 
 to pressure from the workmen’s organisation. The man who owns 
 a small colliery, though it is inferior coal, when he finds the miners’ 
 organisation pressing him for a decent wage, is compelled to pay it 
 because he cannot afford to fight them, but those great combines 
 and trusts, which we are hearing so much about, these are the 
 people who are paying those small rates in South Wales. I ask the 
 Government to give to the Boards who will have this matter to deal 
 with some guide, at least as far as South Wales is concerned, and to- 
 say that no man shall be expected to go down those mines and work 
 at less than 5s. a day. 
 
 As I understand this problem, the whole of it is an attempt to 
 bring to an end the peculiar and, I hope, unique state of things in 
 this country, where all the industries of the country are being more 
 or less paralysed and killed by the cessation of work by the miners. 
 Surely in this House it is not too much, if we say this, and I say it 
 with a conscientious belief on my own part, that this is one of the 
 
29 
 
 most important factors which will operate as to whether this thing 
 is to end or not. I am not going to commit myself by saying it is 
 the only one, but I do say, and knowing the miners as I do, and 
 having been in their deliberations from beginning to end, that this 
 is one of the most important factors that will operate in determining 
 whether the attempt of the Government to end this matter is going 
 to be successful — I suppose some time or other it must be successful, 
 but I say relatively — whether at the present time it is going to 
 bring this state of affairs to a speedy termination. An honourable 
 gentleman on this side said, and it is one of the things chiefly used 
 against this proposition, that if you do it in this industry you must 
 do it in other industries. I say at once, why not ? If it is successful, 
 why not ? If it is not successful it will have damned itself, and 
 there will be no further peddling about it. If it is successful, why 
 not apply it to the whole of the industries in this country ? What is 
 the principle which you are asked to apply ? Not that the men should 
 get a reasonable living wage, as an honourable member tried to put 
 into the Bill, not that they are going to live luxuriously, but simply 
 laying down the principle that men are entitled to live as a result of 
 their labour, and that is all you are doing in this Bill. I say, 
 notwithstanding the danger there may be that other people will 
 want to follow in the footsteps of the miners, there is no real reason 
 why the House should not do it in this case. I think I made it 
 perfectly clear that we are prepared to accept the limitation with 
 respect to some of the districts which are already proposed in our 
 amendment. This will stand if the Government are going to re- 
 consider this matter and put the 5s. and 2s. in the Bill. 
 
 Colonel GIBBS : I do not know whether I would be in order, but 
 I would like to point out as the Member for East Somerset (Mr. 
 Jardine) has already indicated that 4s. lid. is already in the schedule 
 for Somerset and Bristol. I do not know whether there is much 
 difference between that and the 5s. which is proposed in the 
 amendment. Whether you like it or not 4s. lid. or 5s. will be too 
 much for the district I represent. Take the case of Bristol. In 
 Bristol last autumn the existing schedule of wages was settled. The 
 right honourable gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy of 
 Lancaster exercised considerable influence in that settlement, and 
 the Board of Trade agreed that the wages should not be increased 
 beyond the existing schedule if these collieries were to continue to 
 work. The proposals of the Member for North Somerset, who 
 represents a mining district, and the proposals which the miners’ 
 representatives made on the 21st February, would have the same 
 effect for the Bristol district and North Somerset. They would 
 mean that the mines would have to be closed down. Considering 
 the wages have been revised so recently in Bristol and Somerset 
 it would be a great mistake for the Government now to accept this 
 amendment, and I am glad the Prime Minister does not intend to 
 agree to any figures being inserted in the Bill, 
 
80 
 
 Mr. DAVID DAVIES: An honourable member has just said, 
 quoting the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that Parliament was neither 
 heroic nor wise. I think in this case it will be wise if not heroic. I 
 do not see how we can pass the proposals which are embodied in 
 this amendment. We are told by the honourable member that this 
 proposal was based on humanitarian grounds. If that is so, then it 
 ought to apply to all the districts laid down in the schedule 
 which it is proposed to add to the Bill. You cannot have it 
 both ways, and either the 5s. minimum must be applied all round 
 or it must not. This House has no right to lay down any 
 particular figure. Surely honourable members must have faith in 
 the Boards to be set up and the impartiality of the Chairmen 
 who are going to preside over them. As far as the coalowners 
 are concerned, they are prepared to accept that machinery for 
 settling these disputes, and it is not fair that this House should 
 be asked to go any further than this Bill goes in initiating the 
 principle of the minimum wage. If this rate of 5s. is carried it 
 upsets and infringes the agreement which has been entered into 
 between the men and the owners in South Wales. We heard a good 
 deal yesterday about that agreement, and the honourable Member 
 for South Glamorgan, in his very eloquent speech, defended the 
 action which had been taken in regard to the breaking of that 
 agreement. I do not want to go back on the discussion of yestesday, 
 but the facts of that agreement are plain and obvious to everyone. 
 It took three months to prepare that agreement, and it was ballotted 
 for by all the miners in the Federated Area of South Wales. It was 
 also approved of by the Miner’s Federation of Great Britain and 
 signed by their representatives in South Wales. They now tell us 
 that this question of abnormal places should have been dealt with in 
 the agreement. 
 
 Mr. RICHARDS : On a point of order. Is the honourable 
 member in order in discussing that agreement, because we are now 
 dealing with another question ? 
 
 The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN : I think the honourable member 
 is going rather wide of this particular amendment. 
 
 Mr. DAVID DAVIES : If this amendment is agreed to it is a 
 direct breach of the agreement in South Wales. The honourable 
 baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) pointed out yesterday 
 that there is nothing in the Bill which encroaches on that agreement, 
 but if this figure is put in it will raise the standard of thirty-five per 
 cent, to fifty per cent., and that would be a direct infringement of 
 the agreement. I do not think that is a course which honourable 
 members really wish to adopt. From the beginning honourable 
 members have been in favour of retaining that agreement, and they 
 fought for it during the earlier part of the negotiations. I agree with 
 all that has fallen from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter, 
 
31 
 
 If the House is going to adopt this particular figure, I fail to see how 
 it can possibly reject similar applications in the future from railway 
 workers, or even from agricultural labourers, for the fixing of a 
 minimum wage. I very strongly urge the Government to adhere to 
 their decision. 
 
 Mr. SWIFT : As an honourable member who is exceedingly 
 interested in the principle of this Bill, and most earnestly desirous of 
 seeing it carried into law at the earliest possible moment, I rise to 
 express the hope that the Government will not give way by 
 inserting any figures into the Bill which they have brought before 
 the House. My reason for objecting to the insertion of these 
 figures is not one based upon any consequences which may follow 
 when we have to discuss, on some subsequent date, other situations 
 which may arise between employers and employed. My objection 
 to these figures being inserted in this Bill at the present time is 
 that the House has not got before it, and cannot possibly have 
 before it, the materials upon which the figures ought to be arrived 
 at; and, in the second place, to fix the figures will not be beneficial 
 to those whom this Bill is proposing to benefit. Deference has 
 been made to a series of figures which have been mentioned by 
 those who represent the miners in this House. I think it is utterly 
 impossible for this Committee to deal at this time with the question 
 of the figures. I find here a number of districts to which varying 
 considerations apply, and for which varying prices are suggested, 
 and those prices differ from 4s. lid. up to 7s. fid. 
 
 I have not the slightest doubt that the gentlemen who put 
 forward those figures honestly believe that they are the right figures 
 to be adopted in those particular districts. I am convinced, from 
 what I know of them personally, that they are satisfied that those 
 are the right figures. On the other hand, there are people who say 
 they are not the right figures, and, therefore, you cannot decide 
 without hearing both sides. It may be that some of those figures 
 are too high and some are too low, but how can this Committee 
 determine which is right and which is wrong. As the Prime 
 Minister said, if you once fix the figure by Act of Parliament you 
 will have the greatest difficulty in the world in ever getting that 
 figure altered by anybody. If I may respectfully say so, the Bill 
 seems to me to provide the fairest possible method for arriving at 
 what the correct figure in each particular district ought to be. 
 Instead of fixing it without a full knowledge of the whole of the 
 circumstances, as we are asked to do by this amendment and by 
 other amendments on the paper, those gentlemen who advocate 
 these figures will be able to go to their District Boards and 
 persuade the other members and the Independent Chairmen that 
 their figures are right. I am prepared, for the purposes of my 
 argument, to accept those figures, and I will assume that they are 
 right. Even then we have no business to put them in the Bill 
 
32 
 
 without having more information about them. We have by this 
 Bill provided the best means by which those figures, if correct, can 
 be enforced in the various districts, and if not correct they can be 
 amended so as to be just to all parties. I am sincerely anxious for 
 the success of this Bill, and I do not think our hopes are likely to be 
 realised if you introduce into the Bill the defect of having a schedule 
 which must be a subject of dispute and discussion between the 
 parties, and upon which this House certainly is not in a position to 
 give a final word. 
 
 Mr. LEIF JONES : Most honourable members who have 
 spoken have expressed agreement with the honourable Member for 
 Hanley that 5s. per day is not too much for the men who work 
 underground. This is the opinion practically unanimously held by 
 honourable members on both sides of the House, and yet we are told 
 that it is not possible for us to give expression to the general view 
 that 5s. is a standard wage for a day’s work underground. If that 
 is our view, it ought not to be difficult to put it into an Act of 
 Parliament without carrying all those dangers foreseen by our 
 opponents. I do not quite understand what the 5s. in the amendment 
 means. Unfortunately, in the colliery trade, the custom varies. 
 Does the 5s. referred to in the amendment include any rent? In 
 many places coals are supplied free, and I want to know whether 
 the 5s. suggested is to be the minimum wage for the man who has a 
 house free, or is it for a man who has not a house free? (An 
 Honourable Member : “ They have free coals.”) I shall come to 
 that point later. I know that in some cases coal is supplied free, 
 but in other cases the houses are free, and there are cases in which 
 only nominal rents are charged. It is idle to pretend that giving a 
 minimum wage of 5s. to a daily worker is the same as giving the 
 same wage to a man with a free house, a cheap house, or a house at 
 a nominal rent. I am aware that in some cases coal is given free, 
 but in other places they have to buy their own coal, sometimes at a 
 cheaper rate and sometimes at the ordinary market price. 
 
 You have a variety of circumstances which must be dealt with 
 by people who possess local knowledge. Having said that I do not 
 think what I have stated relieves this House of the responsibility 
 for fixing a standard wage. The honourable and learned member 
 opposite suggested that the District Boards should be left free to 
 consider the local circumstances, but he wants them to start with 
 nothing to guide them, while I want them to start with a standard 
 wage fixed at the starting point. I think it is better to have 
 something to guide them. In Bristol and some other districts 
 which have been mentioned you can depend upon those acting with 
 local knowledge to make such departures from the scale as may be 
 necessary, but I do not think they ought to start without any 
 guidance at all as the Bill stands at present, in the hope that they 
 will arrive at some reasonable minimum. In any case the work of 
 
33 
 
 these District Boards will be very difficult, but it will be all the 
 more difficult if this House does not lay down a general rule to 
 guide them ; therefore I appeal to the Government, after listening to 
 the Prime Minister’s speech and carefully weighing the arguments 
 which he advanced, to consider whether it is not possible in a 
 schedule to this Bill to lay down some general rule in regard to the 
 rates of wages, so that the arbitrator may have a standard laid 
 down instead of entering into the arbitration with no guidance from 
 Parliament that this House has declared that 5s. a day is a 
 reasonable wage for men working underground. I think it is a 
 confession of failure on the part of the House not to give some 
 indication of that kind in the Bill itself. 
 
 Earl WINTERTON : I think the honourable gentleman 
 opposite has missed the principal point of our objection to this 
 amendment. If you are going to have a Wages Board set up to fix 
 what the minimum wage is to be, you must leave to those Boards 
 the whole question. The honourable Member for Rushcliffe is 
 connected with business, and I think he will agree with me when I 
 say that in any business settlement it is only right and fair that the 
 Wages Board should have the fullest opportunity of deciding the 
 actual minimum wage. 
 
 Mr. LEIE JONES: The narrower you can make the area the 
 easier it is to arrive at such a division, because you can say it varies 
 a little more or a little less than 5s. 
 
 Earl WINTERTON : If this Minimum Wage Board which is 
 going to be set up in this Bill is going to be one which will arrive at 
 a fair settlement, if you are going to embody a minimum amount of 
 5s. for men and 2s. for boys, you certainly ought to embody a 
 proposal that the maximum should not be higher than a certain 
 sum, otherwise it will be a one-sided settlement. If you are going 
 to lay down that it shall not be less than a certain sum, you must 
 also provide that it shall not be greater than a certain sum. 
 Honourable members below the Gangway have supported the 
 Second Reading of this Bill, and if they support and accept the 
 principle of setting up the Wages Board, then they must accept the 
 principle that the Wages Board should be the people to decide what 
 the minimum wage should be, otherwise it will not be a settlement 
 at all. You will enormously increase the difficulties beforehand if 
 you prejudice the case by saying that it shall not be less than a 
 certain sum. I think this was pointed out with unanswerable force 
 by the Prime Minister. There is a serious principle involved, and 
 because the House accepts in a crisis the theory of a minimum wage 
 that is no reason why we should go the greater length of arbitrarily 
 fixing the amount when we cannot judge what it should be under 
 varying circumstances. The only result would be that if this 
 principle is carried out you will eventually have to fix an arbitrary 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 rule in the case of other trades. That must be a most serious thing, 
 much more serious even than the acceptance by the House of the 
 principle of the minimum wage. I would ask honourable gentlemen 
 opposite who are connected with great business enterprises if they 
 do not think it is a most dangerous principle for the House arbitrarily 
 to fix a rate in any trade. What have honourable gentlemen below 
 the Gangway to be afraid of in the case of the Wage Board ? They 
 have practically admitted in their speeches that these Wages Boards 
 would be fair to them. They have not suggested that they will fix 
 a wage which is not a living wage. We cannot escape the feeling, 
 after listening to the speeches of honourable gentlemen below the 
 Gangway, that they are sticking to the principle not so much because 
 they believe in it as because the representatives of the miners 
 outside the House, I believe perfectly wrongly, have taken up this 
 attitude. I do not think they themselves think there is such an 
 important principle involved. It would be very interesting to know 
 what has happened. As far as I can judge the Bill is wrecked by the 
 refusal of the Government to accept this amendment, a refusal 
 which, I believe, will be endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the 
 House. I think it would be very important, before we go to a division, 
 that we should hear from some honourable gentleman below the 
 Gangway if that is the case. It will be more in the interests of 
 business if progress is reported. What is the use of further 
 discussion ? 
 
 Mr. ATHEBLEY-JONES : I think I am expressing the 
 opinion of a great many of my Liberal friends that it is very like 
 straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel if, having established 
 the principle of a minimum wage, you refuse to deal with this 
 comparatively minor problem. The reasons which have been 
 advanced by the Prime Minister, with all due respect, have been 
 almost purely academic. He stated, and I do not presume to 
 question the force of his observation from a purely economic point 
 of view, that the tendency of fixing a minimum wage would be to 
 make that minimum a maximum. He further stated, another 
 purely academic objection, that if this minimum wage were fixed by 
 Parliament there would be very grave danger that the miners, 
 through their representatives, men like myself and my honourable 
 friends around me, would come back to the House and would 
 endeavour to get that scale of wages altered to a higher level. I 
 entirely decline to consider arguments of that kind as serious in 
 face of the great contingency which confronts us. I have had 
 communications from my constituency, nearly the largest mining 
 constituency in the country, to the effect that if the Government 
 will meet us by making this concession it will be regarded as an 
 assurance that the treatment by this House of the miners’ proposals 
 is sympathetic, and would facilitate the conclusion of a settlement, 
 involving the return of the workmen next week. I said straining at 
 a gnat and swallowing a camel. What do I mean by that ? 
 Undoubtedly in my own county the proportion is somewhat higher, 
 
35 
 
 but I believe I am absolutely correct in stating that not more than 
 twelve per cent., perhaps less, of the men employed in the mines 
 would be affected by this proposal. I go a step further. What is 
 the ordinary wage of a boy now ? In Yorkshire at present it is 
 about Is. 10£d., and in many cases it is larger. In Durham, where, 
 of course, boy labour is very largely employed, although not boys as 
 young as fourteen years of age, the figure is approximately indentical 
 with that which is suggested, and if you take the daily wage of a 
 man in Durham, and I suppose about fifty per cent, of the workmen 
 are daily men, the proportion affected would certainly not be twenty 
 per cent. The conditions there are somewhat different. I think the 
 average daily wage is about 3s. 6d., and to that in many cases you 
 have to add houses and coal, which brings it up to 4s. 6d. Therefore 
 in asking for this minimum wage of 5s. we are not materially 
 affecting the wages. 
 
 Even if the economic position were worse than it is, or can be, 
 so far as the owners are concerned, what does the Government 
 understand by the warnings they have received throughout this 
 debate ? Has it not been demonstrated to them by the earnest and 
 thoughtful speech of the honourable member (Mr. Enoch Edwards) 
 that they regard the concession of this demand as opening the door 
 to a settlement next week, and yet, in face of that statement, and in 
 face of the economic facts which are presented to them, the 
 Government persist in insisting that they will not make this 
 concession. I speak with comparatively little knowledge compared 
 with that which my friends possess, but I feel confident that so far 
 as the county of Durham is concerned unless this concession is 
 made, and it must be a real concession, events that I hardly dare 
 contemplate will happen in Durham and probably in other parts of 
 the country within a very brief space of time, although the miners 
 of Durham have observed, as they have throughout the country 
 generally, a perfectly peaceful and orderly demeanour which must 
 win the admiration of all people whether they sympathise with them 
 or not. I do urge the Government to think well before they take 
 up the position of actual non possumus. They take a tremendous 
 responsibility, a responsibility which, in view of the microscopic 
 character of what is demanded, is a responsibility that, in my 
 judgment no Government should take. I feel constrained, if the 
 matter is pressed to a division, to support my honourable friend. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : It may be because I am a young member of 
 this House, having been in it only two years, but I must say the 
 speeches made to-day have produced an impression upon me which 
 I should hardly have expected. We had in the speech of the Prime 
 Minister very cogent and strong reasons why the Committee should 
 not accede to this suggestion. That was followed by a speech from the 
 honourable gentleman who represented the miners during the 
 Conferences with the Prime Minister, a speech which undoubtedly 
 
86 
 
 was in the nature of a threat to this House — (Honourable Members : 
 “ No, no.”) — if they failed to accede to the Labour Party’s demand. 
 The very fact of that speech was a threat, and no man can deny it. 
 We were told that, unless their demands were granted, the door 
 which is, perhaps, now ajar would be closed next week. Those words 
 have been repeated by the honourable gentleman who last spoke. 
 Whatever the merits of the case, I as a citizen shall register my vote 
 against being threatened and blackmailed in this way. Perhaps I 
 am speaking too strongly, but I can assure honourable gentlemen 
 that I am speaking from my heart, as I have no doubt they spoke 
 from theirs. What is the position ? The honourable gentleman 
 who has just spoken says that if the Government will accept their 
 terms, well and good. What would the honourable gentleman have 
 said if the terms proposed had been 6s. and 3s., or 7s. and 3s.? We 
 should have been in identically the same position. This Committee 
 is not called upon to consider the merits of these figures. When the 
 case is put to us, as it has been put to-day, with a brutal frankness 
 which has never been exceeded in this House, I say, whatever the 
 merits of the case may be, speaking as a man who refuses to be 
 dictated to and bullied, we cannot accede to these requests. The 
 manner in which a case is presented has a great deal to do with the 
 reception that that case receives, and I deeply rerget that it should 
 have been put before this Committee in this extraordinary and 
 regrettable manner. 
 
 Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM : The honourable member who has 
 just sat down stated that the demand which has been put forward 
 for a 5s. and 2s. minimum wage is blackmail. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : I did not say that. I made no statement of 
 that kind. My whole complaint was that we were told that unless 
 we accepted this demand the door would be closed on us. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : The honourable member will perhaps 
 allow me to complete my sentence. I was going to say that he 
 definitely stated that the honourable Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch 
 Edwards) made a statement in putting forward the case of the 
 miners which was in the form of blackmail. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : It had a very different context. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If I understood the argument, it was 
 that the miners would not go back to work. If the honourable 
 member reads a report of his speech to-morrow, he will see that 
 that is what he stated. I want to deal with the two questions of 
 principle raised by the Prime Minister. The weight of his 
 argument was this: He said, “ Here we are asked, as a legislative 
 body, to put into an Act of Parliament a specific rate of wage,” 
 and he seemed to take the view that it was a most undesirable 
 
37 
 
 proceeding. Railways and mines are two industries which can 
 inflict peculiar hardship upon the nation as a whole, and this House 
 will have to recognise at an early date State control in regard to 
 these two industries. Therefore, not only shall we see the 
 principle of arbitration in some form or another incorporated in the 
 Statutes, but I am perfectly convinced that we shall see before very 
 long wages regulated by this House in respect to these two great 
 trades. I am the last person to suggest, and I am sure every 
 member of this Committee does not desire, that this House should 
 go back to the policy of years gone by with regard to the regulation 
 of the wages of adult labourers; but in consequence of the fact 
 that these are two industries which, owing to their character, can 
 inflict such grievous harm on the interests of the nation as a whole, 
 Parliament, in the interests of the nation as a whole must regulate 
 the wages. I think it is an incontrovertible fact that this House 
 will have to get a grip upon these two industries. What is the real 
 position now before the Committee ? The men have come out on 
 strike to get what I believe to be a reasonable demand. It is not 
 denied, and it is not questioned, that the men who have done a fair 
 day’s work are not getting a fair day’s wages. The noble lord 
 opposite (Viscount Helmsley) admitted that last night. 
 
 Viscount HELMSLEY : I did not go so far as that. I said it 
 might be so. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : There is no doubt that that statement is 
 correct. The question is whether or not the men are entitled to 
 strike for fair wages. The Government came on the scene, and 
 rightly so, in the interests of the nation. But the Labour Members 
 have made it perfectly clear that if this amendment is rejected, 
 although we are meeting here to-day under special circumstances, 
 we shall see a continuation of this deplorable condition in which the 
 nation finds itself at the present moment. The honourable member 
 says that is a condition which the House of Commons must not 
 have forced upon it, and that you ought to put the position of this 
 House above all questions of blackmail. Is that really the position ? 
 What is this 5s. ? In many mines it will not apply at all. It will 
 apply in a very limited number of mines. What is going to be the 
 cost to the industries of the country ? The men are willing to drop 
 their schedules, and therefore they have met the House more than 
 half way. They have placed themselves largely in the hands of this 
 House to do justice to them. The demand of 5s. for men and 2s. 
 for boys no one can say is an unreasonable demand. Only a week 
 before the strike started boys of the ages of fourteen and fifteen 
 were constantly employed in the mines. Surely, having regard to. 
 the danger they run, a claim for 2s. cannot be held to be a 
 blackmailing demand. The Prime Minister’s objection seems to be 
 that he does not wish to put into an Act of Parliament these specific 
 rates of wages. But I would remind him — I am glad to see him in 
 
38 
 
 his place — that the railways and the mines are industries of a 
 national character which sooner or later the Government of the 
 country will have to deal with, because they are interests by means 
 of which grievous injury may be inflicted on the community. It 
 may be said that this measure is only a temporary one and intended 
 to meet an emergency. The Government ask us to pass the measure 
 for a period of three years, but it cannot be imagined for one minute 
 that at the end of that time we are to return to exactly the same 
 conditions as before. 
 
 The number of mines likely to be closed by the operation of 
 this amendment is very limited, and that fact is not going to inflict 
 on the community at large any grievance in regard to the increase 
 in price. The Prime Minister, time after time, in defending Free 
 Trade in this House, has told the manufacturers of this country 
 that they must use modern machinery. But it seems to me that 
 when a man sinks a hole in the ground he claims to have a 
 prescriptive right to pay lower rates of wages than are compatible 
 with a proper standard of living. I may point out that the 
 output of these small mines in the aggregate will not, probably, 
 equal the output of one modern mine in the Midland counties, 
 and therefore, if you do, by the operation of this clause, close 
 a number of small mines, there can be no hardship inflicted 
 on the community. The House should consider what it will 
 
 do by rejecting this amendment. I am quite certain of this, 
 that the miners, having dropped their schedule, and having shown 
 that they are willing to meet the Government half way, the 
 Government might meet them on this comparatively infinitesimal 
 point. Why cannot the Government, in the crisis in which we find 
 ourselves, accept an amendment like this ? If they will say that 
 the rate of wages paid in any mine shall be equal to the average 
 rate paid in the majority of mines in the district that will have the 
 same effect practically as this amendment. If the Government 
 later on accept an amendment to provide that the average daily 
 wage to be paid to the men shall be the average rate paid by the 
 majority of mine owners in the district, that would accomplish all 
 that this amendment aims at. But for the Government to put 
 forward, as they are now doing, an absolute stone wall resistance to 
 this amendment, is only to lead to the regrettable possibility of the 
 refusal of the men to accept this Bill. I am not putting that 
 forward as a threat. But I believe that if this amendment is 
 rejected the miners as a body will say, “ We have been fighting for 
 a principle — for the schedules which have been practically agreed to 
 in the federated area,” and when they find that this demand for the 
 insertion of the 2s. and 5s. is opposed by the House, they will come 
 to the conclusion that the House of Commons is not anxious to meet 
 them. Working men do not study the economics of politics, and 
 they will simply come to the conclusion that what they believe to be 
 an admittedly fair claim is being unfairly resisted by the Govern- 
 
39 
 
 ment. I believe the average number of days worked in mines 
 throughout the country is 514 per week. Butin the districts where 
 I come from many mines are not working in summer time for more 
 than three days a fortnight, and in some districts men do not work 
 more than one day a week. There are mines in one district I can 
 speak of where the output of coal is 3,000 or 4,000 tons daily in 
 the winter time, but in summer time they are not worked more 
 than one-and-a-half days per week. All the men ask for under 
 this amendment is that for a clear day’s work they shall be 
 allowed a sum of 5s. per day, and if the House should refuse to 
 accept so reasonable a proposition as that it does not seem to me 
 that such action will be likely to conduce to a permanent settlement 
 of the existing difficulties. Will the Prime Minister not give 
 favourable consideration to the suggestion that the average rate paid 
 to the men in any county or district shall be the minimum rate ? 
 The right honourable gentleman tells us that the House has no 
 knowledge of the facts, and that we are not in a position to decide 
 definitely what the rate should be in the different districts. But 
 I repeat that it would be well to take the average rate, and that 
 would accomplish, in very large measure, what this amendment 
 seeks to do. At all events, I shall have no other option but to 
 support this amendment. I do not think the view of the Prime 
 Minister is well founded that this minimum wage would be treated 
 as a maximum. This is a Minimum Wages Bill, and I cannot 
 conceive it is possible that an arbitrator, knowing that the Bill is 
 entitled a Bill for the purpose of providing a minimum wage, would 
 treat the 5s. as a maximum. Therefore I do earnestly ask the 
 House to pause and consider before they reject this amendment. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : I listened with interest to the speech 
 of the honourable member (Sir A. Markham), and I find the effect 
 of it on my mind is to strengthen the case against the amendment. 
 The honourable member, no doubt, has great knowledge of coal 
 mines, and he was not disposed to deny that there were a certain 
 number of mines which it would be difficult to carry on profitably if 
 this minimum wage had to be paid to the men. He said also that 
 it would not do great harm to the community supposing there was 
 a slight rise in the price of coal. I confess it does surprise me very 
 much that honourable members opposite seem to keep their minds 
 in what may be called water-tight compartments. How is it possible 
 for honourable members who argue in favour of a policy of Free 
 Trade to say that a small rise in the price of coal would do no great 
 harm to the community? What is the principle they associate 
 with that line of reasoning ? When the dispute took place in 
 Lancashire in the cotton trade it was contended that a small rise in 
 the price of food, any article of consumption, might overstep the 
 bounds within which profits could be made in that trade. It 
 appears to me therefore that precisely the same argument may be 
 used with regard to a slight rise in the price of coal. If the 
 
40 
 
 occasion had been less serious than the present, it would have 
 seemed absurd to hear the Foreign Secretary stating, as he did last 
 night, almost in terms the same argument which we have heard 
 already on this side of the House in regard to Tariff Reform. It is 
 perfectly amazing the present Government, apparently without 
 realising the application of the argument, saying that if you raise 
 the price of an article of general consumption you are not doing 
 the very thing which is charged against Tariff Reformers, and 
 which is by far the most considerable objection to Tariff Reform, if 
 the objection be well founded. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WARD: The miners ask a minimum wage 
 
 supposing it did increase the cost of production. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : We must take the Bill as the basis of 
 
 our argument. The Government are setting up Boards of 
 Arbitration which will, presumably, come to just and reasonable 
 decisions in respect to the wages of each particular man in each 
 particular district. No miner in the country will be worse off, 
 supposing that the demand made be within the meaning of the 
 Bill just and reasonable, because where the demand is just and 
 reasonable the Board will give 5s. On the other hand, in the small 
 minority of mines where the payment of that minimum would not 
 be within the meaning of the Bill just and reasonable, it would not 
 be given. It would be better for the employers, the miners, and 
 the community not to have this minimum in the Bill. It is better 
 that a mine should be kept open with a slightly lower minimum 
 wage than that it should be closed altogether. It is better to have 
 some wages than none at all. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I do not think there is the slightest 
 shadow of a doubt that all these miners will readily find 
 employment. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : This is not so trivial a matter to the 
 man who earns his wages if he is to be suddenly put in a position 
 of unemployment. What good does it do? Nobody would be 
 better off, and some people would be worse off. What is the good of 
 passing an amendment that cannot possibly do good to anyone, and 
 which may possibly do harm to some ? The only reason put forward 
 in support of the 5s. minimum is that it seems to be a reasonable sum. 
 Some weeks ago I went into the question of what determined 
 wages. We hear constantly in these discussions of what are fair 
 and reasonable wages, and of what men deserve. If I were go to 
 and fix wages on the principle of what was deserved, I would fix them 
 a great deal higher than 5s. The honourable member gave a very 
 tragic reason for this minimum when he pointed to the fact that 
 boys are frequently killed in the mines. Is it reasonable that a boy 
 
41 
 
 should be killed for 2s. a day and not killed for Is. 6d. a day? Surely 
 that is an absurdity. If you once come to consider the matter from 
 that point of view, it is impossible to say how high wages ought not 
 to be. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If a man invests his money in risky 
 securities he expects a high rate of interest, and if a man gives his 
 labour in a mine he expects a high rate of wages. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : What determines the rate of interest 
 on Consols and the wages of labour are the laws of competition. As 
 a matter of fact whether for capital or labour people get the price 
 determined by the demand for capital or labour, and you cannot get 
 away from the law of competition. I do not admire the law of 
 competition at all. It is a law dependent upon the supply which is 
 available at the time the commodity is wanted, and you cannot 
 escape from it. Though we speak of wages being fair or unfair, 
 resonable or unreasonable, such expressions have no exact meaning. 
 You see what an extraordinarily difficult thing it will be for these 
 unhappy Boards to fix wages upon hypothetical reasonableness, which 
 is a rough and ready estimate of what the market is giving. Appeals 
 have been made from the Labour benches to the Government to 
 accept this amendment. We cannot always give the amount that is 
 deserved. The matter must in the end be determined by the laws 
 of supply and demand and competition. The Boards are the mere 
 machinery for putting these laws into force. 
 
 Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY : May I ask if the noble lord is entitled 
 to make a Second Reading speech raising the whole question of the 
 reasonableness of a minimum wage which we have already decided. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : Of course, it is difficult to draw the line 
 between the proposed 5s. and the general question. I should rather 
 trust to honourable members confining themselves as much as they 
 can to the minimum of 5s. for miners. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : I quite recognise the justice of what 
 you say, and I have no intention of enlarging on the matter. My 
 point as to the precise amendment is that you are going to set up 
 as a sort of Judicial Arbitrator to determine wages. If you say 5s. 
 in this particular case there is no reason why you should not have 
 a schedule in the Bill, and no reason for appointing the Boards 
 of Arbitrators at all. (An Honourable Member: “It is a bare 
 subsistence.”) There are a great number of people in this country 
 subsisting on a great deal less than 25s. a week. The amendment 
 is asking the House to do what it is not fit to do, what we are setting 
 up an elaborate organisation to do, bodies whose decision will be 
 given by perfectly impartial and highly skilled persons. We are 
 asked to undertake judicial duties. It has never been anything but 
 
42 
 
 disastrous when you make legislative assemblies do judicial work. 
 Let us leave that to the trained bodies we are appointing, they will 
 decide upon it. If in a small minority of cases and in peculiar 
 conditions the miners make an unreasonable demand they will decide. 
 Both in one case and the other they will decide in the interests of 
 the miners at large and in the interest of all the miners in all the 
 mines. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : I hope, in view of the many 
 
 important outstanding questions to be decided, that we may come 
 now to a decision on this particular amendment. In making that 
 appeal I should like to respond to two applications which have been 
 made within the course of the day. The first was by my honourable 
 friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) whose speech 
 we all listened to with so much sympathy. In reference to that I 
 wish to make clear what I thought I had already clearly expressed 
 when I previously addressed the Committee, and what was stated 
 with the utmost emphasis by the Leader of the Opposition, that if 
 the House is constrained to reject this amendment it ought not to be 
 taken. It would be a gross travesty of any intention which we have 
 if it were taken, as an opinion on the part of the House of Commons 
 that the rates suggested, 2s. and 5s., were not, and might not, 
 be proved to be most reasonable rates. I have always said the 
 same to those who were present at our negotiations. There is 
 a schedule put forward by the miners. I have never said for 
 a moment that there was any information in my possession or 
 in that of the Government convincing us that the rates put forward 
 in that schedule were otherwise than reasonable rates. But what 
 we do say is the more reasonable they are the more certain they are 
 to be justified when made the subject of local inquiry and impartial 
 investigation. So I say it would be completely to misinterpret the 
 intention of the House of Commons to let it go forth to the country 
 that they had passed a vote which was adverse to the demand of 
 the miners for this minimum for men and boys respectively. Next, 
 in regard to what was said by the honourable Member for Mansfield 
 (Sir A. Markham) I should not in the least object to a provision 
 being inserted in the Bill in appropriate terms that in settling the 
 minimum of the wage regard should be had by the Joint District 
 Boards to the average daily rate paid for work of that class in the 
 district. I do not think that any Joint District Board which 
 understood its functions would fail to take this into account. I 
 think that that would be the very first thing which they would take 
 into account, and I think that everybody would agree on this. How 
 they could proceed to decide without taking that into account passes 
 my comprehension. But naturally if there is any apprehension on 
 that point, and if such apprehension as there is would be allayed by 
 the insertion of specific words to that effect, I can assure my 
 honourable friend that the Government would be very happy to 
 accept an amendment of that kind. I hope that with those few 
 
43 
 
 explanations the Committee may feel themselves able now to come 
 to a decision on this point. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : I regret very much that the 
 Government has come to the decision which was announced earlier 
 by the Prime Minister, and that it has not seen its way to modify 
 that decision. We did not ask for legislation. We came out on 
 strike for certain purposes. This Bill, although nominally a 
 Minimum Wage Bill, is not actually a Minimum Wage Bill. This 
 House has specifically declined to discuss all the problems that 
 centre round the minimum wage. This House has stated by the 
 overwhelming vote of last night, and previously in giving the right 
 honourable gentleman leave to introduce the Bill, that this Bill was 
 to set no precedent, that it was not to be set in the general legislation 
 of the country, and that it should be withdrawn at the very earliest 
 possible moment. (Honourable Members : “ No.”) The right 
 honourable gentleman himself has given three years, it is an ad hoc 
 Bill. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER: It is a three years’ Bill with the 
 provision that if Parliament is satisfied with the working of it it can 
 continue it. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : I should like to know when 
 Parliament ever introduced a Bill without having that power. It is 
 a very common practice in this House to pass a Bill called the 
 “ Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,” and there is nothing new in 
 that. But that is the point. The right honourable gentleman 
 stated in this House that this was a Bill specific, sui generis. I 
 decline, and I think rightly decline, to consider the circumstances 
 which would be created by this Bill if it was a permanent piece of 
 our legislation, as, for instance, compulsory arbitration, which would 
 be absolutely necessary if this Bill was going to be the beginning of 
 a new code of industrial legislation. My point is this : In consequence 
 of all that has taken place this Bill is in simple, plain English an 
 attempt to settle this strike. This Bill is an attempt to get the men 
 to declare their readiness to go down the pits on Monday morning. 
 What is the use, if I may say so, of splitting hairs upon a minimum 
 wage as opposed to 5s. expressed as the minimum ? I may put it 
 to the right honourable gentleman himself : if he were one of those 
 men out on strike now, with his experience as a miner, his 
 membership of his union, and all the problems in front of him and 
 behind him, and we being in the position of his leader, came to him 
 and said : “ We have got a minimum wage for you. That is all 
 right.” And then he said to us, “ How much is it ? ” And 
 we said, “ My friend, you must take it that if you are a 
 reasonable man you will assume that certain things will happen. 
 You will assume that no District Board will give you a wage 
 less than the average current rate that you have been enjoying 
 before the strike and all that sort of thing.” I venture to say that 
 
44 
 
 the right honourable gentleman would have some suspicions about 
 that. I think he would, simply because the men are out in order to 
 get some specific thing. They have asked for a schedule, and 
 they have asked for 5s. and 2s., and they are perfectly ready to waive 
 the schedule. They are perfectly willing to refer that, for the 
 purpose of peace, without prejudice at all, to the local bodies. 
 
 Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER : Why do not the men trust their 
 leaders ? 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : The men trust their leaders in 
 precisely the same way as the honourable gentleman trusts his own 
 leader. 
 
 Mr. C. LOWTHER : If they have full trust in their leaders, 
 as I most certainly have in mine, surely it becomes the duty of the 
 leaders to advise them. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : We 
 
 Mr. C. LOWTHER : Why not own it? 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : The honourable member 
 might try quietly to listen to the argument. The leaders are 
 perfectly prepared to advise; they are prepared to express a very 
 definite and a very unmistakable opinion as to what ought to be 
 done. But does the honourable member, or any member of this 
 House, mean to suggest that the leaders ought to tell the men to do 
 things that the leaders themselves do not believe in ? The question 
 is — and it is a question that must be asked at every stage of this 
 Bill — is this measure, or is it not, a tolerable and bearable suggestion 
 for stopping the strike ? I candidly and I honestly say that I felt 
 last night that we might have got some sort of agreement this 
 morning on the 5s. and 2s. basis that would have enabled the strike 
 to have been settled right away. I am sorry that the Government 
 have banged the door in our face. I shall be very sorry if this 
 House bangs the door in our face. Does this House clearly under- 
 stand what it is doing ? It can put in the 5s. and the 2s. subject to 
 the safeguards under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. These men really 
 must have something that is tangible and something that is 
 substantial. A minimum wage : what does it mean ? How very 
 difficult it is for responsible men to go to a great mass of men and 
 talk about the minimum wage. Even if we had some more specific 
 proposal, such as the proposal of the living wage made by an 
 honourable member opposite, there is still that very vagueness 
 which settles nothing at all. Supposing it were referred to a 
 Committee which came to a decision in pounds, shillings and pence 
 that was not satisfactory to the men. You have got to consider both 
 
45 
 
 sides of the matter. After great bodies of men with long 
 experience have made up their minds that they must have an 
 advance in wages, they offer to negotiate with the employers, as my 
 honourable friends about me did time after time. In fact, they got 
 a large section of the employers practically to agree, and the margin 
 of disagreement was so small that, with a little encouragement, it 
 would have been shown that all the employers agreed on this point. 
 Of that I am perfectly certain. 
 
 Indeed, my honourable friend the Member for Ince informs me 
 that on this very point they were absolutely agreed altogether. 
 The men, rightly or wrongly, took up the position that they must 
 have an increase of pay — that with the expansion of their horizon 
 and the increase of their requirements they must have more money, 
 more personal possessions, in order to express their individualities. 
 If this had been an engineering strike we would not have heard so 
 much about it ; but it happens to be in the coal industry which 
 affects so many other industries. These men have asked for 5s. and 
 2s., and they cannot get that settled with the employers. We have 
 created no other machinery for settling it, and we cannot create 
 accurate working machinery for the settlement of disputes in the 
 middle of a tremendous industrial war. In days of peace we did do 
 it. But now suddenly in the midst of war, because it is the coal 
 trade which, through the strike, paralyses every industry in the 
 country, this House is suddenly asked to pass legislation. Let me 
 repeat that we never asked for the legislation. (Honourable 
 Members : “ Oh, oh.”) I think I am right. The employers asked 
 for it. The South Wales owners informed my honourable friends 
 from the very beginning that they would accept nothing at all until 
 it was forced upon them by legislation. 
 
 Sir CLIFFOBD COBY : It is a very different thing for the 
 South Wales owners to say that they would not agree to the 
 minimum wage voluntarily, and that they would only submit to it if 
 it were forced upon them by legislation, from saying that they asked 
 for legislation. 
 
 The CHAIBMAN : I do not think this is strictly relevant to 
 the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BAMSAY MACDONALD : The point I am turning round 
 about is the one point that I do desire to impress upon the House 
 before it goes into the Lobby to vote one way or the other, that 
 when this House started legislation it started it for the purpose of 
 settling the strike, or trying to settle the strike. For the purpose 
 of trying to settle the strike it has got to meet the demands of the 
 men, to a certain reasonable extent at any rate. The demands of 
 men are so and so, and so and so, and the House knows them as well 
 as I do, What I may call the remnants of the demands of the men 
 
46 
 
 are 5s. for the men and 2s. for the boys. It has been said that we 
 are willing that variations may come in, because, even with the 
 variations, we have got something that we can take grip of, we have 
 got some declaration on the part of this House which is not merely 
 sentimental, which may mean 5s. or 10s., just as anything can sway 
 the amount one way or the other. If there is going to be any 
 assurance in the matter I think there must be some figure put in the 
 Bill. I appeal with all the earnestness I can command to the House 
 not to defeat this amendment, badly drafted as it is, but nevertheless 
 expressing the idea of the men. Certain honourable members may 
 vote against the amendment because it is badly drafted, and does 
 not accurately express what is required. Nevertheless, if the House 
 vote against the amendment because it is badly drafted, they will 
 vote against its spirit as well as its wording. I quite agree that it 
 would be the greatest injustice to this House to say outside, 
 whatever the vote may be, that it meant something less than 5s. 
 would be sufficient, and I hope nobody will ever say that. 
 Nevertheless the House must remember that people do not read 
 speeches delivered in this House, and they do not all come into 
 contact with members of Parliament ; and to-morrow morning, 
 when the result of the division is placed before them, I am 
 certainly afraid that the people — for rich and poor alike are not all 
 sufficiently well educated or informed to understand exactly the 
 point that may arise in debate here — will not be able to gather 
 exactly the reason why the House decided one way or the other. I 
 appeal to the Committee to support the amendment which has been 
 moved by my honourable friend. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I should like to associate myself with the 
 eloquent and powerful appeal made by my honourable friend. The 
 House is face to face with one of those determining positions which 
 will make for an early settlement or delay the settlement. May I 
 just make the point, that if we can have the 5s. and the 2s. in the 
 Bill it will give us the opportunity to go to our people and ask them 
 to commence work, and leave the other matters to be settled by the 
 Board of Arbitration. If we do not have the 2s. and the 5s. in the 
 Bill our people must remain idle, or will remain idle, until we have 
 settled the whole of the schedules, and, this is important, not in one 
 coalfield, but in all the coalfields of the United Kingdom. (Honour- 
 able Members: “No, no.”) Sir, I am simply trying, in plain 
 language, to put before the House the exact position. We therefore 
 ask the Government to put this 2s. and 5s. in the Bill to give us the 
 opportunity for our men to go to work and relieve the burden from 
 off the nation. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : If a division be taken now that settles 
 the matter, but if this amendment were to be now withdrawn the 
 same point could be raised on Clause 2. We would like to give the 
 Government time to consider. (Laughter.) I can assure honourable 
 
47 
 
 gentlemen opposite that there is more of tragedy than comedy in 
 this. That would give the Government time to consider the valuable 
 suggestion which has just been made by my honourable friend the 
 Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). If that suggestion 
 were to be adopted, it would leave the Board to be set up free to 
 exempt either collieries and classes of workmen, or even districts, 
 from the operation of the 5s. and the 2s. I put it to the Committee 
 that there you have a basis upon which you can obtain a settlement, 
 an honourable settlement on both sides. This Bill, as has been said 
 over and over again, was brought in to settle the strike. If the Bill 
 is not going to settle the strike it ought to be withdrawn. Unless 
 something goes in which the miner can understand, which he can 
 see and feel and handle, he will throw your Bill back again with 
 something like scorn. I suggest this matter may be held over until 
 Clause 2, and if there is no change in the situation then there need 
 be no further talk, but leave the door open to the last possible 
 moment before closing it. 
 
 The SECBETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir 
 Edward Grey) : I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister 
 said with regard to the actual introduction of the figures into the 
 Bill, but the speech of the honourable Member for Leicester (Mr. 
 Ramsay * Macdonald) was very important and may have a very 
 important bearing, if we understand it aright, on future events. I 
 should like to be quite clear as to how much that speech exactly 
 means. It would be very unfortunate if expressions were given 
 in this House as to what the attitude of the Miners’ Federation 
 is unless they are absolutely authoritative. I understood the 
 honourable Member for Leicester to say that the Miners’ Federation 
 was prepared to waive the schedule of prices which had been 
 originally put forward, waive it temporarily, in order that the point 
 might be dealt with in this Bill. In other words, this Bill would be 
 accepted as a means to deciding the schedule of prices of minimum 
 rates. That is what I understood the honourable Member for 
 Leicester to say. I understood him to say that the schedule of 
 prices for hewers was waived, or would be waived, if the Bill is 
 going to effect that object. If it is going to be accepted as effecting 
 that object there remains the demand for the 5s. and the 2s. That 
 demand is urged and insisted on with undiminished strength by the 
 honourable Member for Leicester, but if the first question, the 
 schedule of prices for hewers, if this Bill is going to be accepted as 
 dealing with that, though the demand for the 5s. and the 2s. remains 
 undiminished in strength, the issue is narrowed as between the 
 owners and the miners. But we ought to be quite clear as to 
 whether the issue has really been narrowed by our proceedings to 
 that point of 5s. and 2s. If the issue has been narrowed to that 
 point of the 5s. and the 2s., if it is also, as the honourable Member 
 for Leicester said, agreed that there must be some elasticity, the 
 Federation themselves have said that certain districts would be 
 
48 
 
 excepted from the 5s. and the 2s., and we are not in a position to 
 say those are the only districts, but if that issue is narrowed then it 
 must have a direct bearing on our proceedings this afternoon. It is 
 important it should be known, because, after all, there are two parties 
 to this dispute, the owners and the miners, who are still on friendly 
 terms with each other, still able to resume Conferences in a perfectly 
 friendly spirit if there is a chance of agreement. And if the issue 
 has been narrowed I think it is worth while the honourable member 
 and his friends considering whether they should not make the 
 matter so clear that there may be the prospect of accepting this Bill 
 as it stands for what, in their opinion, it is worth in regard to the 
 schedule and prices for hewers, and then that our attention should 
 be devoted to see whether, not by putting figures in this Bill, but by 
 further Conference between owners and miners on this point of the 
 5s. and the 2s., some agreement might not be arrived at which would 
 achieve a settlement. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I intervened in the interests 
 of peace to see if it was not possible to have the amendment 
 withdrawn, so that further conversations might be conducted and 
 enable us to come to this point in the other place. We do not want 
 to discuss it again. I will give the Committee that pledge, .that if it 
 does come up again, if it is hopeless, we can have it over right away, as 
 far as we are concerned, with the Chairman putting the words. But 
 surely the Committee is undertaking a very grave responsibility if it 
 is going to proceed, but I am making this suggestion on the 
 assumption it may be possible to put the 5s. and 2s. in the Bill, with 
 the limitations and on the understandings that I gave in my speech. 
 I frankly state I am not in the position at the moment to pledge 
 the Miners’ Federation. I am not, and I never said so ; but I am in 
 a position to inform the Committee that before the Committee rises 
 this afternoon that the Miners’ Federation will pledge itself. We 
 are in that position. But before the Committee adjourns we can 
 give it the necessary information, so that, so far as it is concerned, 
 it can give a decisive vote upon the question. 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I was hoping that something might 
 really come of the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and if anyone on 
 those benches had been in a position to say that the demand for the 
 schedule was waived, and that the issue was reduced simply to the 
 question of 5s. and 2s., I should certainly have been delighted to 
 
 have recommended my honourable friends behind me to agree to 
 
 postpone this amendment, in order that there might be Conferences 
 between the masters and men to see whether it could be settled or 
 
 not. Since that is not possible, I do not see that the House of 
 
 Commons can do otherwise than give its decisions now on what, 
 after all, is a vital question of principle, and has been so declared by 
 the Prime Minister. 
 
49 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : I am as anxious as the right 
 honourable gentleman opposite to come to some satisfactory 
 conclusion in this matter. I recognise to the full the intention of 
 my honourable friend the Member for Leicester in the intervention 
 he has made. The honourable member tells us quite frankly that 
 he is not authorised to speak on behalf of the Miners’ Federation. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : Will the right honourable gentleman 
 allow me? I think there is a misunderstanding in regard to what 
 my honourable friend said. He said he was not prepared to pledge 
 the Miners’ Federation. But I think I am justified at this stage in 
 saying that there was a joint consultation this morning between the 
 two bodies, the Labour Party and the Executive of the Miners’ 
 Federation. There was no definite arrangement come to, but there 
 was a sort of agreement and understanding that the schedule rates 
 could be left to the Boards if the 5s. and 2s. went into the Bill. If 
 there is an understanding now that that is to be done the Federation 
 and ourselves will get together and give a definite answer before the 
 afternoon is over. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : It is quite obvious we can give no 
 such pledge. If the Miners’ Federation, or those who speak on their 
 behalf and with their authority, would tell us definitely that they 
 withdraw the schedule, and if we are to understand that in regard to 
 all outstanding matters the elasticity of the sub-section is accepted 
 — for without the elasticity of the sub-section the Bill cannot be 
 brought into practice— and that with regard to these two figures of 
 5s. and 2s. the elasticity of the sub-section is to be applied in practice, 
 I see no reason why the suggestion of my right honourable friend 
 the Foreign Secretary should not meet the circumstances of the case. 
 But in the present state of our information, I am totally unable to 
 come to any understanding or agreement on the matter. It can be 
 discussed again on Report, and in the interval the Conferences 
 referred to can take place, but for the moment I do not feel that the 
 Government can say anything more. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The right honourable gentle- 
 man says that he understood that the schedule might be withdrawn. 
 Do I apprehend him aright when I assume he meant it might be 
 withdrawn from this Bill, or does he mean withdrawn from the 
 District Boards that are to be set up ? 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : No, no. Let me make that plain. 
 I have always said — and nobody knows it better than the representa- 
 tives of the miners who are here, such as the honourable Member for 
 Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) ; it was common ground between us 
 during all the negotiations — that the schedule put forward by the 
 miners on 2nd February last, containing various suggested minimum 
 rates for the several areas, was put forward by them, as they said, 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 in the interests of peace, but that in their view, in their honest 
 judgment, they had reduced the rates suggested by them to the 
 lowest possible minimum, and they did not feel that they could go 
 below them. We have consistently accepted that view. I have 
 always said to them and to the coalowners, and I think I said to the 
 House last night, that when we introduced the machinery proposed 
 by this Bill, it had in it nothing whatever to estop or prevent the 
 representatives of the miners from putting forward higher schedules 
 or higher rates in regard to every one of those districts. That is 
 left at large. They may reasonably think they are entitled to 
 higher figures, and they may be able to prove it in argument and 
 evidence before the District Boards. They are perfectly at large in 
 regard to that matter. But I have always thought that they would 
 be much better off in the presentation of their case under the 
 elastic provisions of the Government Bill than by stereotyping by 
 the force of law the schedule which they themselves put forward 
 as not representing the full measure of their due. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The whole of this discussion has 
 taken place with reference to one party, and not to two parties, 
 in the matter. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister 
 that the question can be raised again on Report, I think it is 
 desirable that the coalowners should understand exactly what is the 
 point at issue at this moment. They have not developed their 
 argument this afternoon in connection with these two points, on 
 account of the firm attitude taken by the Prime Minister in his 
 opening speech. We are now told that something may happen 
 between now and to-morrow, and the Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs has given some idea that they are going to put a new provision 
 in the Bill. If we are to confer let us understand exactly what we are 
 to confer about. I understand that figures are not to be named in 
 any way in the Bill, and there is to be elasticity in the districts. 
 If that is so, I am quite ready to accept that ; but I ask the Prime 
 Minister to make it quite clear, if we are to confer, what it is we 
 are to confer about. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : I thought I had stated it quite 
 explicitly. Although we are ready to put it in words, in response to 
 the appeal by my honourable friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. 
 Markham) — I believe there would be a general disposition in all 
 quarters of the House to agree to that — so far as we are concerned, 
 and as at present advised, we have the Bill as it stands. The point 
 the Foreign Secretary suggested for further conference is simply the 
 question of 5s. and 2s., subject to the elasticity of the provisions 
 with regard to the various districts. If the issue is narrowed down 
 to that 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : They are not to be put into the Bill ? 
 
51 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : No. I have said that several 
 times. If there is this disposition between now and Report, I 
 hope we may make some arrangement to settle the whole matter. 
 
 Mr. KING: In view of the very delicate situation and of the 
 very near approach of the two sides to one another I beg leave to ask 
 to withdraw my motion. If necessary the matter can be raised on 
 Report, but for the moment may I withdraw? 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), 
 after the word “rate” (“at not less than the minimum rate ”), to 
 insert the words “ provided in the Second Schedule (A) to this 
 Act, or in the absence of such provision otherwise.” 
 
 The rates in the schedule fairly approximate to the rates now 
 being paid. I have heard the observations of the Prime Minister, 
 and I understood from him that they should be submitted to 
 arbitration. The Miners’ Federation, as at present advised, would 
 prefer rather that these rates should form part of this Bill. The 
 whole struggle has been for these rates. There is nothing in them 
 but has been again and again discussed ; it is quite true that had 
 they been accepted there would have appeared to have been no 
 necessity for this Bill at all. The Miners’ Federation believe that 
 the course they have taken all through has been fairly consistent. 
 I observe in the discussion that some honourable members ridicule 
 our position because we have not put the same rate in the schedule 
 for each district. I venture to suggest that if we had put in the 
 same rate for Yorkshire as we have put in for the Forest of Dean 
 that this House would have had less faith in us now and in the Federa- 
 tion. These are the rates that are obtaining largely at the 
 collieries in the districts. We do not think that these rates will at all 
 bring about that disaster that has been predicted. Miners, like many 
 other people, have heard these predictions of failure often. It is not 
 the first time in the history of this great trade that we have been 
 reminded that if we interfere with rates we shall destroy the trade. 
 Let me venture a prediction. I do not often pretend to prophesy ; 
 it is generally a mistake ; but I dare to predict thus far : that many 
 years will roll over our heads before anything we are able to do will 
 drive the trade away, and many years will roll over the heads of the 
 Federation before there is even the remotest desire to do any damage 
 to trade. I am satisfied that in their desire to promote these rates, 
 which are fair and honest, there is no notion at the back of the 
 Miners’ Federation that they are at all going to damage anyone. 
 It is not on the ground of destroying trade that these rates are put 
 forward, but because we believe that the districts are capable of 
 paying them. They are a reasoned -out attempt to settle this very 
 vexed question of a minimum wage. 
 
52 
 
 The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton) : 
 The main point and operation of this Act as regards this particular 
 business is the adoption of the principle of a minimum wage for 
 hewers and other underground workers. I can quite understand 
 that my honourable friend who moved this amendment, and those 
 for whom he speaks, should desire that the minimum rate should be 
 put into the Bill in the form of a schedule. They desire to know 
 what will be the upshot of this Bill, and they desire to see it 
 introduced. I recognise fully, and I am sure my colleagues who 
 went through the Conference, recognise that those rates which are 
 put forward by the Miners’ Federation represent figures to which 
 they have given careful consideration, and I recognise also that they 
 have cut the figures down to the lowest possible point consistent, in 
 their belief, with the carrying on of the trade under proper conditions. 
 But whilst I am sure that these figures were carefully considered by 
 the Miners’ Federation, I cannot quite accept what the honourable 
 member said, that they were submitted again and again to the 
 employers and discussed by them. That may be true with regard 
 to some of the rates in the federated areas, but it is not so with 
 regard to many of the other rates. They have not been discussed 
 
 again and again in all the districts. In some cases they have been 
 
 discussed only once by the employers. That is really one of the 
 reasons why this Bill is introduced. My honourable friend knows 
 that this schedule is divided into seventeen districts, whereas there 
 are twenty-one in the Bill. The question whether there should be 
 seventeen or twenty-one districts may come up again, and that is a 
 proper subject for discussion. 
 
 What has been said from the beginning by the Prime Minister 
 and other members of the Government is that it is quite impossible 
 for the Government in the first instance, or for the House of 
 Commons in the second place to decide without having all the facts 
 and the information before them, whether the scheduled rate should 
 or should not be the minimum rate for a particular district, and 
 therefore this Bill proposes what I think is only a common-sense 
 plan. You cannot have a scale or schedule of rates, as put forward 
 by either side, accepted by the House of Commons, but there must 
 be proper discussion and consideration with regard to them. If my 
 honourable friend believes, as I have no doubt he does, that this 
 schedule is fair and just, then he will bring it before the District 
 Board and it will be thrashed out, and if he is able to prove his case 
 he will get the schedule rate, and if he is unable to prove his case 
 he will not be able to obtain it. Let me point out what happened 
 in the Conference when he made an endeavour to go into this 
 matter. At the Conference, as my honourable friend knows, there 
 was an attempt made actually across the table to go into those 
 matters, and I am sure that everybody at the Conference came to 
 the conclusion that if we had gone on endeavouring to deal with 
 these matters it would have taken us many months before we could 
 have come to a decision. In the special circumstances of the 
 
5B 
 
 continuance of the strike and the urgent necessity for action the 
 only possible way open to us was that these schedules should be 
 referred to these Joint Committees, equally representative of the 
 two sides, with an Independent Chairman, in order that we might 
 arrive at a decision. I am afraid, therefore, that I must say, on the 
 part of the Government, on the grounds of common sense, and on 
 other grounds, that in this matter of dispute between two parties 
 the question of wages must be referred to a Joint Representative 
 Committee, with an Independent Chairman, before a decision can 
 be come to as to whether all these rates are fair and reasonable. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : I have always regretted that we were not 
 able to persuade all those who met at the Foreign Office to accept 
 the Government proposal. We did succeed with regard federated 
 owners, and I am glad that we succeeded in getting them to agree 
 unanimously, but it was a matter of very deep regret to me that 
 these proposals were not accepted by the Miners’ Federation. If 
 they had been so accepted the pits would be working now, and the 
 miners would to-day be working and enjoying what they hope 
 to get now out of the Bill, but, unfortunately, they did not see their 
 way to accept the Government proposals for fixing the rates of 
 wages in the various districts by a District Board. They arranged 
 a set of prices which was, in their opinion, fair; they may have been 
 fair — I do not say they were not— but I do say that the fixing of a 
 fixed charge over large areas, without any variety, of a minimum to 
 be paid by good pits and bad pits alike was an impossible position 
 for practical men to adopt. May I give an illustration from the 
 large county which I represent, the county of Yorkshire? That 
 coalfield varies very much. In some parts where new pits are sunk 
 the pits are prosperous, and the men are getting a minimum of 
 7s. 6d. a day. These will probably not be affected very much. If 
 they were affected it would be on the good side, because prices of 
 coal would be raised and the cost of production would not be raised 
 to the same extent, and practically they would benefit as well as the 
 miners, but when I come to the old and poor pits, they are 
 struggling along at the present moment in great difficulties, I may 
 tell the Committee that in a district which I know pretty well the 
 average wage of a large number of men runs to about 7s. 6d., the 
 figure which they propose. What will be the only result of fixing it 
 at 7s. 6d.? It would be impossible by any safeguard to guarantee 
 the present output. There would be an inducement not to do quite 
 as much if the man was sure of his 7s. 6d. whatever the output was. 
 These poor pits I am speaking about are not putting out less 
 tonnage than the good new pits ; they are practically turning out 
 about the same tonnage. What is the reason then why the men do 
 not get such good wages ? Because the individual miners cannot 
 produce so much output, because the seam is not such a good and 
 thick one. If you are to say that in these poor pits the wage would 
 be the same, whether they have earned it or not, the result would be 
 
54 
 
 that a large portion of the workmen who are now working would be 
 thrown out of employment ; they would be thrown on the 
 community, and the community would suffer. Many of those old 
 pits I am speaking of I know would have to close down. 
 
 I view with feelings of satisfaction the position the Government 
 have taken up, and their decision in this matter. I have not spoken 
 before in this debate, and I should like to speak of the manner in 
 which the Prime Minister stuck to his business. I must say it has 
 won the admiration of myself, and I believe I am able to speak for 
 all the coalowners, for the patience and tact with which he 
 endeavoured to bring both parties to a settlement. He is not to 
 blame that no settlement has been come to. I do not wish to lay 
 the blame on anyone. It is a misfortune to the country that this 
 calamity has happened. What I, for one, wish from the bottom of 
 my heart is that as soon as possible this crisis may be brought to a 
 termination, and that the pits may be working again, and we may 
 be saved weeks of suffering, both to trade and to human beings, which 
 will come to pass unless a settlement is arrived at speedily. I 
 believe that if the miners will give way on this schedule we can 
 come to a settlement. I do not say anything about the 5s. and 2s., 
 because that would not affect the pit with which, at all events, I 
 have the honour to be connected. The wages we pay are very high 
 wages indeed, and I do not believe we should feel this Bill at all. I 
 am speaking for my poorer neighbours, who are not able at the 
 present time to make ends meet. The honourable Member for 
 Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) is a man whom I respect from the 
 bottom of my heart, because I know he is an honest man, and he 
 has conducted these negotiations with very great ability. I hope I 
 may appeal to him not to press the amendment, because the result 
 will only be that the Government and ourselves will have to 
 oppose it. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The honourable gentleman who has 
 just sat down said he was not appealing for himself, because this 
 amendment would not adversely affect his interests. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : Not very much. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : He was appealing for his poorer 
 neighbours. That is a most charitable and Christian-like attitude 
 which I fully appreciate. The same fact is true in regard to the 
 miners. The men also the honourable gentleman employs would 
 not be affected by this schedule, but they are out on strike none the 
 less for the benefit of their poorer neighbours. There never was a 
 more unselfish dispute in the whole history of the working-class 
 movement. The men who have forced this on are not the 
 Syndicalists, who seem to have got on the brains of some honourable 
 members, nor are they even the underpaid workmen. They are for the 
 
55 
 
 most part men who themselves are fairly well paid, and who do not 
 stand to gain individually from the contest when successful. They 
 are fighting the battle of their poorer neighbours. It is said that 
 to apply this schedule uniformly would close certain pits, and that 
 men would be thrown on to the streets and would become a burden 
 on the community. I do not admit, first of all, that the pits would 
 be closed. It is astonishing the elasticity with which a mine or any 
 other form of industry can be expanded when the necessity arises, 
 and, while it may be true that under existing conditions there are 
 collieries in some parts of the country that could not pay the rates 
 in the schedules, yet if they were compelled to do so they would 
 find ways and means of paying them and making the mines pay, as 
 they had done in the past. Even if mines were closed the men 
 would not be thrown out. If a colliery is closed in one district that 
 does not lessen the demand for coal, and the men who are dismissed 
 from that mine tramp to the nearest district where there are other 
 collieries, and find employment to maintain the supply according to 
 the demand. Therefore you may eliminate both these arguments 
 from serious consideration. 
 
 The President of the Board of Trade said this matter could 
 not be expected to be settled by Parliament if the owners and 
 workmen meeting under the Prime Minister’s guidance were unable 
 to decide it, and one reason he gave was that we have not the 
 necessary information. He said many months would be required to 
 elapse before that information could be got together. If that is 
 true, it is a sad reflection upon the Board of Trade. It has been 
 said in the course of this debate that the Government has seriously 
 prejudiced the situation by its delay in introducing this measure, and a 
 like statement is true in regard to the amendment before the Committee. 
 The Board of Trade has a Labour Department, and it would have 
 been the easiest matter in the world when it was known this conflict 
 was going to take place for the Board of Trade to have instructed its 
 Labour Department to get together all the facts and figures available. 
 The Government would then have been in a position to come to 
 some decision which it is difficult for them to come to in the absence 
 of information. The schedule does not set up any new and fresh 
 standards. That is one point the Committee must bear in mind. It 
 is not for me to say whether the figures in the schedule are 
 absolutely correct or not, but there can be no dispute about the 
 intention of the schedule. It is that where a rate of wages has been 
 agreed upon between the miners and the mine owners every 
 workman who performs a day’s work shall be guaranteed that wage. 
 This dispute had its origin in connection with a strike in my own 
 constituency. In November, 1910, a strike took place there on this 
 very question. It was then proved by actual figures which were not 
 challenged that whilst the rate of pay should have been about 6s. 9d. 
 at that time more than half the men were receiving less than 4s. 
 through causes over which they themselves had no control. There 
 were numbers of them receiving from 2s. to 3s. a day, and there 
 
56 
 
 were one or two cases where after a collier had worked for a full 
 fortnight he was actually Is. 8d. in debt to his employer. 
 
 Mr. PIKE PEASE : What colliery was that ? 
 
 Mr. KEIE HAKDIE : The Aberavon Colliery, in the Aberdare 
 Valley. It was an authorised strike, and the men were defeated. 
 The agitation has been growing from then to now all over the 
 country. Similar cases have been found in every district, until now 
 it has culminated into the strike which is paralysing the trade of the 
 country. The miners ask the House of Commons to put this 
 schedule into the Bill, which has been brought before the House 
 without them asking for it, in order that this question of the 
 minimum wage shall be taken out of the region of possible dispute 
 in the future. The one way to do that is to insert the schedule 
 which has been moved. The same outcry in regard to profits and 
 the closing of collieries was raised in 1893, when the Miners’ 
 Federation succeeded in fixing what was then thought to be a 
 minimum wage. Since then the wages of colliers have been steadier 
 than before, and the profits of the mine owners have been greater 
 during those seventeen years than they have ever been in any corre- 
 sponding period of the history of the coal trade. I hope therefore the 
 House of Commons will not be frightened by the statement that the 
 schedule would mean the closing of mines, the throwing of men out of 
 employment, or even appreciably reducing the profits of the owners. 
 The one thing we seek is to guarantee that every workman who 
 performs a day’s work underground shall be paid for that work. A 
 late Member of this House, in a letter to the Times the other day — 
 it has since been reproduced in pamphlet form — has made a 
 statement which neither does credit to his ability nor enhances his 
 reputation for honour and fair play. He wants to make it clear this 
 is a Syndicalist strike with a political motive. The cause of the 
 strike is the absence of the schedule rates which this House is now 
 discussing. It has nothing whatever to do with politics. Syndi- 
 calists are anti-Parliamentarians. They are Anarchists, and opposed 
 to political action. Therefore, if the Syndicalists have forced the 
 strike upon the miners of the country, it is because of their anti- 
 political opinions, and not because of their political opinions. 
 
 Mr. JO YN SON-HICKS : Anti-Parliamentarian ? 
 
 Mr. KEIE HAEDIE : I am not going to be drawn into a 
 discussion. They are anti-political in the sense that they are 
 anti-Parliamentarians, and therefore the statement is not correct. 
 Since the House and the Government have refused to accept the 
 minimised demands contained in the last amendment, there is all 
 the more reason why the amendment now before the House should 
 be considered seriously and forced, as I hope it will be, to a division. 
 
57 
 
 Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I should like to support the amend- 
 ment. The Committee will remember that one honourable member 
 on the opposite side referred to the blackmailing methods of the 
 honourable Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards). It is very 
 encouraging to note that the last speaker on the other side of the 
 House went out of his way to pay a tribute to the honesty of the 
 honourable Member for Hanley. The mere fact that this amendment 
 has been moved by that honourable member is in itself a guarantee 
 of its moderation and of the fact that it is acceptable among the 
 miners of the country. I should like to associate myself with the 
 remarks made by the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. 
 Keir Hardie) that this is not in any way a political movement. I fully 
 support the miners in their desire to secure this schedule. They are 
 based upon a twofold principle. First of all, there is the discrimi- 
 nation between one district and another and between one colliery 
 and another. They take cognisance of the differences between one 
 district and another, and I think it is exceedingly fair in that way. 
 Then they are also based upon a recognition of the different rates 
 that exist in different parts of the country. If they had brought in 
 one minimum wage, one could have understood how hard and harshly 
 it would have acted upon certain districts and certain collieries ; but 
 the rates vary as much as from 4s. lid. to 7s. 6d. We have been 
 told again and again that this Bill does not secure finality in this 
 great struggle. I venture to say the one way to secure finality is to 
 give legislative enactment to these schedules. If we were to adopt 
 these schedules it would be many a long year before this country 
 were plunged into another strike. They are based upon the 
 
 principles of moderation and justice. They take cognisance of the 
 various conditions prevailing in different parts of the country, and 
 for that reason, representing as I do men of moderate opinions who 
 are anxious to see the struggle brought to an end, I very heartily 
 support the amendment. 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY : The last speaker commended the 
 schedule to the favour of the House on the ground that it 
 differentiates between district and district. That is not sufficient, 
 inasmuch as, to take South Wales for example, there are different 
 rates not only in different districts but in different collieries in each 
 district, and even in different seams in each colliery. The honourable 
 Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) and the honourable 
 Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) spoke very 
 lightly of closing old or small collieries on the ground that if they 
 were closed it would not make much difference to the community at 
 large, because the men employed in them would find their way to 
 newer collieries in other districts. That may be all very well for the 
 proprietors and workmen in good collieries, but it would not at all 
 commend itself to the workmen in these old collieries any more than 
 to the proprietors of them. The honourable Member for the 
 Mansfield Division said the output of the collieries in the Forest of 
 Dean was not more than one large colliery in the Midland^. 
 
58 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I excluded the Forest of Dean and the 
 Bristol coalfields as not worth consideration. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : The honourable member said : “ What does it 
 matter if the collieries in the Forest of Dean are closed ? Their 
 output is not greater than a big colliery in another district, and it 
 would not therefore make much difference if they were closed.” It 
 would make a great deal of difference to the people in the Forest of 
 Dean. It would make a great deal of difference to the miners there. 
 The honourable member talks lightly about miners moving from one 
 district to another. I have had experience of that, and I know how 
 difficult it is to get them to settle in a new district. I know of one 
 instance where they were moved to another district where the wages 
 were higher, but in a few years the families found their way back to 
 the place from which they came because, although the wages were 
 lower, they were attached to that district and all their friends were 
 there. Is it not very hard on these men, if they desire to live in a 
 particular district, and are even willing, in order to so, to take less 
 wages, that they should be forced to go to some other district, 
 although the wages may be higher, simply because the collieries are 
 closed in their own district ? Of course, we know that now-a-days 
 owners are deemed to be the last people to be considered, but I 
 would suggest that it is equally hard on the proprietors of small 
 collieries. They are not the only people to be considered ; there are 
 the interests of the general community to be borne in mind ; the 
 interests of the small tradesman, the mason and the carpenter, and 
 others who obtain their living, and who, undoubtedly, by the closing 
 of these small collieries, would suffer. Seven shillings and sixpence 
 of course, is not a very high minimum. There are mines where the 
 wages range from 6s. Id. to 16s., and if the minimum were put at 
 7s. 6d. it is not likely that the man who is now content to earn 6s. 
 Id. would bother himself to earn any more ; he would not be 
 inclined to make bigger efforts like the man who is getting 16s. 
 
 The honourable baronet the Member for Mansfield contended 
 that mines and railways ought to be brought under State control. 
 But why should not steamers be treated in the same way ? Shipping 
 is quite as important to this country as either the colliery or the 
 railway. If your steamers are stopped or hung up, what about the 
 food supply of this country ? Shipping is just as important an 
 industry as either mines or railways. The honourable Member for 
 Hanley said that very often, at the end of the week, a man found 
 he had only 25s., 18s., or even 15s. to draw. But he did not tell 
 us how many days such a man had worked, and it makes all the 
 difference whether he works one day a week or five or six days. It 
 is easy to say he only gets 15s., but even that would not be a bad 
 wage if he only worked one day for it. I remember a case in South 
 Glamorganshire where a man took the owners into court. He was 
 dissatisfied with the allowance made to him on account of his 
 
59 
 
 fortnight’s pay. But it turned out that he had only worked four 
 days in the fortnight. In the next place, it had been agreed by the 
 Joint Conciliation Board that the holidays should extend three days 
 over the holiday period. Instead of that the man took eight days’ 
 holiday and when he came back be found that his working place 
 had practically fallen in, and the injury had to be repaired before he 
 could earn any wages. He was, consequently, discontented, but the 
 cause of his discontent was brought about entirely by his own 
 conduct. Of course he lost his case in the court. But that is only 
 a sample of the way in which misrepresentations are placed before 
 this House. The honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil spoke of 
 a case in a Welsh colliery where, at the end of a fortnight, a man, 
 instead of receiving wages, had to pay his boy Is. 6d. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : The honourable member is now going 
 back to the Second Reading Stage, whereas we are discussing the 
 applicability on the Second Schedule. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I was replying to a speech made on this very 
 Second Schedule. If statements are made it is surely only fair that 
 an opportunity should be given to reply to them. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I thought the honourable baronet was 
 replying to a speech delivered yesterday. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : May I mention that the case referred 
 to was one in which a miner had to employ a boy, and, at the end 
 of the day, he had to borrow Is. Od. with which to pay him, having 
 earned nothing himself. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : My experience is this : It has been laid down 
 that if any man is dissatisfied with the allowance made by the 
 manager, he shall be at liberty to apply to the general manager or 
 agent. But during the large number of years in which I have had 
 experience, there has never been one appeal against the allowance 
 made by the owner or general manager. In South Wales the scarcity 
 of men is such that managers are not likely to drive hard bargains. 
 They know a good workman when they have him, and they are also 
 perfectly well aware that if he gives notice he will probably be 
 received by a neighbouring colliery with open arms. In certain 
 quarters of this House it apparently is considered right to tear up 
 agreements entered into deliberately and after long negotiations, and 
 these schedules will involve the absolute tearing up of agreements 
 in South Wales. Practically fifty per cent, of the men underground 
 are paid a fixed day’s wage, with a varying percentage according to 
 the price list ; some of them get 16^ per cent, over and above the 
 thirty-five per cent, in addition to the fixed day wage. Men working 
 on piece-work have a standard minimum rate plus the standard of 
 
60 
 
 thirty-five per cent., with a varying percentage over and above that. 
 Therefore it is desirable, from my point of view, that these schedules 
 should be put into the Bill. 
 
 Mr. PIKE PEASE : I am not at all sure what the effect of 
 putting these schedules into this Bill will be. It is impossible to say 
 if they will involve an increase in prices, and, until we know that, one 
 cannot say whether certain collieries would be obliged to shut down. 
 With reference to remarks of the honourable Member for Merthyr, 
 I was surprised to hear that any colliery in the land pays wages 
 such as those to which he has referred. Whoever is responsible for 
 that state of things should be condemned. I am not one of those 
 who attribute evil motives to others. I consider that many of those 
 who are trying to put these schedules into the Bill are actuated by 
 the same motives as those by which I am myself actuated. As far 
 as collieries in the county of Durham are concerned, I am perfectly 
 certain that no wages of the kind which have been suggested are 
 paid. If a miner works five days in the week he certainly is able 
 to earn a living wage, a wage which compares favourably with that 
 paid to men working in other industries requiring an equal amount of 
 skill and involving -the same amount of danger. What I would point 
 out to the Committee is that this Bill refers not only to coal mines but 
 to ironstone mines as well. That is a very important fact. We ought to 
 take into consideration the fact that the iron and steel trades are 
 dependent in every case on the price of coal. I do not know what 
 honourable members think as to what will be the increase in the price 
 of coal if these schedules are placed in the Bill. There cannot be the 
 slightest doubt that the increase would be very considerable, that the 
 diminution of the output in many districts would be considerable, 
 and that therefore the increase in the price to the consumer would 
 be considerable. Supposing that the increase in the price is Is. a 
 ton. That would be 2s. per ton on iron, because it takes twenty- 
 two hundredweight of coke to make a ton of iron, and thirty-two 
 hundredweight of coal to make a ton of coke, so that an increase in 
 the price of coal of Is. per ton would actually be 3s. in the case 
 of steel. In the iron and steel trade competition is very keen, and 
 we ought to consider what effect a rate like this would have upon the 
 steel trade. I should like to see all miners receiving not less than 
 10s. a day, but it cannot be done at the present moment. We must 
 consider what the general effect of our action may be when we are 
 trying to arrange the wages of any particular class. When we 
 consider the whole interests of the country I am convinced that, 
 although mining work in many respects is dangerous, yet, if we are 
 going to place on our Statute Book a Bill for a minimum wage, 
 with a schedule such as this, we ought to consider the trades that 
 require a minimum wage much more than this particular trade. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : The question we are discussing now is 
 one that has been before the districts for a long time, and the 
 
61 
 
 schedule rates that are before us are practically what are in existence 
 at the present time. I am surprised to hear from any quarter of the 
 Committee that these rates are going to ruin collieries. If you take 
 my own county, the scheduled rates for that are 7s. 1 Jd. for one part 
 of the district, and 7s. 6d. for the other part of the district. Those 
 rates have been paid for years. I have been asked to explain to the 
 Committee the exact operation of the working of those rates. I 
 have worked in a pit for twenty years, and I know something of the 
 working of the mines. Supposing I am a contractor, and am getting 
 coal at so much per ton, and that so much per ton brings me in a 
 certain wage, but I am called out to do different work for the 
 company. They may select me as a man to do some work on the 
 roads. There may be a difficult question of timbering, and they ask 
 me to go out to see to this timbering. The company pay me 7s. 6d. 
 for day work, or if I am on the other side of the district they pay 
 me 7s. ljd. a day, because I am recognised as an efficient workman. 
 But the man who attends on me, who carries my timber, or who 
 supplies me with the material necessary for repairing, gets not 7s. 6d., 
 but, in some cases, 6s., and in others 6s. 6d. Now we are asking 
 for the most skilled workman in the mine, the man who is proficient 
 in everything he touches in the mine, exactly what he has been 
 given before. 
 
 I am going to make a revelation to the Committee. There is a 
 considerable number of employers in this country who come into 
 conversation with their workmen, and I am glad to give my praise 
 to those employers. The largest company we have in Derbyshire, 
 which employs 7,000 men, is paying the minimum wage to-day, 
 which was agreed to and signed by my association and by the 
 manager of that company. What is it ? If a man on Friday night 
 — they pay on Friday night — if any contractor has not his 7s. 6d. 
 per day for that week he is not allowed to leave the colliery till he 
 takes the money out of the office. The same thing is in operation 
 in the collieries in Derbyshire belonging to the honourable Member 
 for Mansfield (Sir Arthur Markham). The question of malingering 
 has been raised. I have asked the general manager of the largest 
 firm we have if he has any complaint to make about malingering, 
 and, although this schedule has been in operation for a considerable 
 time, he has not a single case to give of a man who has been guilty 
 of malingering. It is an insult upon our miners to say that they 
 will malinger, or shirk their duty, or refuse to perform a fair day’s 
 work for a fair day’s wage. 
 
 Let us get to the truth of the matter. I charge the unrest, and 
 I charge this strike, upon the bad management of mines, and I am 
 going to give a case for which I will give chapter and verse. We 
 have had so much theorising about the question that it is time we 
 came down to the practical thing, and that somebody should speak 
 who understands the question from the workmen’s standpoint. The 
 bouourable member behind me (Sir Clifford Cory) spoke from the 
 
62 
 
 employers’ standpoint and the capitalists’ standpoint, but that is not 
 a practical standpoint, and it does not deal with the workman’s 
 position in the matter. Let me give a case. At one colliery, 
 employing 600 men, for two years there was a dispute, verging on a 
 stoppage. It was in a fine part of the country, with a fine class of 
 men, well-built and of good physique, and I could not understand it. 
 I was called to that colliery to go into the matter. I found that 
 there were plenty of tubs coming out of the pit, and that the value 
 of these tubs was sufficient to give every contractor in that pit 9s. a 
 day, and to give every loader in that pit 7s. a day, and yet there 
 were some men going home with 12s., and others with 4s. or 5s. 
 The manager’s attention was called to it, and he asked for a report 
 as to how many tubs a day it would take to give these men their 
 wages, and he was told it would take so many. He then said he 
 would see that it was put in the price list, that the tubs were fairly 
 distributed, and, in order that there should not be a complaint, that 
 every facility should be given. From that day to this, although it is 
 two and a half years ago, there has not been a single complaint in 
 this colliery. The fact is the management was at fault. They 
 rushed the tubs to the stall nearest the shaft, and some men did not 
 get a day’s wage, while there were others getting more than a day’s 
 wage. We want the minimum wage to stop bad management, and 
 I believe when the managers realise that they have a minimum wage 
 to pay, whether the men get the tubs or not, whether they have bad 
 roads or bad roofs, they will take care that the tubs are more equally 
 distributed, or they will shift the managers, because they will say, 
 “ Here is a man who gets 12s. a day whose stall is no better than a 
 man who is getting 4s. a day. Tell me how it is that the pit is 
 managed like that ? ” If they have the minimum to pay, they will 
 see that they have a management and that facilities are properly 
 given to the men to earn their living. If the management will look 
 to these things, while seventy-five per cent, of the men to-day get more 
 than the minimum by piecework that figure will go up to ninety per 
 cent., and we should have very little cause of complaint. Then there 
 is the overcrowding of mines. Sometimes five or six men are sent 
 to a stall where there ought only to be four, and at the same time 
 they have to supply them with tubs to make up the day’s wage. I 
 am glad to say there are managers and managers, and there are 
 collieries and collieries, but the good collieries and the good managers 
 are tabooed by the miners because of the bad managers. These are 
 not the maximum wages. The men who work by piecework get 
 much more than this. When men are asked to be in the pit the 
 whole of the time and are willing to perform a day’s work, given the 
 facilities, and are willing to earn a day’s wage if these facilities are 
 not given through bad management or from causes over which they 
 have no control, whoever employs these men has the right to see 
 that they have an honest day’s wage. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I should be very loth to say anything which 
 would bring me into collision with the honourable gentleman (Sir 
 
63 
 
 A. Markham) as an authority. At the same time, I hope he will 
 forgive me if I say there are some parts of the coalfields with which 
 he is not so well acquainted as I am. He has not favoured the 
 House with any reason why there is an item of 4s. lid. in one part 
 of the schedule and 7s. 6d. in another. Members who have 
 supported the schedule have almost entirely taken the humanitarian 
 standpoint. They want a man when he goes into the mine to be 
 assured of a very definite wage. 1 want to ask them, if they take 
 that standpoint, how they can justify asking for 4s. lid. in Somerset 
 and in Bristol ? What is the explanation of that figure? 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : They are the existing rates. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : There are some things that the honourable 
 gentleman has to be instructed upon. I admit it requires a great 
 amount of courage to differ from him, but I hope I possess it. If 
 the answer is that these are the existing rates, I feel it my duty to 
 give it a flat denial. I have been asked to put forward the case of 
 the West Yorkshire miners, and I am very sorry that there are no 
 miners’ representatives from the Yorkshire district present. I 
 express that regret the more fervently, because I do not think there 
 is any good owner or good coal manager in Yorkshire who is not 
 deeply indebted to the Miners’ Association of Barnsley. If this Bill 
 and this schedule have any chance whatever of being a success in 
 our district we must look forward to friendship from Barnsley, the 
 Miners’ Association, rather than from owners like the honourable 
 gentleman (Sir A. Markham). If he takes that view he would be 
 liable to do great injustice to the men I am now speaking for. The 
 rate paid is not 7s. 6d., the rate at the head of this schedule. I 
 was interviewed yesterday by the managers of a colliery, some 
 of whose workmen live in my constituency, and many of whose 
 colliers live in the village where I reside, in the Osgoldcross Division, 
 on the banks of a very famous river. I have taken the opportunity 
 of verifying as well as I could the views of the workmen and the 
 views of that manager. The manager assures me that his average 
 rate, the only minimum rate at which he could keep his pit open, is 
 5s. 6d. I am not here to vouch for these figures. I know they are 
 given by a public man who supplies figures to the Board of Guardians 
 in my constituency regularly with regard to the wages of his 
 workpeople in answer to inquiries, and I should not at all wish to 
 challenge his statement. What I know is that in many collieries in 
 West Yorkshire the average is between 6s. and 6s. 6d. It is all very 
 well for the honourable gentleman (Sir A. Markham) to say that the 
 colliers should quit that district and go to Doncaster, where he is 
 sinking some new pits. Many of these thrifty miners are purchasing 
 their houses through building societies and co-operative societies, 
 and occasionally their women-folk are working at the textile mills 
 in the immediate neighbourhood, and a man does not wish to go 
 
64 
 
 and work at these collieries in Doncaster where there is no 
 employment for his girls. There are considerations of that kind, 
 and I know it is a big question how far female labour is keeping 
 down the wages of men. I know all the evils of this result. I am 
 here to tell the House the facts of the situation, because it is quite 
 evident that some of the speakers who claim to speak for the mining 
 industry are entirely ignorant of them. 
 
 I am not putting my claim on behalf of these owners. They 
 tell me there is a matter of about forty coal mines, and from 
 13,000 to 15,000 workpeople who would be actually affected if this 
 schedule were adopted. I am not here to condemn the schedule, 
 but I ask those who advocate it how they can justify a schedule of 
 7s. 6d. for West Yorkshire, where the average rate is 5s. or 6s., 
 without imposing it upon the Forest of Dean and Somerset. I do 
 not admit that the cost of living can account for the difference 
 between 4s. lid. and 7s. 6d. I am not here to plead for a victory 
 for one side over the other, but rather to plead that these questions 
 can only be determined in consultation on the spot. I have 
 never been one to take the interests of the masters against the 
 trade unions in my life, and I have not joined any master’s 
 federation, and I think I am perfectly clear upon all these points. 
 I am here to say that if these matters are left to be settled between 
 our colliery and the Miner’s Association at Barnsley — I am not 
 anxious whether an Independent Chairman is there at all — an arrange- 
 ment would be come to, but I say it would not be proper to impose 
 blindly a rate on the district which is not quite applicable. A rate 
 which would be applicable to Doncaster would not be quite applicable 
 to the thin seams which are being worked in West Yorkshire of one 
 foot ten inches. It is not on account of any sentimental ground or 
 the desirability of paying a wage to provide bread and butter that I 
 take this view. Their own officials admit that the thickness of the 
 seam and the depth of the mine affects the question of the rate to be 
 paid. I am not afraid of having all the considerations put on the 
 table at a joint meeting, provided that there are not too many owners 
 present who have the disposition of the honourable Member for 
 Mansfield. I have the highest respect for the honourable member’s 
 ability and politics, but when I hear another owner openly advocate 
 that the old mines should be closed because he wants labour in 
 Doncaster, I hope, friend as he is, he will excuse me if I am obliged 
 to tell the House the truth. I am quite aware that the Yorkshire 
 Federation and others have agreed to the rates in the schedule. I 
 also know that the miners’ agents at Barnsley think that 7s. to 7s. 6d., 
 which would be a proper rate in some districts, would be inapplicable 
 if certain mines in Yorkshire are to exist at all. What I am 
 advocating is that the men themselves at these collieries shall have 
 the choice of saying whether they will continue, and what they think 
 a fair minimum rate at a colliery. I am not at all afraid to meet our 
 own men. I think a scheme could be devised. Mines with thick 
 seams, a great deal of dirty coal, and a great many faults, are entitled 
 
G5 
 
 to have their position investigated on the spot. The men are entitled 
 to know the difficulties of the masters, so that in Joint Conference 
 they may decide what the rate should be. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : As the honourable member made an 
 attack upon me I wish to reply to him. He said that I wanted to 
 close mines in West Yorkshire in order to get labour at Doncaster. 
 I have not the slightest intention of taking any miners from York- 
 shire to Doncaster. The men are coming out of my own constituency. 
 I told the House last night that I have advocated a minimum wage 
 for the last ten years. I have carried out that principle in the mines 
 with which I am connected, and it is not true to say that I am 
 advocating certain principles which are contrary to those which I 
 have carried out for years past. The honourable member who made 
 the statement knew it to be without any foundation. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I do not think I made any charge. I was 
 referring to the statement the honourable member made earlier in 
 the debate, that naturally a number of old mines would close because 
 the labour of the miners would be wanted in the new ones. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If the honourable member had confined 
 his remarks to the statement he now makes I should not have risen, 
 but he said I wanted to bring labour from Yorkshire to Doncaster. 
 That statement is untrue, and he knows if is untrue. 
 
 Mr. JOYNSON-IIICKS : Is it in order for one honourable 
 member to accuse another of making a statement which he knows 
 to be untrue? 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : Is it in order for one honourable member 
 to make a charge against another of dishonesty ? 
 
 The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean) : I understood that 
 the honourable baronet was simply replying to some suggestion made 
 by the honourable Member for Pontefract to the effect that his 
 business arrangements were matters of interest to him. I heard no 
 words which called for my intervention. 
 
 Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN : On the point of order. No 
 doubt we have some sympathy with the honourable baronet, if I 
 may be permitted to say so, in the language he used. No doubt an 
 honourable member is entitled to repudiate any charge brought 
 against him, but what your ruling is desired upon is whether in 
 repudiating a charge he is entitled to charge another honourable 
 member with knowingly making an untrue statement. The words 
 which the honourable Member for Mansfield used were that the 
 honourable Member for Pontefract had made a statement which 
 was untrue, and which he knew to be untrue. I submit to you that 
 
 E 
 
6(3 
 
 while he has a perfect to say that the statement was unfounded, he 
 had no right to say it was untrue. 
 
 Sir A. MABKHAM : I am quite willing to withdraw it. I did 
 not intend myself to say that the statement is quite untrue. As to 
 the other points raised, let me say that this is no new charge. I do 
 not think it is fair of the Labour Party to press the schedule to a 
 division. If they were the party in power to-day and had to deal 
 with a trade dispute, they could not come here and ask the House 
 of Commons to accept without investigation certain schedules of 
 rates when the Government had no knowledge whether the figures 
 were correct or incorrect. I think the schedule rates are as low as 
 they ought to be. My opinion is that no man should work in a 
 mine unless he is paid 8s. a day. That is not the question before 
 the House, and I think the Labour Party are ill-advised in pressing 
 the amendment to a division. I think that any self-respecting 
 man in the House realises the absolute impracticability of the 
 suggestion. 
 
 Mr. FBEDEBICK HALL : As one of the representatives of 
 the workmen in Yorkshire, I cannot sit by and allow the statement 
 which the honourable Member for Pontefract made to go by 
 default, knowing something of the other side of the question. I am 
 not going to dispute that my honourable friend knows something of 
 his side, but I claim to know something of the other side, and I 
 cannot accept the statement that in the thin seams in the western 
 portion of Yorkshire the miners are only getting the wages he has 
 quoted. I have in my hands a document which probably I shall 
 use later on on another amendment, and which would clearly prove 
 to the House that the great bulk of the owners of thin seams in the 
 western portion of the county pay a minimum now of 7s. fid. per 
 day. The great majority of the thin seams pay 7s. 6d. per day, 
 and a greater number of the collieries in that particular county pay 
 7s. fid. than pay any other figure. I challenge the honourable 
 gentleman to give the names of collieries that pay as low as 5s. fid., 
 which he has quoted as a figure to the Committee this afternoon. 
 There is not a single price list in existence, agreed to between the 
 two parties in the western portion of our county which has a less 
 rate, plus 50 per cent, than 4s. 4d. per ton. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : What I said was that they could not work at a 
 greater minimum than 5s. 6d. 
 
 Mr. FBEDEBICK HALL : They are actually paid more at 
 this moment, and when they are paying a higher rate of wages it is 
 useless for the honourable member to say that someone has told him 
 he cannot work his collieries at a profit if he has to pay a greater 
 minimum than 5s. fid. He must have been doing that for years, 
 and would have continued doing it, and would be doing it to-day 
 but for the strike. I shall have something to say about dividing 
 the districts later on. 
 
G7 
 
 Question put, “That those words be there inserted.” 
 The Committee divided : Ayes, 55 ; Noes, 367. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 I Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, Ellis William (Eifion 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E. 
 
 ] Edwards, Jno. H. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 
 Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles 
 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Hodge, John 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 Lansbury, George 
 
 1 
 
 Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester 
 Martin, Joseph 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Morrell, Philip 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pollard, Sir George H. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Richards, Thomas 
 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe 
 Snowden, Philip 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, G. J. 
 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes ; — Mr, George Roberts and Mr. Pointer, 
 
68 
 
 NOES. 
 
 F 
 
 4 
 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. 
 Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Agnew, Sir George Wiiliam 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Anstruther-Gray, Major William 
 Armitage, Robert 
 Ashley, W. W. 
 
 Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry 
 
 Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J. 
 
 Baird, John Lawrence 
 Baker, IJ. T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N. 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy Y. (Win- 
 chester) 
 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barnston, H. 
 
 Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick 
 Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, William 
 Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Beale, William Phipson 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 Beckett, Hon. Gervase 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Benn, W. W. (T. H’mts, St. Geo. 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Beresford, Lord Charles 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 Bird, Alfred 
 
 Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 
 Boy ton, James 
 
 Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell 
 Bridgeman, William Clive 
 Brocklehurst, William B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Bryce, John Annan 
 Buckmaster, Stanley 0. 
 Burdett-Coutts, William 
 Burn, Col. C. R. 
 
 Burns, Rt. Hon. John 
 Butcher, John George 
 Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk N. 
 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Cameron Robert 
 
 Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N. 
 Campion, W. R. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cassell, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cator, John 
 Cautley, H. S. 
 
 Cave, George , 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood 
 Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Mitchin 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(WorcT. j 
 Chancellor, H. G. 
 
 Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry 
 
 Clough, William 
 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 
 Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock 
 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. 
 Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 Crawshay- Williams, Eliot 
 
Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Dalziel Davison (Brixton 
 (Davies, David (Montgomery 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Denman, Hon. R. D. 
 
 Denniss, E. R. B. 
 
 Dewar, Sir J. A. 
 
 Dickinson, W. H. 
 
 Dixon, C. H. 
 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 
 Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley 
 
 Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor 
 ;Elverston, Sir Harold 
 (Essex, Richard Walter 
 Esslemont, George Birnie 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George D. (Clapham 
 Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. 
 
 ' Falconer, J. 
 
 Falle, Bertram Godfray 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 
 j Ffrench, Peter 
 i Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 IFitzroy, Hon. Edward A. 
 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fletcher, John Samuel 
 Foster, Philip Staveley 
 France, G. A. 
 
 Furness, Stephen 
 
 I ! Gardner, Ernest 
 1 Gastrell, Major W. Houghton 
 
 I ' George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gibbs, George Abraham 
 Gilmour, Captain John 
 Gladstone, W. G. G. 
 
 Glanville, Harold James 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 f Goldman, Charles Sydney 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 
 i Gordon, Hon. John Ed. (Brighton 
 1 Goulding, E. A. 
 
 Grant, James Augustus 
 Greene, Walter Raymond 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Griffith, Ellis Jones 
 Guest, Hon. FrederickE. (Dorset, E. 
 Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E. 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. 
 Edmunds) 
 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth 
 Hambro, Angus Valdemar 
 Hamersley, A. St. George 
 Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S. 
 Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale 
 Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 ITarmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, IT. B. 
 
 Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S. 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Col. Thomas E. 
 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hill, Sir Clement L. 
 
 Hill-Wood, Samuel 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hoare, Samuel John Gurney 
 Holmes, Daniel Turner 
 Holt, Richard Durning 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 Hume-Williams, W. E. 
 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
70 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East 
 Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Joynson-Hicks, William 
 
 Kemp, Sir George 
 Kerr- Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Kerry, Earl of 
 King, J. 
 
 Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon S 
 Molton) 
 
 Lambert Richard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 
 L; *s”eST' h - <Tow “ h "““' 
 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland 
 Oockermouth) 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Locker-Lam pson, 0. (Ramsey 
 Long, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee 
 Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas 
 Lowe, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 Lyttelton, Rt.Hon.A.(St.Geo, Han S. 
 
 MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh 
 
 M a a °f° n u ’ £ (Falkirk Burghs 
 Mackinder, Halford J. b 
 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T J 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 M'Callum. John M 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 
 *• w - * <""»■ • 
 
 M‘Mng W Majo?GS& 
 
 Ma C Sm,?an KeDfc ’ ^ AugUStine ’ s 
 
 Man field, Harry 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. E. G. 
 
 Meagher, Miehael 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Middlemore, John Throgmorton 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Mond, Sir Alfred M. 
 
 Montague, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashb’rt 
 Monson-Bell, Major A. C. (Honitc 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 Munro, Robert 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R C 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.' 
 
 Needham, Christopher T 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newman, John R. P. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Dorcas 
 Nicholson, William G. (Pete/^el 
 Norman, Sir Henry 
 Norton, Captain Cecil W 
 Nugent, Sir Walter Richard 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 Ogden, Fred 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim,# 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W G A / 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William ‘ 
 
 Raget, Almeric Hugh 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 1 earson, Hon. Weetman H M 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (DarlingtonL 
 Pease Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherhai 
 
 Peel, Hom W. R. W. (Taunton 
 
 Perkins, Walter Frank 
 Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Pirie, Duncan V. r 
 
 Pole-Care w, Sir R. 
 
71 
 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 Pretyman, Ernest George 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 Pringle, William M. R. 
 
 Pryce- Jones, Col. E. 
 
 Quilter, Sir William Eley C. 
 
 Ratcliff, R. F. 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough 
 Reddy, M. 
 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Roe, Sir Thomas 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sandys, G. J. 
 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. 
 Scott, A.MacCallum(Glas ,Bridget’n 
 Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange 
 Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Sherwell, Arthur James 
 Shortt, Edward 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Rt. Hon. F.EJL’pool, Walton 
 Smith, Harold (Warrington 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanier, Beville 
 
 Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 
 Sutherland, John E. 
 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Terrell, Henry (Gloucester 
 Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North 
 Thomson W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan Charles Philips 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 Tullibardine, Marquess of 
 
 Yalentia, Viscount 
 Yerney, Sir Harry 
 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan 
 Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney 
 Webb, H. 
 
 White, Major G. D. (Lancs, SouthpTt 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradeston 
 Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. 
 Whyte, A. F. (Perth 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir Archibald 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N. 
 Winfrey, Richard 
 Winterton, Earl 
 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon 
 Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon 
 (Glasgow) 
 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 Yate, Colonel C. E. 
 
 Young, William (Perth, East 
 Younger, Sir George 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. Illingwnrth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
72 
 
 Mr. LAUEENCE HAEDY : I beg to move, in Sub-section 
 (1), after the word “ regularity ” (“ with respect to the regularity,”) 
 to insert the word “ amount.” 
 
 I think the Government will see that in this case we do require 
 a little more definition in connection with this very important 
 matter — namely, the exclusion of those who do not really earn the 
 minimum wage. There is no point which has been more discussed, 
 and it is one on which there has been agreement to a great extent 
 in those districts where safeguards have really been considered. If 
 the federated area terms are referred to — and I know the Government 
 have them in their possession — it will be seen they are framed on 
 the principle that the output is to be equally considered. I need 
 only refer to two speeches delivered in this House yesterday. The 
 Prime Minister, in describing the demand that was made, said : — 
 
 “ I have never met any kind of denial or repudiation or 
 qualification on the part of the representatives of the miners, 
 that if they were to have a minimum wage the owners 
 should have adequate security for proper output and 
 efficiency.” — (Official Eeport, 21st March, 1912, Col. 2083.) 
 
 Therefore he acknowledged that besides efficiency you must have 
 something directed towards the amount of output. The Foreign 
 Secretary, on the same subject, said : — 
 
 “ The owners who accept the principle, asked that there shall 
 be safeguards to secure that if the principle of the minimum 
 wage is conceded, there remained a due incentive to each 
 miner to give an adequate output for the minimum wage 
 which he is bound to receive.” — (Official Eeport, 21st 
 March, 1912, Col. 2174.) 
 
 Then the right honourable gentleman added that the men had 
 never denied this, and that it was necessary to have a safeguard as 
 to output. The word “ efficiency ” does not really, as was shown by 
 the Prime Minister himself, cover the whole matter, and it is the 
 fear of the owners that this minimum wage without adequate 
 safeguards might reduce the amount of output to such an extent as 
 to cause a very great loss to them. Output, and not merely efficiency, 
 therefore, is a thing to be considered in reference to providing these 
 safeguards, which will bar a particular man from receiving the 
 minimum wage if he does not earn it. The two points taken by the 
 owners have been regularity of work, and the amount of output in 
 certain defined periods. These are the two points in the federated 
 area about which there is practically no dispute. The Government 
 have themselves introduced the word “ efficiency,” which we cannot 
 regard as accurate or covering what we desire. Therefore in framing 
 instructions to the District Boards I think it is very desirable that 
 we should have this special point alluded to — namely, the amount of 
 output, in order that they may give it full and due consideration. 
 
73 
 
 The words are not sufficient in the Bill as it stands, and I do hope 
 the Government will add this word which I propose, and which is 
 entirely in accordance with the utterances of the Prime Minister 
 and of others who have spoken on the matter. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I am thoroughly in accord with the honourable 
 gentleman’s object, and the Government from the beginning have 
 said that the minimum wage should always be accompanied with 
 adequate safeguards to the owners. There has been no difference of 
 opinion from the beginning of our discussions on either side, and 
 the matter has been put several times, as my honourable friend 
 knows, to the Conferences of the men. It is admitted that the 
 owners are entitled to sufficient and adequate safeguards in connection 
 with the minimum wage. Therefore there is no difference of opinion 
 in any quarter of the blouse in regard to the object we have in 
 view. I can assure the honourable member that this matter was 
 very carefully considered in drafting the Bill, and, in our opinion, 
 the word efficiency covers the object which he has especially in view 
 — namely, the question of output, and the particular amount. I am 
 not sure that by putting in special words you would not limit instead 
 of extending the provision. The words were considered very care- 
 fully, because there is no difference of opinion between us in the 
 object we have in view. We believe, on the whole, the words in the 
 Bill really carry out the objects he has in view, and that the words 
 of the amendment are not necessary. 
 
 Mr. L. HABDY : As to the statement that the word 
 
 “ efficiency ” covers the “ amount.” The workman may be very 
 efficient in point of character, and I do not desire in any way 
 to doubt that all the miners are absolutely efficient ; but unless 
 the Board gets some idea as to efficiency, I do not see how they will 
 be able to arrive at the particular point which the right honourable 
 gentleman himself acknowledges he desired to cover in the wording 
 of the Bill. I still would urge the right honourable gentleman to 
 see whether he cannot introduce some words. 
 
 Sir IP FINLAY : I hope the right honourable gentleman, the 
 President of the Board of Trade, will reconsider his position. I 
 very much doubt whether the words in the Bill do cover the question 
 of amount. The question is how much coal is got — that is the 
 essential point. Why not put in the word “ amount ” to make it as 
 clear as you can. That is not open to the objection urged by the 
 right honourable gentleman, that the putting in of words sometimes 
 leads to confusion and obscurity. It would make the thing absolutely 
 clear, and at present, I confess, I think it is doubtful. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HABVEY : Honourable members opposite who 
 have no experience of mines cannot realise what the actual facts 
 are. The amount of coal depends on a thousand and one things, 
 
74 
 
 such as the amount of tubs, the quality of the roof, whether there is 
 water in the roof, whether the roads are good or bad. To put 
 “ amount ” in would be to rob this clause of all its value and 
 meaning. That is what we get from men who do not understand 
 this question at all. If some men would go and work a week in a 
 mine they would understand it, but they do not now. If the coal is 
 six feet thick on a Tuesday and only two feet on a Friday, is the 
 amount going to be common to every day ? It is this practical 
 knowledge which brings us into close quarters with the other side, 
 and it is because we understand this question that we say the words 
 proposed would be very misleading. I suggest the amendment, 
 which I have on the paper, subsequently to insert, instead of 
 “ regularity and efficiency,” the words “ regular performance.” 
 
 Mr. CASSEL : The honourable member, I admit, has great 
 knowledge in connection with the working of mines to which we 
 cannot lay claim, but I am not sure that he has read Sub-section (2) 
 of this clause, because that makes it clear that a workman only 
 forfeits the right to a minimum wage if he does not comply with 
 those conditions, 
 
 “ Except in cases where failure to comply with the conditions is 
 due to some cause over which he has no control.” 
 
 The difficulty of the tubs and the physical difficulties would be 
 covered by those words. The President of the Board of Trade said 
 that he thought the word “ amount ” was included in the words 
 “ efficiency and regularity ” — or, at all events, he intended that it 
 should. We start with that and we have it, on the authority of the 
 late Attorney-General, that those words do not include amount. If 
 the President of the Board of Trade intends they should, and if the 
 right honourable gentleman, who is able to speak with so much 
 authority, says he considers that doubtful, I cannot see what 
 objection the Government can have to words giving effect to their 
 intention. Surely it is in accordance with what is stated to be the 
 views of the miners themselves that there should be safeguards, both 
 as to regularity and efficiency, and as to amount. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs) : I do not 
 think that there really is any serious question as to the meaning of 
 these words. The right honourable gentleman the Member for St. 
 Andrews University (Sir R. Finlay) stated that at least they were 
 doubtful. At first sight they may appear to him not to be quite 
 clear, but I can assure him, speaking as one who has considered 
 them with very great care, I am satisfied they do cover amount, and 
 that the conditions which have to be laid down by the Board with 
 respect to regularity and efficiency of work must have included 
 conditions which will apply equally to amount. It is one of the 
 elements to be considered. You cannot possibly lay down all the 
 elements to be considered, and there is always the danger that if 
 
75 
 
 you name one you may exclude others. I hope the right honourable 
 gentleman will not press the amendment. We mean the same 
 thing; we have carefully considered the matter; and with the 
 assistance of those who are used to drafting we have come to the 
 conclusion that these words really meet the point, and that there 
 can be no doubt in the minds of the Joint District Boards that they 
 must lay down conditions applying both to amount and other matters 
 which would come within the words “ regularity and efficiency.” 
 With reference to the insertion of the words “regular performance,” 
 the same observations would apply. I quite agree with what my 
 honourable friend said, but we have covered it by the words in the 
 Bill, and he need have no anxiety on the point. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY : The Government have answered my question 
 to some extent ; they have shown that they have given great 
 consideration to the matter, and that, so far as they are concerned, 
 they have determined that my object is obtained by their words, I 
 do not altogether agree with them, but in my anxiety to get on with 
 business I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. G. TERRELL : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave 
 out the word “and ” (“regularity and efficiency ”), and insert instead 
 thereof the word “or.” 
 
 As the clause reads now, in order that a workman may forfeit 
 his right to a minimum wage he will have to fail to comply with the 
 conditions in respect of both the regularity and the efficiency of his 
 work. A man might be very regular but wholly inefficient, or very 
 efficient and wholly irregular, and yet he would not come within the 
 exception. It is perfectly clear from the Prime Minister’s statement 
 that it is intended that a man who is either irregular or inefficient 
 in his work should not be entitled to the minimum wage 
 
 Sir RUEUS ISAACS : I will accept the amendment. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Further amendment made : After the word “ wages ” (“ and any 
 agreement for the payment of wages ”), insert the words “ in so far 
 as it is.”— (Mr. A. Stanley.) 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to 
 leave out the words “ provide, as respects the district to which they 
 apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum 
 rate of aged and infirm workmen, and shall.” 
 
 This is a point of some importance, and if my apprehensions are 
 correct it is a matter into which I hope the Committee will look very 
 
76 
 
 carefully indeed. There has been an understanding all along between 
 the miners’ representatives and the owners as to the exclusion of 
 aged and infirm workmen, but that understanding I take it has not 
 been that there shall not be any kind of minimum wage for these 
 men set up by the District Boards. If the Government are under 
 the impression that that was the understanding, I am afraid they 
 are mistaken. What the miners and the owners agreed was that the 
 aged and infirm workmen should be exempt from the general 
 minimum as laid down in the general schedule. It must be obvious 
 that if you allow the aged and infirm workmen to be without any 
 minimum at all you will absolutely defeat the whole object of the 
 Bill. What will happen in practice is that the management will put 
 the workmen classed as aged and infirm into the abnormal places, 
 and you will come back to the position where you will have in the 
 abnormal places aged and infirm workmen, or workmen without a 
 minimum. Thus the whole object of the agitation to get a minimum 
 rate in abnormal places may be defeated if you have a class of work- 
 men without a minimum at all. The question whether these aged 
 and infirm workmen are intended by the drafting of the Bill to be 
 without a minimum is one in regard to which I want the Government 
 to give a very clear answer. 
 
 Another practical difficulty is, who is to decide whether an 
 individual workman is aged and infirm ? What is to make him 
 aged and infirm? I know an old friend of mine, who because he 
 suffers from miner’s asthma, took three hours to get to the pit in the 
 morning and another three hours to get home at night, but while at 
 work in the stall he could do as much as any other two men in the 
 pit, who were much younger and apparently much healthier. 
 Is a man smitten with chronic asthma to be put down as infirm ? If 
 you said that an aged and infirm workman was one declared to be 
 such by the District Committee, that might be something ; but you 
 have not got that in the Bill. There is no provision defining what 
 makes an aged and infirm workman, and I am afraid we shall get a 
 considerable amount of litigation unless it is made clear. I cannot 
 see why it is necessary to exclude aged and infirm workmen unless 
 you intend cutting them out from the minimum altogether. Why 
 not leave the aged and infirm, like other special classes of workmen, 
 to Bub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 2 ? There, especially in Sub- 
 section (4), power is given to the District Committee to draw up 
 special minimum rates and special district rules in certain special 
 circumstances. The argument from the point of view of the 
 Government has been that all these details ought to be left to the 
 District Boards. As I read this clause, you are preventing the 
 District Boards altogether from setting up a minimum scale for the 
 aged workmen. You are telling them to draft district rules excluding 
 the aged and infirm workmen, whoever they may be. It is for the 
 purpose of being perfectly clear that this type of workman shall not 
 be penalised and driven into the abnormal and dangerous places that 
 I move my amendment. 1 am personally acquainted with many 
 
77 
 
 men sixty years of age who, because of their particular skill, do 
 more work and turn out more coal than many men of thirty or 
 thirty-five years of age. Is a man of sixty to be classed as an aged 
 and infirm workman ? If so, you will be cutting out from the 
 provisions of this Bill and from the security it is intended to afford 
 some of the best and most responsible workmen whom we have in 
 the districts of South Wales. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : There is no question as between owners and 
 the representatives of the miners in regard to this point — that the 
 aged and infirm might be defined to be outside the scope of the 
 minimum wage. 
 
 Mr. E. JONES : Of any minimum ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Of the minimum wage ; for the very good 
 reason that if they were to be brought into the minimum wage fixed 
 for the whole district it would lower the minimum for the rest of 
 the workmen. My honourable friend seems to think that these 
 words exclude aged and infirm workmen altogether from the 
 operation of the Bill. Sub-section (2) says that district rules shall 
 be drawn up by District Committees with a view to defining what 
 persons, and under what conditions those persons may be entitled 
 to receive the minimum rate. There are already Conciliation 
 Boards, composed of representatives of the owners and of the miners, 
 to deal with this sort of thing, and these will draw up amongst 
 themselves rules in regard to the aged and the infirm class. I think 
 the honourable member will recognise that we cannot have a 
 minimum wage in regard to what are called the aged and the infirm 
 workmen. Each case must be treated on its own merits. We 
 cannot fix a definite minimum wage for a class of this sort. Each 
 differs from the other. I quite believe, with the honourable 
 member, that some of those approaching sixty or more are very 
 capable workmen. I should be very sorry to think that anyone 
 approaching that age, or even above that age, was not capable of 
 doing a fair day’s work. The provision is that the District Council 
 will give power to the boards to draw up rules providing for these 
 cases by Conciliation Boards. I do not think, therefore, if those 
 persons are excluded from the operation of the district minimum 
 rates, that they will be in any way damnified or the worse for it. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I feel that these unhappy aged and 
 infirm workmen are in danger, perhaps, of not receiving quite 
 sufficient consideration from either side in this dispute. The danger 
 appears to me that if you enact the minimum wage for all aged and 
 infirm people the result would be that they will be dismissed the 
 moment they fail to produce an output equal to the average. 
 
 Mr. E. JONES : I want to leave it to the District Boards. 
 They can draft the conditions with plenty of elasticity. 
 
78 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : No, no. I know the honourable 
 gentleman’s proposal — namely, that they should be put into a special 
 class in respect of the minimum wage. I will deal with that 
 in a moment. What I want to say is that if they are in the ordinary 
 class with the ordinary minimum wage it will really be destructive 
 of their own interests. As to the argument for a special class, surely 
 the President of the Board of Trade’s answer to that is overwhelming. 
 You cannot make a class of aged and infirm workmen. Each man 
 differs from another man. One man will be able to do much more 
 than another man, and will be worthy of a higher wage. If you had 
 a special class you would be merely postponing a difficulty which 
 exists in putting these into the general class. At the same time I do 
 feel there is a great difficulty in this matter. If you exclude the 
 aged and infirm workmen by anything like a red tape rule you may 
 do a great injury to them. You may put a man into the aged and 
 infirm class because of a temporary difficulty, and then when the 
 man so put gets over that temporary difficulty he will find that, or 
 something of the kind, constantly against him whenever he applies 
 for work elsewhere. There is, I think, great danger in labelling 
 men as “ aged and infirm,” and I should ask the Government to 
 consider this point very carefully. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH: Not “aged ‘and’ infirm,” but “aged ‘or’ 
 infirm.” 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I think you will have to say “ aged 
 and infirm.” Obviously you would excuse a man injured in an 
 accident. A man meets an accident down the mine which renders 
 him less fit, though not totally unfit, than before. 
 
 What I want to press upon the Government is this : Is it 
 impossible to devise words whereby a man shall not be put into the 
 aged and infirm class except upon his own application ? That seems 
 to me to be the rule of justice. The man should apply to be put 
 into this class, or to be taken out of the minimum wage class. I should 
 like the Government to give me an assurance that they will consider 
 that point. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : We will consider the matter. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I should like to have that point explained, 
 because we have been given to understand repeatedly from the 
 Government that this is a Bill in which one can trace the hand of 
 three or four extreme experts, and the provisions of this Bill, mainly 
 with regard to machinery and the conditions under which the 
 machinery is to act, have been framed mainly on the deliberations 
 of the federated areas before the whole of the negotiations broke 
 down. 
 
79 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This Bill very carefully excludes the question 
 of machinery, and as to how these safeguards “ so-called.” 
 I make use of that phrase because it has been in use. We cannot 
 consider whether we can put district rules into the Bill or not. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : It depends upon examination. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I do not quite understand. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I mean the guiding line upon which masters 
 and men had almost wholly agreed in the federated areas a few 
 weeks ago, before the notices were finished. The guiding line of 
 those deliberations are the main lines upon which this Bill is 
 framed. That was admitted last night by the right honourable 
 gentleman the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, it has been repeatedly 
 stated. As we understand it, the employers and ourselves were 
 practically in agreement upon one phrase, and that phrase was as to 
 whom you exclude from the operation of this minimum. We said 
 that one class would be the aged and the physically infirm. It is 
 perfectly true that there are men in the mines who would be 
 nominally termed aged, but they retain their physical powers to a 
 very advanced age, and they are able to earn, because of their 
 accumulated skill and experience, tremendously more than many of 
 the younger men who go into the mines. Indeed, it is not merely a 
 question of output. These men are engaged in the stonework of the 
 mine — where there is no question of output at all. If they can earn 
 above the minimum there is no reason to exclude them. It has 
 always been a combined phrase. It was an inclusive phrase that we 
 agreed to, and that the employers themselves accepted. Where the 
 age is accompanied by physical infirmity, of course we do not ask 
 the employers to pay a particular wage, because that would be 
 unfair. The noble lord the Member for Hitchin spoke about a 
 compensation scheme. That would not come in under this section, 
 because this does not override the law of workmen’s compensation ; 
 such men are almost always put upon reduced earnings. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : This would override it. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : The district rules would include that case. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I do not think as the Bill is drafted 
 the rules could include that case. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : The case of men injured and in receipt of 
 compensation would come under the provisions in this case. These 
 men would be put in light employment ; they are admittedly, while 
 they are only partially recovered, not fully capable workmen, and of 
 course arrangements would be made to deal with that class of case 
 under the district rules. We had an agreement that the phrase 
 
80 
 
 should be an inclusive phrase. A man who might come under old 
 age might be a very efficient workman, capable of earning much 
 more than many a younger man. We cannot have the word “or ” 
 instead of “ and.” 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley) : That particular point will 
 arise later on on an amendment lower down on the paper. 
 
 Mr. LEIF JONES : It seems to me you want to exclude men 
 either infirm from age or from any other cause, but it does not 
 follow that age makes a man an infirm workman. I think the 
 question of age introduces confusion. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WARD : Are you to have a Board to examine 
 every one of these men ? 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES: The District Board is what is 
 
 proposed. 
 
 Mr. CAVE : There may be cases where a man is too old to 
 earn a full day’s wage, yet could not be called infirm. Would not 
 the right phrase be, “ workmen wholly or partially disabled by age 
 or infirmity.” Some expression of that kind would cover the case. 
 I take it the object is to cover the cases of men who for one reason 
 or another are not fully capable. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : The words as they stand are the best, and they 
 were really agreed upon. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any real 
 difference of opinion, although I think there is something to be 
 said for the words as used. We will consider these words very 
 carefully to see if we can give effect to the point in the minds of 
 the Committee. Of course the words used here are used expressly, 
 because they formed the subject of discussion already ; they are 
 always used in that connection not as “ aged and infirm,” but as 
 “ aged or infirm.” The mere fact of a man being aged does not, of 
 course, make him infirm ; a man may be infirm without being aged, 
 and he may be aged and infirm. You cannot rule him out as totally 
 incapacitated or disabled. There is a little difficulty in using the 
 phrase “ partially disabled ” in every case. I think the proper way 
 is to follow the policy we have adopted throughout. I cannot help 
 thinking that this discussion has helped to confirm the view we 
 formed, namely, that these matters ought to be dealt with by District 
 Boards. Both sides are represented on these Boards and can make 
 themselves heard. I think the suggestion of the noble lord is 
 worthy of consideration, and it will be considered. I understand 
 his point to be this : that although a man may come within the 
 term “ aged,” as defined by the rules, he may nevertheless be 
 
81 
 
 capable of doing a good day’s work, and therefore he ought not to 
 be ruled out because he is superannuated, and that something ought 
 to be introduced as showing that the District Boards need not rule 
 a man out as aged, except on his own application, provided he is 
 capable of doing an ordinary day’s work. We will give careful 
 consideration to that, supposing it is not sufficiently provided for by 
 the words. If that is so, we will introduce proper words. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDA : I beg to move in Sub-section (2), 
 after the word “ aged ” (“ for the exclusion from the right to wages 
 at the minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen ”), to insert the 
 word “ workman.” 
 
 If the Government desire to clear this matter up upon Report 
 Stage, I will not press this amendment, but I desire to make it quite 
 clear that one thing which the honourable member opposite (Mr. 
 Walsh) said might be misunderstood. After much deliberation in the 
 federated areas, it was quite clear that two classes of men were 
 considered in the form of the proposal, old men and infirm men 
 showing there were two classes. The amendment 1 am now moving 
 is to add the word “ workman ” after “ aged,” in order to make it 
 read “ aged workman or infirm workman.” Perhaps the Govern- 
 ment will accept it now and consider on Report Stage. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : My right honourable friend, the Attorney- 
 General has already promised he will give these words very careful 
 consideration between now and Report Stage. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I think the honourable member (Mr. 
 Walsh) will not be satisfied at all with the words as proposed, 
 because it really makes the Bill read that an aged workman per se is 
 to be excluded. I do not think that is the intention of the 
 Government or the Committee ; but, of course, if the Government 
 are merely accepting it to give the matter further consideration, it 
 is different. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : My recollection is absolutely accurate in this 
 regard that we answered the employers that old age and physical 
 infirmity were to be regarded as one of the excluding classes. 
 Unless that is accepted, or very carefully guarded, you will have two 
 distinct classes of workmen excluded ; we cannot have that at all. 
 Of course the House can impose its will upon anybody, but we must 
 guard against that ; we do not want two distinct classes of workmen. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : There are two distinct classes of workmen, 
 those incapacited by age and those incapacitated by infirmity. It 
 does not follow that they belong to the same class. The words 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 there are “ workmen incapacitated by age or infirmity.” We have 
 already said we will consider the matter. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : The point I wished to raise has already been 
 mentioned, and it relates to the words “regularity and efficiency.” 
 These words are very deceptive terms. I know it is no good for me 
 to inflict a lot of rather technical terms upon the House, but I hope 
 the Government will guard against bringing into the arena 
 anything which may be a technical offence against the regulations, 
 but which ought not to interfere with a man’s right to a minimum 
 wage. I shall not move my amendment. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES : I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after 
 the word “ workmen” (“ work to be performed by the workmen ”), 
 to insert the words “ as respects their right to wages at the 
 minimum rate.” I do not know wUat the Attorney-General thinks 
 in regard to this amendment, but I am afraid there is a danger that 
 these district rules may apply to all the workmen at the colliery. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have carefully considered the 
 
 honourable member’s amendment, and am sure he need be under no 
 apprehension in regard to the point he raises. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES : After that assurance, I beg leave to 
 withdraw my amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the 
 word “ workmen ” (“ work to be performed by the workmen ”), to 
 insert the words “ so as to provide adequate safeguards to protect 
 the employers against abuse.” The Prime Minister, in his proposals, 
 laid down very strougly that he would only grant the minimum 
 wage provided that employers had adequate safeguards. There is 
 nothing in the Bill to provide those safeguards, and the words of my 
 amendment are the exact words in the proposals of the Government. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : There is no difference with regard to the 
 object we have in view, although we do not think it necessary to put 
 in the particular words which the honourable baronet suggests. 
 Words to meet this point ought to have been put in the declaratory 
 part of the clause. I am advised that to insert these words in regard 
 to adequate safeguards might lead to a good deal of litigation. 
 Under these circumstances I hope my honourable friend will not 
 press his amendment. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I really cannot see why the right honourable 
 gentleman should object to putting in these words. 
 
83 
 
 Mr. J. WARD: A proposal to protect employers against abuse 
 is a most curious provision, and it looks as though you were trying 
 to protect the coalowners against the usual language used by colliers. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : Although the Government may not 
 be willing to put a provision of this sort in this particular place, 
 perhaps the right honourable gentleman would be prepared to put it 
 in the declaratory part, and ^ that could easily be done on Report. 
 Just as the Government are prepared to put in a declaratory 
 statement as to what should be considered in arriving at a minimum 
 wage by the District Boards, so I think it would be useful to have 
 some indication of the object for which these rules are to be devised 
 which at the present time are not contained in the Bill. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : It would be better to insert at the end of 
 Sub-section (1) the words “for safeguarding the employer.” I should 
 be prepared to accept them on Report. The reason I am objecting 
 to these words is that they are in too vague terms, and might give 
 rise to legal proceedings. 
 
 Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD : To insert those words at 
 the end of line 25 (“and provide that”) would be quite out of place. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : Is there any appeal from the decision of the 
 Chairman of the District Board ? If this proposal is likely to lead 
 to litigation I hope we shall provide some other solution of this 
 difficulty. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), 
 after the word “and” (“by the workmen, and provide that a 
 workman”), to insert the words “conditions under which employers 
 may, in the case of a total or partial stoppage of work arising from 
 causes over which the employer has no control, pay such proportion 
 of wages at the minimum rate as may be prescribed by the district 
 rules, and shall.” 
 
 This amendment raises an important point, because there is 
 nothing in the Bill which deals with this particular question. It is 
 necessary that there should be something in this measure directing 
 the Board to give attention to this matter. The words at the end 
 of this sub-section deal with the question of a workman getting 
 his wages if it is a cause over which he has no control. There are 
 a number of causes over which he has no control and oyer which 
 the master has also no control. This was very clearly laid down in 
 those conditions which have been again and again referred to when 
 the federated areas were endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of 
 this question. It was admitted by the men there were occasions. 
 
84 
 
 such as a breakdown on the railway or of the machinery within the 
 pit, when it was not fair to ask the owners to pay a full day’s wage, 
 and when the wage should only be paid for that part of the day it is 
 possible for the men to have work. It is not a debatable question ; 
 it is a question which was agreed upon by both parties, but, under 
 the Bill as it is framed, it does not seem to me there would be any 
 possibility for the District Boards to consider it, and it is necessary 
 to put in words to safeguard those cases where the owner has no 
 control. I am not, of course, particular as to the actual framing of 
 the words, but I do ask the Government that they should secure in 
 the directions which go to the District Boards that this point of view 
 shall not be omitted or forgotten. 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : I understand the Government 
 are prepared to virtually accept the amendment, but suggest other 
 words which I think would practically carry out all the suggestions 
 of my honourable friend. I think some such words must be inserted 
 in the Bill to make it workable at all. If they are not, it will be 
 necessary that the workmen should be paid a whole day’s wage 
 according to the minimum wage. I hope my honourable friend will 
 withdraw the amendment in order that the words suggested by the 
 Government may be inserted in the Bill. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : I was with others for ten days in 
 negotiation with the coalowners of the federated areas trying to 
 master the details and come to a settlement in regard to safeguards. 
 We came to an agreement which the Government have seen and 
 which makes provision that if a pit knocked off at quarter-time the 
 miners would only have a quarter day’s minimum wage, and, if it 
 knocked off at half-time, they would only have that portion of a 
 day’s minimum wage. The agreement made provision for all 
 conceivable difficulties, and the representatives of the owners agreed 
 we had been fair in assenting to these arrangements. There was a 
 general consent on the part of the owners that we had done our 
 level best to safeguard their interests against malingering, accidents, 
 and every conceivable thing that might be objected to. I hope the 
 Government will not accept this amendment. It is too wide and 
 might be applied very unjustly to the workmen who are seeking to 
 get this minimum wage. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : Ido not think there is any real difference 
 of opinion between us upon this amendment. The words actually 
 upon the paper I think go a little too far, but it is plain there must 
 be some provision to protect the employers where there is a stoppage 
 or a partial stoppage of work owing to some emergency. The words 
 we suggest are based really upon the agreement which was arrived 
 at with regard to this matter, and I think they will carry out the 
 views of the Committee. They are these : — 
 
85 
 
 “ With respect to the time for which a workman is to be paid 
 in the event of any interruption of work due to an 
 emergency, and shall.” 
 
 The effect of that will be that the District Boards will have to make 
 rules to provide for the time workmen are to be paid when there is 
 an inter uption of work due to an emergency. I think these words 
 really meet the exact point raised by my honourable friend and also 
 the substance of the point raised by the noble lord opposite. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : It must be an accompaniment that, if in 
 the case of a shaft accident or some breakage of machinery the 
 owners let the men know and they get out, there will be no claim 
 for a minimum wage, but that they have no right to keep the men 
 in the pit and only pay them a quarter day’s minimum wage. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : Certainly, that is what I should imagine 
 the rules would provide. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY : I do not disagree with what the honourable 
 member has said with regard to the conduct of the miners in reference 
 to this matter, and I am quite willing to withdraw the amendment 
 in favour of the words suggested by the Attorney-General. Providing 
 there are words in the Bill which point to this question of emergency, 
 I think that would meet our views. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I quite agree the words are satisfactory if they 
 are not limited to emergencies in the colliery. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : It is exactly for the purpose of making 
 rules to cover these points that District Boards are proposed. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made : In Sub-section (2), after the word “ and,” 
 insert the words “ with respect to the time for which a workman is 
 to be paid in the event of any interruption of work due to an 
 emergency, and shall.” 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word 
 “ control ” (“ some cause over which he has no control ”), to insert 
 the words “ District Boards shall have authority to ratify and confirm 
 individual agreements between employers and workmen as to what 
 constitutes age and infirmity.” 
 
 I know the honourable member who put down this amendment 
 (Mr. Grant) attaches great importance to it, and I agree with his 
 object, but I am not quite sure this is the right place to indicate this 
 machinery. 
 
86 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the object aimed at by the 
 honourable member is already provided for in the earlier part of the 
 Bill, and there will, therefore, be no difficulty whatever in this 
 matter. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : Under those circumstances I beg to ask leave to 
 withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved, in Sub-section (2), after the 
 word “ decision” (“provide for the decision”), to insert the words 
 “ at each mine in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules.” 
 
 This amendment is intended to make it clear in what way the 
 decision is to be arrived at. The first clause says that “ the district 
 rules shall also provide for the decision of any question whether any 
 workman in the district is a workman to whom the minimum rate 
 of wage is applicable.” It is not quite clear from the wording of that 
 clause whether the rules say that the decision is to be arrived at by 
 the Joint District Board or not. My point is that, under the present 
 system, where differences arise with the workmen, they are generally 
 settled between the workman and his own officials, and if the 
 workman and the officials cannot arrange the matter, then it is ; 
 referred to the manager of the colliery and the miners’ agent. It is i 
 very desirable that that practice should continue ; in fact, it must ! 
 continue for this reason. It will be quite impossible for the Joint 
 District Board to settle a number of the cases which maybe brought ■ 
 before it. It would have neither the time nor the machinery with > 
 which to do it. These matters must in the first place be dealt with 
 as between the miners and their own officials, and if they cannot 
 settle them the manager of the mine and the miners’ agent must 
 try and do so. In the event of their failure, then it should come on 
 to the District Board. It is in order to secure this end that I wish 
 to insert the words : — 
 
 i 
 
 “ At each mine in such manner as may be prescribed by 
 the rules.” j 
 
 Unless some words of this kind are put in, it will be construed that 
 these matters will have to be decided by the Board itself, and I 
 repeat, it would be impossible for the Board to do that. I hope the 
 right honourable gentlemen will accept my amendment. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : I agree to a great extent with what has 
 fallen from the last speaker. The duty of the District Boards will 
 be to fix the minimum, but there are a thousand and one things 
 these Boards will never touch. There is the question of the price 
 list. I do not suppose they will ever be called upon to deal with 
 that. Their sole function will be to fix the minimum for the area 
 
87 
 
 under their jurisdiction, and, having done that, until a revision is 
 applied for by either side their work is finished, and the miners’ 
 agent will have to go to the office or into the pit to deal with disputes 
 arising outside the minimum wage question. I quite agree with the 
 honourable Member for Sheffield that the disputes which will arise 
 in a colliery outside the minimum wage question can he dealt with 
 in a fair spirit by both sides as at present, and that that system had 
 better continue. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : My attention was drawn by the amendment 
 of the honourable gentleman to the fact that the words in the Bill were 
 not quite clear, and that, unless some amendment was introduced, 
 they might give rise to the idea that the District Board itself was 
 going to deal with the thousand and one disputes which might arise. 
 The Bill has to deal with the question of the minimum. The District 
 Board will lay down rules providing for the persons, or method, or 
 body who shall deal with these matters, and I should think that in 
 all probability — I am speaking without authority in this matter — 
 they would do, as my honourable friend suggests, and leave them to 
 be decided as is now the case at the mine itself, or, if necessary, by 
 the Conciliation Committee. I do not think the words suggested by 
 the honourable member opposite are quite wide enough. I would 
 propose to insert after the word “ decision,” the words “and make 
 provision in respect of the persons by whom and the mode in which 
 these and other matters shall be decided.” This will, therefore, 
 make it clear that the District Board will have full power to utilise 
 the best machinery for settling these disputes. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : The right honourable gentleman has not 
 quite met my point. I say it is very desirable that these minor 
 questions should be settled at the colliery itself between the colliery 
 manager and the miners’ agent, and that is why I suggest the 
 introduction of the words I have moved. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON ; What I want to make clear is this, that the 
 District Boards shall have full power of referring these matters to 
 the pit committee or the manager, as at present. But it may 
 happen that in some mines or districts that particular system is 
 either not working or is not working satisfactorily, and my words 
 will give an opportunity for proposing an alternative plan that may 
 work better. Obviously as these matters will be decided by 
 representatives of the employers and of the workmen, they will 
 desire to utilise whatever machinery is most likely to bring about a 
 settlement of the dispute with the least possible delay. I make it 
 rather wider than the honourable member suggests, and his 
 amendment will be completely covered by these words. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : There are two things upon which the 
 honourable Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) and myself 
 are agreed. The first is that the District Board shall fix the 
 
88 
 
 minimum. The second is that the other questions shall be dealt 
 with as they have been dealt with before. We want that made 
 perfectly clear. We do not want District Boards to interfere with 
 matters we ought to settle ourselves. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : I shall be glad to accept the altered words 
 proposed by the right honourable gentleman, if he thinks they will 
 give a distinct power to the District Boards to settle these disputes 
 at the colliery. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words 
 “ provide for the decision of ” (“ The district rules shall also provide 
 for the decision of”), and insert instead thereof the words “make 
 provision in respect of the persons by whom and the mode in which.” 
 — (Mr. Buxton.) 
 
 Mr. CAVE : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word 
 “applicable” (“ workmen to whom the minimum rate of wages is 
 applicable”), to insert the words “or whether a workman has 
 complied with the conditions laid down by the rules.” 
 
 I have put down this amendment in order to clear up an 
 ambiguity. The Bill provides that the workman who fails to 
 comply with the conditions shall forfeit his right to a minimum 
 wage, unless the failure is due to causes beyond his control. This 
 paragraph provides : — 
 
 “ The district rules shall also provide for the decision of any 
 question whether any workman in the district .... who 
 has not complied with the conditions laid down by the 
 rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate.” 
 
 That assumes that it has been decided by some authority that the 
 workman has not complied with the conditions. But I do not find 
 in this paragraph any provision enabling rules to be made fixing the 
 tribunal which decides the point referred to in my amendment. 
 Supposing a difference arises between employer and the workman as 
 to whether the workman has, or has not complied with the conditions. 
 It is not said here that the rules are to provide any tribunal to 
 determine that difference. It is only a tribunal which, on the 
 assumption that the man has failed to comply with the condition, is 
 to decide whether he has forfeited his right or not. I think the 
 words I have suggested would clear up the ambiguity, and make 
 plain the meaning of the Government. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite appreciate the point raised by 
 my honourable and learned friend. There is no difference between 
 us as to what is intended, but I think the words that are in the Bill 
 
89 
 
 are sufficient to cover the point which he raises. At first sight it 
 may not be so, but if he will look carefully at it, I think he will see 
 that the district rules have to provide for the decision as to whether 
 a man hjis broken the conditions which are laid down by the rules. 
 The words, as they will read now, it is important to bear in mind, 
 are not quite as they were when the honourable and learned 
 gentleman put down his amendment. The words as they will read 
 now are to this effect : that the district rules shall make provision 
 with respect to the persons by whom and the mode in which a 
 workman who has not complied with the conditions laid down by 
 the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, and 
 a subsequent amendment, which, is consequential, will then add the 
 words “ is to be decided,” so that the point is actually met. I 
 cannot conceive any difference of opinion upon this. What the 
 District Board is to do is — first, to make rules to provide for the 
 conditions; then it has to make rules as to how the question that 
 arises is to be decided. Further, it has to say whether or not a man 
 has complied with the conditions before it can decide whether he 
 has forfeited his wage. It must lay down rules for determining 
 whether or not he has complied with the conditions. I should think 
 that the words that we have now added and the consequential 
 amendment of my right honourable friend fully meet the case. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : There is one point I should like 
 to clear up. I do not quite understand the Attorney-General’s 
 obervations that there are some words coming in after we have 
 passed the point. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : No, the words are not yet before the 
 Committee. May I read out how the clause will read with the 
 proposed amendment : — 
 
 “ The district rules shall also make provision with respect 
 to the persons by whom and the mode in which any 
 question whether any workman in the district is a 
 workman to whom the minimum rate of wages is 
 applicable, or whether a workman who has not complied 
 with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited 
 his right to wages at the minimum rate, is to be 
 decided.” 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : That leads me to make this observ- 
 ation, that it might be decided that the workman had not fulfiled the 
 conditions, and yet that in the circumstances of the case it was not 
 right for him to forfeit his minimum wage. I am not clear whether 
 the clause as drawn would give to the Districts Board the right to 
 decide in the first place if the workman has broken the conditions, 
 and in the second place whether, as a matter of good sense and 
 common justice, the circumstances were such that he ought not to 
 forfeit his minimum wage. I think some such words as those 
 
90 
 
 suggested by the amendment are required to give them power to 
 make that decision. I venture to suggest that the words cannot 
 possibly do any harm, whilst they make the powers of the District 
 Committee rather wider, and they are more just. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I do not know that the words proposed 
 by the honourable and learned gentleman are necessary, but, of course, 
 we have amended the clause, and there may be something in the 
 point raised by the noble lord. I will consider it before Report, and 
 if it is necessary to make it clear we will do so. 
 
 Mr. CAVE : I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, though 
 I am not convinced by the argument of the right honourable 
 gentleman. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word “rate” 
 (“at the minimum rate”), insert the words “ is to be decided.) — 
 (Mr. Buxton.) 
 
 Mr. WALTER M‘LAREN : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), 
 after the word “operate” (“shall operate as from the date”), to 
 insert the words “ in each district.” 
 
 This is one of a series of amendments which would make the 
 clause read as follows : — 
 
 “ The provisions of this section as to payment of wages 
 at a minimum rate shall operate in each district as 
 from the date when the minimum rate of wages and 
 the district rules for that district have been settled.” 
 
 The point at issue is perfectly clear, namely, whether the Act 
 shall be retrospective from the date of its passing or whether it shall 
 really only come into practical operation when the District Boards 
 have arranged the rates. I think the latter is really the fairer 
 method, and I believe it would also expedite the operations of the 
 District Board. It will be greatly desired by both parties to know 
 where they stand, and to know what the minimum rates and rules 
 are, and it will be a matter of very grave complication if the owners 
 have to carry on their collieries for a considerable number of weeks 
 and then have to hark back and go over all their books and accounts 
 to see in each individual case what the men are entitled to. I believe 
 there will be a very strong desire to expedite the work of the District 
 Boards. Of course the miners’ agents and the committees will wish 
 to expedite it and settle their difficulties and know what wages the 
 men are to have, and the owners equally will be anxious to expedite 
 it in order to know where they stand, and with regard to the 
 making of' new contracts how they are going to be affected. I am 
 
91 
 
 suggesting this alteration, not at all in the interests of either party, 
 but in the interests of getting through the business and making the 
 Boards work. It is certainly to the interests of everyone that they 
 should do so, but it is a matter of the greatest complication if, 
 supposing they took a month or six weeks, every individual miner’s 
 record for that period had to be raked up and analysed to see what 
 he would be entitled to. The amount of book keeping for a colliery 
 company which employs perhaps 8,000 men would be very 
 complicated indeed. I do not regard the amendment as being 
 especially in the interests of one side or the other. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : This is an important point 
 undoubtedly, and a point of some difficulty. There are arguments 
 on one side and on the other. My honourable friend has pointed 
 out that there is retrospection as from the passing of the Act, which 
 may have a deterring effect on employers. They might not be 
 disposed to reopen the mines in uncertainty as to what the district 
 rate will be when the inquiry is concluded. Looking at the matter, 
 as we all do, with a desire to promote the resumption of work at the 
 earliest possible moment, to make it absolutely restrospective might 
 have a retarding rather than an accelerating effect. That, I think, 
 is the case put forward — a case which requires to be considered — on 
 the part of the owners. On the other hand there is another side to 
 the matter, and the other side on the whole appears to the 
 Government— and they gave the most impartial consideration they 
 could to the question — to be perhaps the more weighty and the 
 more decisive. The other side may be briefly stated thus : It is no 
 doubt important that the owners should be willing to reopen their 
 mines at the earliest possible moment, but it is at least equally 
 important that the men should have some inducement to resume 
 their work, as you cannot give a greater inducement to the men who 
 go down at the earliest possible moment into the pits, than by telling 
 them that if they do so when the inquiry by the District Board has 
 taken place and reached its conclusion, they will not get less than 
 the wage which is then ascertained. From the point of view of 
 inducing the men to go down and curtailing the area of stoppage 
 that seems to me a most important consideration. 
 
 But there is a further point which the Committee ought also 
 to bear in mind and which tends very much in the same direction. 
 Of course when we say retrospective from the passing of the Act 
 that means retrospective from the resumption of work. No one 
 contends that a man should earn a minimum wage who does not 
 go into the pit and perform his job. The thing is really retrospective 
 as from the resumption of work by the men, and in .that case you 
 provide for a really careful and deliberate investigation by the 
 District Boards. If the whole thing is to be hung up, as it would 
 be under the proposal of my honourable friend, until after the 
 District Board has undertaken its investigation and arrived 
 
92 
 
 at its conclusion, which could not be less than five weeks, 
 and might be considerably more, there would be an enormous 
 pressure brought to bear by those concerned in the industry to hurry 
 it up and to precipitate a conclusion. If, on the other hand, it was 
 really understood on both sides that the rate to be subsequently 
 ascertained should apply retrospectively, there would be every 
 inducement to make the inquiry a thorough one and not precipitate 
 it either in point of time or of the consideration of the case presented 
 by the employers and the employed, and there would be a better 
 prospect of arriving at a result which would be satisfactory to all 
 parties concerned. These I think are the arguments on the one side 
 and the other. I admit the force of the contention put forward by 
 my honourable friend, but on the whole the considerations appear 
 to be in favour of the course which the Government have proposed. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I am deeply sorry that the Prime Minister has 
 not accepted this amendment. I really think there is a great deal 
 of substance in what my honourable friends have said in favour of 
 amendment. I am afraid the Prime Minister hardly realises the 
 enormous difficulty that will arise if owners are to open their pits 
 under the clause as it stands, and if they are to have a large number 
 of claims accumulating before the minimum wages are fixed and 
 before the district rules are made. It would be impossible for a 
 manager to bear in mind or to take note of all the circumstances 
 that will arise in each case, and which at the end of that period 
 would have to be dealt with. I think the owners will not be induced 
 to open their pits with this danger hanging over their heads — this 
 great liability, which might amount to a very large sum — for an 
 indefinite time. It might be a serious thing for collieries not 
 financially strong. I understand that the Prime Minister has said 
 all along that what is desired is the bringing about of a resumption 
 of work. I am afraid if this amendment is not accepted, and if the 
 minimum wage is made retrospective, the Bill will have the opposite 
 effect. The Prime Minister said the amendment would have the 
 effect of hanging up a settlement until the rates were fixed, and that 
 the District Boards would be hurried too much in the work of 
 arriving at the rates and the making of the rules. But I am afraid 
 the effect of the clause being retrospective will be to prevent pits 
 being opened, as the District Boards would be induced to let the thing 
 drag on as long as possible. I think it would be disastrous to the 
 colliery owners, and I do trust the Prime Minister will not close the 
 door against the acceptance of this most important amendment. I do 
 not think he realises the enormous importance of this amendment, 
 and the way it will affect the districts. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be possible to allow the 
 District Boards to make a difference, if they like, between the rate 
 for the retrospective period and the rate fixed for the post period ? 
 They might say that up to a certain date such and such should be 
 
93 
 
 paid, and that afterwards a different rate should be paid. They 
 might make such a rule as that, so that the owner would feel that in 
 starting work he is not incurring an unknown liabilty from which 
 there would be no relief. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : On what principle would the 
 noble lord suggest that there should be differentiation between the 
 earlier and the later periods ? 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : On the ground of the hardship to the 
 owner in the circumstances of the case. The owner might say, “ I 
 cannot work my mine on these terms.” 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : Not even temporarily ? 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : The owner might not care to open a 
 mine because he thought that it had been doing badly for a long 
 time, and that it was not worth while going on when he would be 
 face to face with paying up arrears which might be a considerable 
 sum. The important thing is that the owner should not feel that 
 he is incurring an unknown obligation against which there could not 
 be any measure of relief. I think if there could be some elasticity 
 left to the District Boards by which the owners could be given relief 
 in respect of arrears, that would give them greater confidence in 
 going on with the working of the mines, and it would also be of 
 advantage to the miners and the community generally. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I was sorry to hear the honourable baronet (Sir 
 C, Cory) say that the colliery owners on account of this clause would 
 decline to open the mines. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I said I thought it possible, 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I accept the correction, and there is no necessity 
 to press the argument further. I was surprised to hear the mover 
 and seconder of the amendment laying before the House that there 
 would be considerable difficulty in connection with the making of 
 this clause retrospective. The two honourable members are members 
 of the same Conciliation Board as myself. We do business regularly 
 in connection with our own Conciliation Board, and one of the 
 unwritten but accepted rules of that Board is that in the case of all 
 disputes which may be referred to arbitration the award is retro- 
 spective, dating back to the time, not of the settlement, but to the 
 time the dispute came before the Board. If some honourable 
 gentleman had moved and seconded this amendment I should not 
 have been surprised, but when I find my honourable friends bringing 
 it forward, in view of their own experience, I am really astonished, 
 and I am glad the Government intend to stand by the clause. 
 
94 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I do not think this matter can be 
 settled off-hand as the honourable member (Mr. Brace) appears to 
 think. Of course, he has experience of a special district. This is 
 really a matter in regard to which the Prime Minister himself feels 
 some difficulty, for in his speech he balanced the one side against 
 the other, and eventually he came down on the side which he 
 believes is going to assist in the resumption of work. But in coming 
 down on the side of the resumption of work on the part of the men 
 he has forgotten the side of the opening of the pits on the part of 
 the owners. This is a real difficulty which has been put before me 
 more emphatically than any other question which has been 
 discussed to-day. In connection with the large pits which have now 
 been out of work for some time an expenditure of some thousands 
 of pounds will be required before they can be put in real order again. 
 When the owner of those pits knows that the rate which was in the 
 miners’ schedule is greatly adverse to the working of his pits, he will 
 undoubtedly hesitate to open them, knowing that he has to pay the 
 minimum rate fixed by the District Board back to the time of the 
 passing of this Act. If he has spent all that sum in opening the pits, 
 and if he has to face the payment of a large sum for working 
 for a number of weeks, he may have to stop the pits again, and 
 hesitate to reopen them. It must be in the interests of all those 
 connected with the working of pits to wait and see what the 
 rate is to be. If the rate is to be paid from the passing of the 
 Act, I think the honourable baronet was perfectly right in putting 
 forward the view that undoubtedly this will make the action of the 
 Boards slower, for they will know that nothing depends upon the 
 actual date when they give their decision. If the rate is not to be 
 promulgated for months, the difficulties in connection with these 
 arrears may become extremely serious. It is, I admit, a question of 
 balance of opinion, but I hope still that the Government may see 
 Iheir way to meet this point in some degree because after all there 
 is behind it another point that has not been alluded to. I do not 
 think there is any other amendment on the paper which in any way 
 relieves the owners of the burden of the contracts which they have 
 made both abroad and at home, and especially those who supply on 
 a large scale. We know that in Wales they have sold more than 
 half a year’s supply forward, and we know that in inland collieries 
 they have made their tenders for gas, coal, and so on, and any 
 increase of burden must fall on them, and in that industry the 
 owners have a claim that some little time should be given before 
 they come under the burdens imposed upon them by this Act. I 
 do still hope that the Government may see their way to accept the 
 suggestion made. 
 
 Mr. ROCH : The honourable Member for South Glamorgan 
 has entirely misapprehended the object of the amendment and the 
 point of view which I adopt and which I hope the Government will 
 consider. I do not think from my own point of view that there is 
 anything to be said for the great companies or collieries. The 
 
95 
 
 argument for the clause being retrospective in their case is 
 unanswerable for reasons put forward by the Prime Minister, but 
 there are in South Wales in many districts collieries where it is 
 still in the balance whether they will be kept on working or not. 
 That is the special case in our minds that should be met. It is 
 common ground in the interests of everybody that so far as possible 
 the maximum number of collieries should continue working. What 
 is the owner of a colliery which is on the verge of shutting down 
 going to do when this Bill is law ? He has got to consider how it 
 affects him. He has also got to consider that after this stoppage 
 some considerable delay will be necessary to clear the road so that 
 he may keep his colliery working. There is also the uncertainty as 
 to what the district rates may be. In the case of some South Wales 
 collieries — I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that there are 
 many, but I know that there are some — if they are faced with 
 those two alternatives and the uncertainty of what the district rates 
 will be those collieries will not be open again. That was the point 
 which I think this amendment was intended to meet, and it is a 
 case which I do think, in the interests of various districts, should be 
 considered, if possible. I do think that in some districts it is a 
 matter of the utmost seriousness to consider the doing of something 
 or another. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : My honourable friend, the Member for South 
 Glamorgan, is quite right when he says that very often when disputes 
 have been referred to the arbitration of the Conciliation Boards the 
 decision is retrospective, but there is this great difference. In those 
 cases they always only apply to one seam in a colliery, and generally 
 to very few men, and therefore operate to a very limited extent ; but 
 this is a very much bigger thing, extending to all the collieries and 
 to the case of a large number of men, and the magnitude of this 
 question cannot be compared with the small question to which the 
 honourable member referred. Therefore I hope that the House will 
 not be misled by his argument. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : I am going to ask the Government to 
 stand firm on this point. It means a great deal for the miner, and 
 will help a settlement of this question as it will do away with 
 unrest. It is perfectly true that you have never had a great coal crisis 
 in this country. You have never had great Boards of Conciliation 
 to go into this question, and you have never asked the men in any 
 dispute to go back to work unless you had the immediate advance 
 they sought for or unless the settlement was retrospective. If we 
 had need in this House of evidence that there were reasons for a 
 minimum wage, we have had it from the honourable baronet, 
 because we have heard for a long time that the men are getting the 
 wages, and that this strike was the action of the leaders, and now 
 he says there will be such accumulation of cases in five weeks that 
 they will have difficulty in paying them. It is a most inconsistent 
 
96 
 
 statement that they have made. On the one hand the men are 
 having the minimum wage, and on the other, the accumulation who 
 do not get the minimum wage will be so great that they cannot 
 pay it. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I did not say that. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : Yes, you did. I appeal to those around 
 me as witnesses, and the official report to-morrow will tell the 
 truth. He will find there, I venture to say, the proof of my 
 statement that what was said was that there will be such an 
 accumulation of cases, that is an accumulation that have not got 
 the minimum wage, that it will be difficult to pay them ; so there is 
 a justification for the action we are taking in trying to secure the 
 minimum wage. Does not it seem strange that all these things 
 come from South Wales? The Midland federated owners would 
 not have brought about such a situation as this, and if there had 
 been the same reason displayed in negotiating these questions this 
 matter would never have been brought on the floor of the House of 
 Commons. I trust that the Government will stand by this clause, 
 and that they are not going to insult the men again who are out. 
 We who have been working for peace for months trying to bring 
 about a settlement say that if the men are entitled to their minimum 
 wage, and the accumulations will be great, they have a right to have 
 them when they have done the work. 
 
 Mr. KEATING : This question interests me as much, perhaps, 
 as any member of this House, because, 'although I have the honour 
 to represent an Irish constituency, I still recall my early days ! 
 working as a miner in South Wales, and I will appeal to the House 
 to support the Prime Minister and the Government in retaining 
 this clause as it stands. It is a very important matter affecting the 
 lives of many of the people engaged in the coal industry in South 
 Wales. I think that the argument of the honourable baronet has 
 been dealt with adequately by the last speaker, but I would ask the 
 House to judge the argument very carefully in coming to a decision. ‘ 
 It seems to me that the whole matter may be decided, in the minds ' 
 of honourable members who do not know the special circumstances, I 
 and may be summed up in one sentence : have they got confidence 
 in these Conciliation Boards or have they not ? If they have 
 confidence in the Conciliation Board then the decision of the 
 Conciliation Board will be a fair one and a just one, and if they 
 have not got confidence in the Conciliation Board I do not know 
 why we are discussing this Bill at all. I think that the machinery 
 set up by the Government would actually deal with fairness 
 and justice both in the interests of the men and the masters, 
 and on that I am prepared to support the Government clause as it 
 stands. 
 
97 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I really agree very much with what the 
 Prime Minister said on this subject, that there is a great deal to be 
 said on both sides with regard to justice and fairness of the case, 
 and it would seem to be more important to the men than to anybody 
 else. Much as I dislike the Bill, however, I am anxious that it 
 should go through, and for that reason I hope that my honourable 
 friends behind me will allow the matter to be decided. 
 
 Mr. WALTER McLAEEN : After the statement of the Prime 
 Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE TERRELL : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), 
 after the word “ employer ” (“ his employer at any time ”), to insert 
 the words, “ or if the workman has been overpaid, may be recovered 
 by the employer.” 
 
 Under the clause as it stands the proprietors, if a man has been 
 underpaid, are liable to the workmen, who have a right to recover 
 the amount from them. Surely it must follow, if a miner is being 
 paid an unreasonable amount, that the employers should have a 
 similar right to recover the amount overpaid to him. I think that 
 the clause should operate mutually. 
 
 Sir RUEUS ISAACS: If a workman has been overpaid, of 
 course he is liable to repay the amount overpaid to the employer, 
 who would be able to recover it as a civil liability. As I understand 
 the honourable member’s amendment, he desires to give the employer 
 a right to recover as against the workmen, but there is no difficulty 
 about that, and no provision is needed in the Bill, because it will be 
 a civil liability on any man. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : There is so much talking going on around 
 me that I do not quite understand what the Attorney-General said. 
 Am I to understand that if a man is paid a higher existing rate 
 before the minimum rate had been fixed, the owner would have the 
 right to claim against the man. 
 
 Sir RUEUS ISAACS : As I understood the honourable 
 
 member’s amendment, it was this : Supposing the employer during 
 the time that he had been occupied in settling the minimum wage 
 had overpaid the workmen, having regard to the minimum rate 
 settled, then, of course, he could recover the difference, provided it 
 had been paid under stated facts. I said that was a civil liability, 
 and we do not need the introduction of a new liability on the 
 workmen or give the employer a further remedy than he has already 
 got under the law to recover the sum overpaid. 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 Sir A- MARKHAM : What I want to put is this : If the existing 
 iate is 7s. bd. a day, and the award 6s., and the owner has paid 7s 0d b 
 will the owner have the right to say to the man that he had paid him 
 at the rate of 7s 6d., a rate exceeding the award of 6s., and claim 
 the money back ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : No, certainly not. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : Then what is the meaning of my 
 honourable friends answer? ^ 
 
 n E0BEET EECIE : 1 think I can understand perfectly 
 well what is meant. Supposing the man is paid at such a rate as is 
 agreed upon between him and his employer, it is perfectly plain, as 
 the Attorney-General said, that nothing in this Act would enable 
 the employer to recover anything back from the man because a 
 minimum wage was afterwards fixed. But it is just conceivable I 
 do not know whether it is at ail likely to happen, that the result of 
 tllls Act would be to have agreements that the men 
 sball be paid outside the minimum rate which shall be hereafter 
 tixed. in that case it is evident that the contract would be void to 
 pay such minimum rate as is hereafter fixed, and if the minimum 
 rate in fact fixed is lower than the rate the men have been paid, , 
 there would be technically, at any rate, a right of action to recover 
 the difference. I do not myself think that the amendment put ' 
 forward really deals with any difference at all, nor do I see the 
 advantage of it. ; 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. i 
 
 .. Ml \ CASSEH : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out 
 the word is (at any time after the rate is settled ”), and to insert 
 instead thereof the words “ and district rules applicable to him have : 
 
 This sub-section deals with the case where a man has been i 
 working and no minimum rate has been fixed, and when the 
 minimum rate is fixed, it subsequently operates retrospectively as | 
 rom the date when he began to work. This sub-section provides 
 that he is entitled to recover after the time when the rate is fixed, 
 it is quite obvious he ought not to be entitled to recover it until both 
 the rate and the district rules have been settled, because it is on the 
 district rules and the safeguards that the rate depends. Therefore 
 the rate and the rules and safeguards should be taken together’ 
 otherwise strictly, under the clause as it stands, the amount could 
 be recovered at once when the rate had been settled, although the 
 rules had not been settled. The point is not one of very great 
 maportance, but as a matter of drafting, I think that both the rates 
 and the rules should go together. 
 
90 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that those words are 
 necessary. Surely what is intended is, that after the rate is settled 
 the man should be entitled to get his money. I should have thought 
 that the conditions as to regularity and efficiency are all subject 
 matter for the jurisdiction and exercise of the powers granted to the 
 District Board. I do not think there is any reason to apprehend 
 anything. 
 
 Mr. CASSEL : If the Attorney-General puts that interpretation 
 upon the sub-section, I do not desire to press the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Sir C. CORY: I beg to move in Sub-section (3), at the end, to 
 add the words : — 
 
 “ (4) If it is certified in manner provided by the district 
 rules that a workman has forfeited the right to wages 
 at the minimum rate the amount of any wages paid to 
 such workman in respect of the period to which the 
 certificate relates, so far as that amount exceeds the 
 wages actually earned by him at the tonnage or other 
 rates, shall be recoverable from him as a debt due to 
 the employer or, nothwithstanding anything to the 
 contrary in the Truck Acts, may be deducted from the 
 next payment or payments of wages earned by such 
 workman.” 
 
 The amendment which stands in my name provides, in the case 
 of a man who has been receiving the minimum wage and who has 
 not done sufficient work to earn it, to take him before the District 
 Board in respect to the period to which his certificate relates, and if 
 it be fonnd that he has not done a satisfactory amount of work, that 
 | he shall not be entitled to the minimum wage. In those circum- 
 stances, I think it will be admitted that the owner is distinctly 
 entitled to recover the money. I think the amendment which I 
 submit is only reasonable and fair. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The case made by my honourable 
 friend would apply to every right of claim or cross claim by the 
 employer against his workman, and would enable the employer to 
 deduct the amount of his cross claim from the wages, which is 
 | exactly what the Truck Acts forbids. The policy of the Legislature 
 ‘ for years now has been to prevent the employer from deducting 
 anything from the money which the workman earns. It was only 
 recently discussed and laid down definitely and clearly. I cannot 
 <! see why there should be any exception in the case of coalowners 
 and coal miners. The man is entitled to receive the money he 
 earns, and whatever claim there may be against him must be 
 i proceeded for in the ordinary way. 
 
100 
 
 Sir C. CORY : It is not a question of a cross claim, but that the 
 money has not been earned. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER : I beg to move to add the follow- 
 ing new Sub-section : — 
 
 “ (4) Where in respect of any part of any period for which 
 wages are due to a workman, such workman but for 
 this Act would not be entitled to the payment of wages 
 at the minimum rate and in respect of some other part 
 of that period is entitled to the payment of wages 
 above the minimum rate, the district rules shall provide 
 that his earnings throughout the period may be 
 averaged, and the provisions of this Act shall be 
 complied with by the payment to the workman of the 
 total wages he has earned if, taken over the whole 
 period in respect of which the payment is made, the 
 amount of wages paid to him is equal to or more than 
 the wages at the minimum rate applicable to him under 
 this Act.” 
 
 This proposal is very important because it represents a custom ' 
 amongst colliers now. It means that there should be an average < 
 taken of the wages during a certain period. Thus, if a man works 
 five days, in two of which he is preparing the coal, and for j 
 which he gets 7s. per day, and for the other days, when the 
 coal is ready, he gets 10s. per day, that would mean 44s., or an j 
 average of over 8s. The work of the first three days has really! 
 resulted in the production of the coal on the last three days. 
 There is another point. At certain times the minimum wage is 
 paid for certain work, and in the case of two colliers working side 
 by side one has been known to hand over his coal to the other, the ; 
 result being that that man gets his minimum wage, and in that way, j 
 as the first man is paid by the tub, the colliery owner is defrauded, j 
 We know that the men do not desire to encourage any such work, I 
 and I would ask the Attorney-General to accept or suggest some | 
 words which would do away with that difficulty, as at present a 
 great wrong is being done to the colliery owner. 
 
 Sir RUEUS ISAACS: The District Boards will regulate this | 
 matter by the rules, and no doubt that will attain the honourable j 
 gentleman’s object. It is quite clear that the District Board will 
 have to make rules in order to provide for a minimum rate so as to | 
 allow an average in some such form as is suggested. It is exactly I 
 one of those matters that ought to be dealt with by the District 
 Board. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I accept the principle which has been discussed | 
 with this reservation, that while I agree the matter should be one 
 
101 
 
 for settlement by the District Board, the Board itself and the joint 
 representatives are the best authority to determine how it should be 
 arranged. It must not be taken that we are agreeing to a weekly 
 average or a fortnightly average, the circumstances of the case will 
 have to determine that. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : Is the right honourable gentleman satisfied 
 that under the Bill the District Board will have the power ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : We have considered it is quite impos- 
 sible to do their work unless they provide some average. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDS : This clause provides that for non-com- 
 pliance with certain rules in various districts men are liable to 
 forfeit their right to the minimum wage. What I want to know is, 
 will that forfeiture apply for all time or is there some fixed period 
 during which the workmen will be disqualified ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : There is no difficulty at all with regard 
 to that. Whatever period is in the rule will be the only period to 
 which the disqualification applies. It may be that during one 
 particular week or fortnight irregularity or inefficiency is proved, 
 and in that case the man will forfeit his right to the minimum wage 
 for that particular week or fortnight. The disqualification will not 
 endure for all time. 
 
 Clause, as amended, agreed to. 
 
 Clause 2.— (Settlement of Minimum Rate of Wages and District 
 
 Rules.) 
 
 (1) Minimum rates of wages and district rules for the purposes 
 of this Act shall be settled separately for each of the districts named 
 in the schedule to this Act by a body of persons recognised by the 
 Board of Trade as the Joint District Board for that district. 
 
 (2) The Board of Trade may recognise as a Joint District 
 Board for any district any body of persons, whether existing at the 
 time of the passing of this Act or constituted for the purposes of this 
 Act, which in the opinion of the Board of Trade fairly and adequately 
 represents the workmen in coal mines in the district and the 
 employers of those workmen, and the Chairman of which is an 
 independent person appointed by agreement between the persons 
 representing the workmen and employers respectively on the body, 
 or in default of agreement by the Board of Trade. 
 
 The Board of Trade may, as a condition of recognising as a 
 Joint District Board for the purposes of this Act any body the rules 
 
102 
 
 of which do not provide for the members representing workmen and 
 the members representing employers voting as separate classes (if 
 any member so requires), and for giving the Chairman a casting 
 vote in case of difference between the two classes, require that body 
 to adopt any such rule as the Board of Trade may approve for the 
 purpose, and any rule so adopted shall be deemed to be a rule 
 governing the procedure of the body for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 (3) The Joint District Board of a district shall settle a general 
 minimum rate of wages and general district rules for their district 
 (in this Act referred to as general district minimum rates and general 
 district rules), and the general district minimum rates and general 
 district rules shall be the rates and rules applicable throughout the 
 whole of the district to all coal mines in the district and to all 
 workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those 
 mines, other than mines to which and workmen to whom a special 
 minimum rate or special district rules settled under the provisions 
 of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and workman to 
 whom the Joint District Board declare that the general district 
 rates and general district rules shall not be applicable pending the 
 decision of the question whether a special district rate or special 
 district rules ought to be settled in their case. 
 
 (4) The Joint District Board of any district shall, if it is shown 
 
 to them that any general district minimum rate or general district; 
 rules are not applicable in the case of any coal mine within the 
 district or of any class of coal mines within the district, or in the' 
 case of any class of workmen, owing to the special circumstances of 
 the mine or class of mine or workmen, settle a special minimum 
 rate (either higher or lower than the general district rate) or special 
 district rules (either more or less stringent than the general district 
 rules) for that mine or class of mines or class of workmen, and any; 
 such special rate or special rules shall be the rate or rules applicable* 
 to that mine, class of mine, or class of workmen instead of the ; 
 general district minimum rate or general district rules. j 
 
 (5) For the purpose of settling a minimum rate of wages thej 
 Joint District Board may subdivide their district, and in that case 
 each part of the district as so subdivided shall, for the purpose of the 
 minimum rate, be treated as the district. 
 
 (6) For the purpose of settling district rules, any Joint District 
 Boards may agree that their districts shall be treated as one district, 
 and in that case those districts shall be treated for that purpose as 
 one combined district, with a combined district committee appointed 
 as may be agreed between the Joint District Boards concerned, and 
 the Chairman of such one of the districts forming the combination 
 as may be agreed upon between the Joint District Boards concerned, 
 or, in default of agreement, determined by the Board of Trade, shall 
 be the Chairman of the combined district committee. 
 
103 
 
 Mr. PABKES : I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out 
 the word “ separately.” 
 
 It is quite possible that in some districts the conditions may be 
 altogether different from those in the adjoining districts, but it is 
 also possible that the conditions may be exactly the same. In that 
 case I think it is very desirable that adjoining districts should have 
 power to make similar rules so that there may be uniformity. 
 
 Sir BUEUS ISAACS: I agree that it is very desirable that 
 there should be power to make rules for more than one district, 
 and if the honourable member will turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (6), 
 he will find the point expressly provided for. The word “separately” 
 has to be taken subject to Sub-section (6), which shows the 
 circumstances under which you may have a combination of districts 
 for the purpose of district rules. 
 
 Mr. CHABLES BOBEBTS: What are the districts? I know 
 they are set out in the schedule, but are they geographical — counties 
 or parts of counties — or are they districts recognised by the Miners’ 
 Federation ? Does it mean that a mine situated in a county not 
 included in this schedule of districts will be excluded ? 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. WHITEHOUSE : I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section 
 (1), to add the words, “ but such rates shall not be less than the 
 existing rates in the district affected.” 
 
 Although this amendment raises a matter of vital importance it 
 will not be necessary for me to occupy more than a minute or two, 
 because the arguments used in an earlier discussion to a large extent 
 cover the same ground. This amendment attempts to guard against 
 the possibility of the minimum rate being a phrase only, or of the 
 award of the Board leaving the miner worse off than he is at present. 
 Earlier in the afternoon, when the honourable Member for Leicester 
 (Mr. Bamsay Macdonald) made an appeal for some such arrangement 
 as that which I am now suggesting, I understood the Prime Minister 
 to express his approval of the principle and his willingness to embody 
 it. If the words I suggest are not adequate, perhaps this will be a 
 convenient opportunity for the Government to state in what form 
 they propose to recognise the principle, which, I think, they have 
 already accepted. I will only say, in conclusion, that this proposal 
 is not open to the objections which the Prime Minister pointed out 
 in the case of a definite minimum. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : If I understand the object of my honourable 
 friend, it is that, if in any district there is a minimum rate already 
 existing and the rate settled by the District Board is less than the 
 existing agreed rate, the miners should not be in any sense prejudiced 
 
104 
 
 by the fixing of the minimum rate. That principle seems to be a 
 matter of justice, but, as the particular words do not really meet the 
 point as clearly as it should be met, I will presently propose the 
 following words: “Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation 
 of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the passing 
 of this Act for the payment of wages at a minimum rate higher than 
 that settled by this Act.” 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I do not think that this amendment goes 
 as far as the Prime Minister indicated he was prepared to go. I : 
 have handed in a manuscript amendment which may be out of order 
 if the present amendment is proceeded with. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This particular amendment applies to the 
 hewers who would come under the schedule. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think perhaps the word “minimum” 
 might come out. The point of the amendment is to secure that a 
 minimum rate of wages, even although there may not be a minimum 
 rate, shall be safeguarded. The Board might hold that the rate of 
 wages current at the time of the passing of the Act, which at that 
 period was the minimum, could be reduced. We want to safeguard 
 the men against that possibility. 
 
 ; 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDSON : I hope that the Government 
 
 appreciate the suggestion that has been made by my honourable i 
 friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil. I am certain of this, that 
 the Committee will appreciate the importance of this matter from • 
 this standpoint, if from no other, that the men after this dispute < 
 has been settled want to have some assurance that the existing rates 
 of wages are not intentionally interfered with in any degree at all 
 by the Government measure. 
 
 Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR : As I understand the intention of * 
 my honourable friend who moved this amendment, it was to cover j 
 the case of the daywage men as well. 
 
 Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. D. MILLAR : I think it is satisfactory to receive an 
 assurance from the right honourable gentleman that he intends to 
 deal with that matter. I think the Committee ought to be in a 
 position, before finally disposing of this amendment, to know that 
 there is a subsequent amendment likely to be accepted dealing with 
 this particular question. As has already been pointed out, there are 
 a large number of daywage men whose case requires to be considered. 
 
 I am very glad indeed that the Government are prepared to put an 
 assurance into the Bill that will be acceptable to the men themselves. 
 
 I regard this, in the first place, as a measure intended to settle the 
 strike. Therefore we want everything possible in the Bill to give 
 
the men the assurance of the intentions of the Government. I 
 regard this as a very important matter, both in regard to those who 
 are piece workers and also in respect of the daywage men. I hope 
 the right honourable gentleman will be able to give us the assurance 
 as to the nature of the amendment he will accept at a latter stage. 
 
 Mr. WHITEHOUSE : I would ask one question of the 
 
 Government. My honourable friend behind me quite rightly says, 
 that this amendment does raise the case of the day workers. I want 
 to ask the right honourable gentleman whether we cannot now 
 discuss that point also and hear what the proposals of the 
 Government are ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I have here my own amendment, and I 
 understand that the honourable gentleman also proposes in his 
 amendment to leave in the day rate. We desire to apply the same 
 principle to the hewers. I was under the impression that the case 
 of the day men had been included. I will look into the matter, and 
 see that they are also covered. With regard to the particular point 
 of the honourable gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil I 
 should like to look at it again*. I appreciate the point. I have not 
 quite considered it. Looking at it in the light of what he has said, 
 I will see how far his point is met, and how far we can meet it. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I do not quite know whether we are 
 quite in order in discussing the Government words on the amend- 
 ment which is now before us. I daresay it is a convenient course to 
 take. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I may say on that point that I have, of 
 course, the amendment on the Paper; the Government amendment 
 I have not yet seen. I have also the manuscript amendment of the 
 honourable baronet the Member for Mansfield. I think it would be 
 convenient to the Committee that they should be taken separately. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : May we have the Government amendment ? 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I understand the honourable 
 
 gentleman (Mr. Whitehouse) is not going to press his amendment 
 in view of the Government’s observations. Substantially what we 
 are discussing at the present time is the Government amendment. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I rise to a point of Order. Might we have the 
 Government Amendment ? 
 
 Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I say I am very much obliged to 
 the way in which the right honourable gentleman has met us in 
 this matter. May I, in view of his assurance, ask leave to withdraw 
 
106 
 
 my amendment, in order that the Government Amendment may be 
 taken? 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move in Sub-section (1), at the end, 
 to add the words “Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation j 
 of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the 
 passing of this Act for the payment of wages at a minimum rate 
 higher than that settled by this Act.” 
 
 Lord ROBEBT CECIL : I must say that as the discussion 
 on this Bill proceeds, I myself feel more and more convinced that 
 the people who are going to suffer more immediately will be the 
 miners. Personally, this proposed amendment seems to me to 
 illustrate that extremely well. To diminish the wages now paid is 
 not what the Government desire by their Bill. They deal with 
 that difficulty immediately, but if these rates are submitted to the 
 District Boards it may well be that they will come to the conclusion 
 that the minimum wage ought to be reduced. It is quite true that 
 that would not interfere in any way with contracts actually entered 
 into, but, unquestionably, it will interfere with all future contracts 
 which may be entered into. What are the contracts which are • 
 entered into? I have asked my honourable friend who sits beside 
 me, and he tells me that the ordinary contract for wages payments 
 are fortnightly — in some cases weekly. These contracts may come 
 to an end a fortnight or a week after the minimum wage has been 
 declared, and this clause of this Bill will not in any way prevent a 
 new contract being entered into for the minimum wages fixed by the 
 Board, whether higher or lower than previously. I am not satisfied 
 that the Board will not have power to vary, whether they like it or 
 not. I suppose there will be a large number of contracts 
 entered into. The effect will be undoubtedly, at the end of certain 
 wages contracts, whether this provision of the Government is 
 intended or not, that new contracts will, after a fortnight or a week 
 when the minimum wage has been settled, be entered into, naturally 
 and reasonably in view of the award that is being made by the 
 District Committee. I see the words “ custom existing ” are used 
 in this amendment. I am sure the Attorney-General will not 
 contradict me when I say that these words are of the vaguest 
 possible description. I do not know what is meant by the words 
 “ custom existing.” It will be exceedingly difficult to settle what is 
 the “ custom existing ” at a mine. I should think it is a matter 
 which changes from time to time, and is settled from time to time 
 by the owners and the miners. I am profoundly convinced that the 
 whole question of minimum wage as settled by Statute will be 
 disastrous. I believe it will do nothing but harm, and that it will 
 be a source of infinite trouble, and I press upon the Committee that 
 it is an excellent example of the bad effects you will produce when 
 
107 
 
 yon try to settle things by Statute that ought to be settled by 
 agreement. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I have not seen the words of the amend- 
 ment moved by the President of the Board of Trade, and I could 
 only do my best to gather their meaning as they were read out. 
 l)oes this amendment, moved on behalf of the Government, provide 
 that no rate fixed in the future shall be lower than any rate at the 
 present time ? 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : Shall not be lower than the lowest. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I put my question again, because it is a 
 very important question. It is so important a question that I do 
 not think we ought to deal with it now, as it is not on the paper. 
 Will the Attorney-General tell me what is the effect of this 
 amendment? I do not propose to move my own amendment, 
 because, although it is of a different character to that moved by the 
 Government, all I want is that no rates shall be set up under this 
 Bill lower than the existing rates, and that no right shall be given 
 to the arbitrator to lower them. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : As I understand, the effect of this 
 amendment is to prevent the lowering of wages in cases of persons 
 working underground at a rate which is higher than the minimum 
 wage which may be settled by the District Board. I will give a 
 concrete instance. Suppose the rate settled is 6s., and that there is 
 an agreement existing in that district at 6s. 6d., what is done is that 
 that shall not be lowered by anything done under this Act, and that 
 that agreement shall have effect notwithstanding that the District 
 Board shall settle a minimum rate lower. That is what this 
 amendment does, and that is what it is intended it should do. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : What is to be done in those districts 
 where there is no minimum wage ? Is there to be no protection 
 given to the men in these districts? I respectfully think that if the 
 Attorney-General will leave out the words of this amendment and 
 consider whether it is necessary to insert them upon report stage, 
 we might proceed at once. There are large districts of the country 
 where there is no agreement upon a minimum wage, and the 
 amendment, in its present form, gives no protection to those 
 districts. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to support the suggestion which 
 has been made by the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. 
 Keir Hardie). You are merely deciding by this amendment that 
 these District Boards shall not go below the lowest rate in any 
 particular district. 
 
108 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS: We are dealing with the higher agree- 
 ment. Where an agreement exists under which the man is entitled 
 to get 7s. a day, notwithstanding the fact that the District Board 
 may agree that 6s. a day is the wage, we want to protect the man 
 who is getting the 7s. in order that he shall not receive the lower 
 rate. It is intended to protect the higher agreement, so that it 
 should not be reduced by the rate adopted by the District Board, 
 which might make the rate lower than it has hitherto been. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WABD : After the explanation of the Attorney- 
 General, it does look as though the possibility of a mistake is 
 absolutely avoided. I would suggest that it should be the rate 
 accepted by custom rather than the minimum rate. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : An amendment will be proposed during 
 the course of the Committee stage which may meet the point in the 
 mind of the right honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil. What 
 my honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has said 
 is that we will consider when we have got to the end of the 
 Committee stage how far the point he has raised had been met by 
 words already introduced or to be introduced into this Bill. If the 
 honourable member’s point has not been met then the point will be 
 raised again on report, and I cannot say more than that. 
 
 Sir COUBTENAY WABNEB : May I point out that these 
 are not actual agreements between the employer and the employed 
 men, but the arrangements that has been made by the men’s repre- 
 sentatives and the employers in certain districts ? This is a 
 temporary measure, but these agreements are practically permanent 
 at present until they are altered, and they should be kept in action, 
 and where the minimum wage at present is by agreement between 
 representatives of the workmen at a higher rate than might be fixed 
 by the District Board the higher rate should be the rate of the 
 future. That is what I should like some assurance upon. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : That is exactly what I have said. 
 
 Amendment put, and agreed to. 
 
 Mr. WADSWOBTH : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the 
 end, to insert the words : 
 
 “ Provided further, that nothing in this section shall be 
 deemed to be an interference with or in derogation of 
 the right of any workman under any agreement in 
 certain eventualities to receive any increase of wages.” 
 
 We do not want the minimum to become the maximum. 
 There will be various wages arranged in the future nothwithstanding 
 that we have a Minimum Wage Bill under which the miners will 
 
109 
 
 seek to secure a share of any prosperity that may occur in the 
 industry as they have done in the past, and the amendment is 
 intended to meet that situation. It is intended to provide that this 
 section shall not be an interference with the right of the miner to 
 seek any advance that may become due to him owing to any 
 prosperity in the trade or other causes. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid we cannot accept the 
 amendment, but I do not think there is any necessity for it. It is 
 perfectly plain we are dealing with a minimum wage. It is called 
 a Minimum Wage Bill, and I do not think even in an Act of 
 Parliament, where we try to be very precise, we need step out of 
 our way to say a minimum is not a maximum. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The point is whether the Bill safeguards 
 existing customs with regard to increases of wages. Honourable 
 members perhaps do not remember that wages rise and fall upon 
 percentages according to the price of coal. The danger apprehended 
 is that once a minimum wage has been fixed the right of the 
 daywageman who is not a hewer to receive an increase and be 
 subject to a decrease down to the point of the minimum may be 
 interfered with. If the Attorney-General could give us an assurance 
 that the establishment of this minimum wage will not interfere with 
 the right of the daywageman to be subject to the percentages as they 
 fluctuate, then I suppose my honourable friend would be content. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : If I appreciate the point raised by the 
 honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) it is this. 
 Supposing in a district the rate of wage is settled at 5s. per day, and 
 that is fixed upon a rate of wage which we will say is fifty per cent, 
 above the rate settled some time in 1879, and supposing subsequently 
 there is an increase in the percentage and the wage rises, say, to 
 sixty or seventy per cent, above, there is nothing in this Bill which 
 will prevent the person who is receiving that minimum wage from 
 at the same time receiving also an increased wage when there is an 
 increase in the percentage. It is entirely, of course, for the District 
 Boards. The District Boards, as I understand the Bill, may say, 
 “ We will settle once and for all for a period of fifteen months that the 
 rate of wages shall be 5s. per day, and should there be an increase of 
 ten per cent, there shall be a rise of 6d. in the wage from that time 
 forward and for so long as that percentage obtains.” There is 
 nothing to prevent the Joint District Boards doing that most 
 definitely. 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the 
 amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
110 
 
 Sir A. B. MABKHAM : I do not think the Attorney-General 
 has met my point. I should like to move words, providing always 
 that, in fixing the amount of the minimum wage for those engaged 
 in working the coal face, the Joint District Board shall not settle 
 any such rate at a lower scale than the average or minimum rates 
 in the district prior to the passing of the Act. This amendment 
 goes a little further than the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. 
 
 It is rather a complicated point, but perhaps the Government will 
 meet it on Beport. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : May I point out how the matter stands? 
 The words referred to as having been used by the Prime Minister 
 indicate what we would prefer to accept in regard to the rate of 
 wage, namely, that regard should be had by the Joint District Board 
 to the average daily rate paid to workmen in certain classes in the 
 district. That was proposed in order to give effect to what was 
 understood to be the view of everybody, and it was desired that 
 there should be some words in the Bill making that perfectly clear. 
 
 Sir A. B. MABKHAM : I want to go further, and make it a 
 positive proposition ; I will, however, bring the matter up on Beport. 
 
 Lord BOBEBT CECIL moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out I 
 the word “ may” (the Board of Trade may”), and to insert instead 
 thereof the word “ shall.” 5 , 
 
 This is the first of a series of amendments. The object is to J 
 require that the Board of Trade shall appoint as the District ' 
 Committee under this Act any Board upon which both sides have 
 agreed, and, in the event of either side not appointing their portion 
 of the Board, then the District Board shall nominate representatives . 
 of that side. The present scheme of the Bill is that there is to be ; 
 power in the Board of Trade to recognise District Boards where < 
 existing for the purpose of securing a thoroughly adequate repre- j 
 sentation of employers and workmen, and if, for any reason, such a ; 
 Board is not recognised, then the Board of Trade are entitled under 
 Clause 4 to appoint a certain individual to exercise all the powers of j 
 that Board. Those at whose request I move the amendment are 
 very anxious indeed that, if possible, Boards should be established 
 on which both sides shall be represented, with an impartial arbitrator 
 sitting between them, but I do not at all desire, if it can possibly be 
 avoided, that the matter shall be left to a single man appointed by 
 the Board of Trade. I believe that will be the view taken by both 
 sides. Therefore, the object of the amendment is to make it 
 compulsory on the Board of Trade to recognise a Board sitting in 
 the way I have described, and to provide machinery for making that 
 effectual in case one side or the other fails to appoint their repre- 
 sentatives. It might happen that either the employers or the 
 miners would not appoint their representatives, and the Board of 
 Trade would not be able to find anyone who adequately represented 
 
Ill 
 
 that side. I will not, however, go into that at the present moment, 
 but will simply move this amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I can assure the noble lord that, as regards 
 the whole of this Bill, the Board of Trade would infinitely rather 
 that the two parties should arrange the matter between themselves, 
 and that the intervention of the Board of Trade should be reduced 
 to the smallest possible degree. There is this practical objection to 
 the amendment. We understand that in some of these divisions, 
 and there are some very large divisions, there may be, and are, 
 more than one of these District Boards already in existance. It is 
 quite clear that it would not be to the advantage of anybody to have 
 two or three District Boards all appointed for the same purpose, at 
 different parts of the same division, to carry out the same work. 
 That is the only case in which the Board of Trade’s selection would 
 come in. We shall endeavour, as far as we possibly can, if they are 
 prepared to carry the matter out, to take the existing Boards. It is 
 really because we must have some discretion left us, where there is 
 more than one Board already in existence, that we take this power. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER : It may be, perhaps, irregular, but 
 I am intervening in the general interests of the Committee. I want 
 to say this : That, in the opinion of the Government, in the course 
 of the discussion to-day, we have very much narrowed down the 
 points at issue in this controversy. I most gladly recognise that it 
 is by the most hearty and loyal co-operation of both sides of the 
 House that we have attained that result. Really the outstanding 
 point at issue, I do not say the main point, but a not unimportant 
 point, is this question of the day wage, what we call the 2s. and 5s. 
 question. That is the most serious matter still outstanding. The 
 Government think that the best way of dealing with the situation 
 would be this : They have taken, and are taking, steps to call 
 together a Conference of the owners here in London on Monday, 
 and we hope also the men. We hope there to see if we cannot still 
 further narrow the amount of difference which prevails between 
 them in regard to this point, and, if so, we think it would be a waste 
 of time for the House to be required to meet to-morrow in order to 
 take the Report and Third Reading of this Bill. The House will 
 retain possession of the Bill. We therefore propose that when the 
 Committee Stage has been completed to-night that the further 
 consideration of the Bill should be adjourned until Monday. 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I do not of course enter into the merits 
 of the plans proposed by the right honourable gentleman, but I can 
 only say I hope they may have the success which he desires for 
 them. As regards the time of the House, it would be putting 
 Members in all quarters of the House to gratuitous trouble to meet 
 to-morrow in the changed circumstances in which we stand, and on 
 all sides of the House it will be considered reasonable that we 
 should not do it. However, I am sure everyone wishes to finish 
 
112 
 
 the Committee Stage if possible at a reasonable time, and if it 
 should be found that it is not possible I should propose that we l 
 should adjourn at a reasonable hour and continue it on Monday. 1 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: So far as we are concerned, | 
 we also prefer the arrangement of the right honourable gentleman, a 
 and I hope as the result of the Conference on Monday, at which I 
 am authorised to say the men will be present, that if a Bill is J 
 necessary it will be an agreed Bill, because without agreement it V 
 would be quite useless for us to go on and discuss and push through I 
 this House a Bill which would not produce anything. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I do not quite follow the reason j 
 why the right honourable gentleman has rejected the amendment i 1 
 because it does not provide that the Board of Trade is to recognise |i 
 any Board that it proposes, but that he has to recognise some 
 Board which is selected by agreement between the employers and 
 the workmen concerned. That is the essential part. I quite agree 
 that if the clause was to stand exactly as it is, perhaps “may” is a j 
 reasonable word, but if it is to be amended, and I do not think the | 
 right honourable gentleman will agree to its being amended so as to 
 make it a Board representative of the workmen and the employers , 
 concerned, it is only in the case that it is so representative that the 
 Board of Trade is to be bound to recognise it. The clause goes 
 on to say that it must be one which, in the opinion of the ■ 
 Board of Trade, fairly and adequately represents the workmen 
 in the coal mines in the districts and the employers of those 
 workmen. I do not think the alteration from “may ” to “shall ” is 
 very important, but it will do something to mitigate fears which, 
 unhappily, still exist in the minds of some misguided persons. I 
 cannot see that it will really have the practical defect which the 
 right honourable gentleman pointed out. Perhaps he will not now 
 see so much objection as he saw before. I know that Government 
 Departments dislike the word “ shall,” but in a Bill of this kind 
 there might be rather more freedom in dealing with it. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I wish the noble lord to clearly understand 
 that we have had to consider the amendments of which notice has 
 been given under very extreme pressure. If he will withdraw this 
 amendment now, I should be glad to consider it before the Report 
 stage. I can assure him that the word “ may ” has not been 
 introduced into the clause through any desire to get patronage or 
 power into the hands of the Board of Trade. If, after considering 
 the amendment, I find that I can accept it, I will do so on the 
 Report stage. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I am much obliged to the right 
 honourable gentleman, and in these circumstances I ask leave to 
 withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
113 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I beg to move, after the word 
 “ persons ” (“ any body of persons ”), to insert the words “ selected 
 by agreement between the employers and workmen concerned. ” 
 
 I think that is rather a reasonable proposal. It is to provide 
 that, in the first instance, the employers and workmen shall agree 
 as to the Board, and whether the word “may ” or “ shall ” should 
 ultimately remain in the clause. The right honourable gentleman 
 will see that it is desirable to have an agreed Board, in which case 
 it may not be necessary to have an Independent Chairman appointed 
 in the way provided for in the clause. I am in great hopes that the 
 amendment will be accepted by the right honourable gentleman. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I would ask the noble lord not to press the 
 amendment now, as I wish to consider it further. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : In withdrawing the amendment, 
 perhaps I may be allowed to say that there are three points raised 
 by this and the other amendments I have on the paper. The first 
 is that “ shall” should be inserted instead of “ may.” That I have 
 already explained. The second amendment is to provide that, in the 
 first instance, the Board shall be selected by the employers and 
 workmen by mutual agreement, if possible. Then follow four 
 amendments which are merely verbal and relate to matters of 
 drafting. Then the proviso at the end deals with the case where 
 one or other of the parties fail to make their selection. In that case, 
 instead of as now 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : On a point of order, as to which I find a difficulty. 
 May I point out that the noble lord has got down now about six 
 amendments below the one he is asking leave to withdraw ? 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I think that what I am doing is 
 really a matter of convenience for the President of the Board of 
 Trade — at least, it is so intended. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I merely ask if it is in order? 
 
 The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN : It is quite customary to make 
 explanations such as the noble lord is making. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : They are all connected, and it is 
 almost impossible to make the thing intelligible without explaining 
 all. Those four amendments there are merely verbal, merely matters 
 of drafting, about which I do not say a word. The proviso at the 
 end is to cover any case where one or other of the bodies fails to 
 make a selection of its part of the Boards. In that case the Board 
 of Trade is directed to select persons who represent that interest 
 which has failed to make a selection, because those interested in the 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 matter feel that it is of immense importance to get a Board of some 
 kind into existence so that the matter shall not be left, as it would 
 be under Clause 4, to the decision of a single individual, but that 
 before the arbitrator comes into operation he should have the 
 advantage of discussion between those who understand the question. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I will not move the next five 
 
 amendments. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: On behalf of my noble friend 
 (Viscount Wolmer), I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out 
 the words “ Board of Trade ” (“ The Board of Trade may, as a 
 condition of ”), and to insert instead thereof the words, “ Lord Chief 
 Justice of England, or in Scotland by the Lord President of the 
 Court of Session.” , 
 
 This is a matter which I raised on the First Reading and asked 
 the Government to take into serious consideration before we got to 
 this particular stage of the Bill. Conciliation Boards have been in 
 existence and have, as a rule, had an independent party to choose 
 the chairman. Mr. Speaker has been chosen in some cases. The 
 Lord Chief Justice, I believe, and other authorities of that character, 
 have also been chosen. It does seem to me most desirable that in a 
 case like this, where undoubtedly the decisions of the chairmen are 
 going to be of vast importance, the selection should be taken out of 
 the hands of a Government Department. I do not wish in the least 
 to throw any doubt whatever on the bona fides of any member of 
 the Board of Trade, but there is undoubtedly a strong feeling that 
 the Board of Trade necessarily has its own ideas on this subject and 
 is influenced by certain influences, and that it would be very much 
 more satisfactory to all parties that the appointments should be 
 entirely taken out of the hands of a Government Department, and 
 that some independent persons should be appointed who shall choose 
 the list of arbitrators or umpires to preside over the District Boards. 
 I think that this is one of the most important amendments that can be 
 brought forward to this Bill, and I ask for the very serious consideration 
 of the Government of it. It is one as to which the owners feel very 
 deeply, and I trust that my right honourable friend, having had his 
 consideration drawn to the matter, will see his way to agree to it. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : In regard to this amendment, as in regard to 
 the last, I have to say that the Board of Trade have no desire to 
 keep this matter in their hands. I can assure my honourable friend 
 that they would be only too delighted if anybody else would 
 undertake the duty. It is a very onerous and difficult matter to 
 select these chairmen on very short notice, and I say it is a 
 duty from which we would be very glad to be relieved if anyone 
 
115 
 
 ■else is prepared to take the responsibility. I do not admit for 
 one moment that the honourable gentleman is right in implying 
 or insinuating in any sense, that there «e any sort of party 
 of political considerations on the part of the .board ot made 
 in connection with appointments. We have to deal with these 
 appointments under the Conciliation Act and Arbitration Act, 
 and they are made absolutely apart from any party consideration 
 Selections are made from the panel for particular reasons connected 
 with particular work, and, so far as that is concerned I reaUy must 
 repudiate very emphatically the suggestion that in these matters 
 there is any question of politics at all. I would put a practical 
 question to ifhe honourable member. Does he really think : m gese 
 circumstances and in the present emergency, that the Lord Chiet 
 Justice and the Lord President of the Court of Session should be 
 called upon on Monday, say, to appoint some dozen or 
 to Derform these duties. How could they set about it . 1 am 
 
 inclined to think that if I accepted the amendment these ais ingu.shed 
 gentlemen, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Piesident of the 
 Court of Session, would not welcome the fact, and might use 
 language which I can well conceive would not be of a very judicial 
 character. The honourable gentleman has not consulted either of 
 these distinguished gentlemen, and I do not think the House o 
 Commons should put upon them such a duty without having first 
 consulted them This is a practical matter, and though we have 
 ncTdesire to retain it in the hands of the Board of Trade yet I do 
 think it must be left to the Department to select these chairmen. 
 
 Mr BOOTH: I must protest against the suggestion implied 
 in this amendment, because it seems to me that if it were adopted 
 the only persons who would be appointed would be lawyers. I 
 protest against that idea getting abroad. I interpret the propwal 
 to appoint the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Pres dent of the 
 Court of Session to mean that the appointments always g 
 barristers (Honourable Members : “ No, no. ) I am delighted to 
 elicit from the House that such a class of appointments is contem- 
 
 plated. 
 
 Mr NEWTON: I agree with the view that it is better to 
 leave these appointments in the charge of the Board of Trade 
 There would be great practical difficulty m leaving the decision to 
 the distinguished judges proposed in the amendment. 
 
 Sir G- YOUNGEB : There are difficulties in this case of a 
 rather peculiar kind which entitle the honourable gentleman to 
 suggest that this amendment is the better way of de . all “g with t 
 matter. We have experience of appointments of this kind by the 
 Lord President of the Court of Session, and we have many cases of 
 this sort. Under the Land Act the arbitrators were appointed by 
 the Lord President of the Court of Session. 
 
116 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : All barristers. 
 
 Sir G. YOUNGER : He never appoints barristers as arbitra- 
 tors under that Act, but appoints men suitable for the job. He 
 takes very good care to do so. As far as my experience is 
 concerned, there is no man I would sooner see placed in the position 
 of making these appointments than the Lord President of the 
 Court of Session. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY" : I do not wish to put the Committee to a 
 Division. In this matter we ought to be guided by the Conciliation 
 Boards, but I admit there are difficulties in connection with the 
 urgent character of the work. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I beg to move, in Sub-seGtion (2), to 
 leave out the words “ may, as a condition of ” (“ The Board of 
 Trade may”), and to insert instead thereof the words “shall 
 before.” 
 
 This is a proposal to make the discretion of the Board of 
 Trade obligatory. Those in the trade feel very strongly that the 
 provisions of the clause are so desirable that they ought to be 
 enforced in every case. As far as the voting under the clause is 
 concerned, I believe the right honourable gentleman will bear me 
 out when I say that in the conciliation scheme at present a 
 provision to that effect is found. From the experience of the men 
 engaged in the trade they think this condition ought to be 
 obligatory in the new Boards. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON (was understood to say) : I regret the Govern- 
 ment are unable to accept the amendment. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : If the clause is left as it is would be 
 
 possible under any circumstances for a Chairman not to have a 
 casting vote ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : It is fully intended that the Chairman should 
 have a casting vote. I can undertake that the Board of Trade will 
 not recognise any of these joint bodies unless the Chairman has a 
 casting vote, and unless he has under the further clause power of 
 final decision in the event of disagreement, because that is the 
 essence of the Bill. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Further amendment made : In Sub-section (2), leave out the 
 words “ if any member so requires.” — (Lord Robert Cecil.) 
 
117 
 
 Lord EOBEET CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), 
 after the word “and” (“and for giving the Chairman a casting 
 vote”) to insert the words “without prejudice to freedom of 
 discussion, for an equal number only of each class voting upon any 
 question, and 
 
 There is an obvious danger, with so many representing the 
 employers and so many representing the workmen, it at any meeting 
 of the Board it should happen there was not a full representation o 
 the workmen, for instance, that the employers might be able to 
 outvote them. That is not intended. I am not sure that the clause 
 does not mean that each class is to vote as a unit, but the commoner 
 and clearer way of dealing with the matter is to provide that there 
 shall be only an equal number of each class entitled to vote. I have 
 here the rules of procedure of the Northumberland Conciliation 
 Board, and the provision there is that when at any meeting of the 
 Board the two classes are unequal in number all shall have the 
 right to enter into the discussion of the matter brought before them, 
 but only an equal number of each shall vote. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The wording of the Bill was intended to carry 
 out in another way exactly what the noble lord desires. 18 
 obviously the right thing to do, because there might easily be a 
 
 majority on one side or the other, and it would be obviously unfair 
 
 that that majority should be able to decide any question at issue 
 between the two sides. The provision m the Bill . is a web-known 
 method of securing the object m view, but l am told that the method 
 suggested by the noble lord is the one usually adopted on Concilia- 
 tion Boards. I think the method in the Bill is the better one, but 
 I will consider the point before Eeport. There is really no difference 
 in principle between us. 
 
 Sir C. COBY: You may have associated owners and miners, 
 and non-associated owners and miners. They will all be represented 
 on the Boards, so that you will not be able to confine it merely to 
 two classes. You will have to take into consideration the non- 
 associated owners and men also. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The point here is that these Boards are to be 
 instituted as representing the mine owners on the one hand, and 
 the miners on the other. There might, according to the honourable 
 gentleman’s suggestion, be five different classes of owners on, and 
 one class of miners— 
 
 Sir C. COBY : No. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON: That would give the owners under this 
 
 proposal 
 
118 
 
 Sir C. CORY : The right honourable gentleman does not quite 
 grasp the proposal. I suggest that you might get associated and 
 non- associated owners taking different views. You might get 
 associated and non- associated men taking different views. You might j 
 get non-associated owners and non-associated men voting together 
 and vice versa. I am not prepared to draft an amendment, but 
 I think it is a point that should be considered. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I will consider the point. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I think it requires it. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), 
 after the word “classes” (“difference between the two classes”), j 
 to add the words “ giving a decision which shall be final and |i 
 conclusive.” 
 
 This is a matter of very great importance. It suggests that 
 there shall be struck out of the Sub-section the words giving the I 
 Chairman a casting vote merely, and of giving him the power of 
 deciding w T hat ought to be done. A casting vote involves simply that : 
 where the parties differ the Chairman would have to vote for one or 
 the other. If he thought, in point of fact, that both were wrong, he 
 would have to decide, possibly, in favour of the least wrong side. 
 This we know, from the time of Socrates, is a decision that ends 
 very often in injustice. Clearly the right course is to give the j 
 Chairman the right of saying, when a difference obtains, what, in his 
 judgment, is the fair thing to do. I do not think that it is necessary 
 to argue the thing at any length, but having regard to the previous 
 answer of the right honourable gentleman, it would appear that he 
 thinks there is something or other in the Bill giving power to the 
 Chairman to do this very thing. I do not like to make a definite 
 assertion, but I have not been able to come across that particular 
 provision. If it is not there an amendment should be inserted. It 
 will give the Chairman the power in case of a difference between the 
 two classes, of giving a decision that shall be final and conclusive : 
 in a word, a decision of substance. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : May I draw the attention of the noble lord to 
 Clause 4, Sub-section (2), where the chairman’s decision is final? 
 The clause we are now considering deals with question of procedure 
 in the first instance and before the final decision is reached. During 
 the earlier stages of the negotiations and discussions I think it is 
 sufficient to give the Chairman a casting vote in reference to this i 
 matter. As a matter of fact, the Chairman under the Conciliation 
 Boards, as everyone having experience of them knows, is in the 
 earlier stages, really in the position of a conciliator rather than an 
 
119 
 
 arbitrator. It is, of course, essential in the earlier stages that he 
 should have a casting vote, for he is not then giving a determining 
 decision. That question comes up under Sub-section (2) of Clause 
 4, where he determines rates and district rules. Therefore I think 
 the point is met in the better way in the clause, where we are only 
 dealing with procedure, and by leaving the question of final decision 
 where it is in Sub-section (2) of Clause 4. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : I hope the right honourable gentleman will 
 stick to the form of words already in the Bill. The great desire of 
 both the representatives of the employers and employed on the 
 Board will be that the Chairman should be a conciliator. If the 
 amendment of the noble lord were put in, it would give him the 
 powers of an arbitrator. He could cut in at any time between the 
 parties and arbitrarily decide in a way that he and he alone is 
 responsible for. During the last eighteen or nineteen years I can 
 speak of the working of the Conciliation Board in the Midland area, 
 including two-fifths of the whole mining population of the country, and 
 the Board has worked there with a smoothness and absence of 
 friction greater than any other Board of workmen and employers. 
 (An Honourable Member: “No.”) Well, I will put it no further 
 than to say there was a wonderful absence of friction and dispute. 
 We have always given to the person presiding the powers of a 
 conciliator. Of course, when it came to the end and both sides 
 remained resolute, he had the power of decision, but he was unable 
 at the beginning to cut in and give an arbitrary decision. I think 
 that which has worked so well in the English conciliation area is 
 best to be applied here, and I hope the powers of arbitrator will not 
 be given in this instance. 
 
 Mr. CAVE : There is not much difference between us, but I do 
 not think the honourable member or the President of the Board of 
 Trade quite follows the points made by my noble friend. Sub-section 
 (2) of Clause 4 only comes into operation immediately after the 
 passing of this Bill. That is in the first five weeks. If during these 
 five weeks no decision is come to as to the minimum wage, then the 
 Chairman has power to determine the rates of wages and district 
 rates himself. But five w T eeks after the first performance of that 
 duty that power has gone, and then we are thrown back upon the 
 clause we are now considering. Take this case. Supposing a question 
 arises a year or two years hence as to fixing the minimum rate of 
 wages, and supposing the employers as a class propose 5s., and the 
 workman as a class propose 5s. 6d., then the Chairman under this 
 clause has nothing but a casting vote. He must choose one or the 
 other or negative both. It may be that he sees his way to fix a sum 
 which will, on the whole, be adopted as a compromise. My noble 
 friend’s object is to enable the Chairman in the case I have mentioned 
 to fix the sum at 5s. 3d., and if he has nothing but the casting vote 
 
he cannot do that, and the object of this proposal is to give him that 
 option. I do not think the right honourable gentleman has met the 
 point, and, without pressing him as to the particular form of words 
 proposed, I think it is a point which might very well be sympathet- 
 ically considered upon the Report stage. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : While it is quite true that Sub-section (2) 
 applies to the person performing the duties of settling the minimum 
 wages and the district rules, under Clause 3, which deals with any 
 variation during the period the Act exists, it is provided that 
 
 “ The provisions of this Act as to the settlement of minimum 
 rates of wages or district rules shall, so far as applicable, 
 apply to the variation of any such rate or rules.” 
 
 Therefore, supposing there has been a variation during the 
 period of the Act, the same rule with regard to the Chairman would 
 apply in this case, and, if that is not so, we will make it so. 
 
 Mr. WALTER M‘LAREN : If this were merely a question of 
 fixing the rate of wages, perhaps a casting vote would be sufficient, 
 but there will be endless rules and regulations and all kinds of 
 considerations, and I am sure it will be far better to give the 
 Chairman as wide powers as possible. The Chairman may take 
 part in the discussion, and if the parties are irreconcilable he may be 
 unwilling to give a casting vote. We have found from experience 
 on our Boards dealing with these matters there are cases in which 
 the casting vote would not be suitable, and having regard to the 
 intricate matters which will come before the Board, I beg the 
 Government to give the Chairman wide powers from the very 
 beginning. There will be many differences which may seem 
 irreconcilable, each one taking the extreme view in which a casting 
 vote would be unfair, and where the duties of the Chairman would 
 be to reconcile the differences. If the Government desire these 
 Boards to work smoothly and well they must let the Chairman have 
 the power of modifying the views of the contending parties, and he 
 must be able to give a decision between the two. This matter will 
 not work if it is left to a casting vote. Speaking with a long 
 experience in this matter in connection with the Board of South 
 Wales, and being familiar with what goes on in Durham and 
 Yorkshire in regard to this point, I hope the Government will meet 
 the full sense of the House and give the Chairman the power of 
 conciliating and modifying the views of the extreme parties, because 
 they will be extreme parties in many cases, and the giving of the 
 casting vote would only lead to soreness and irritation. The 
 Chairman should act as mediator and try to make things work 
 smoothly. I think if three men could be rolled into one Chairman 
 in this particular case it would be far better, because three men can 
 
121 
 
 often find a happy solution when one man cannot. I think it is an 
 admirable suggestion, and I beg the Government in the interests of 
 the smooth working of the Boards, to reconsider their position. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : My view of the effect of Clause 4, 
 Sub-section (2), is absolutely different from that of the President of 
 the Board of Trade. I think he must have misread it. It mere y 
 deals with the case of a District Board failing to do its duty with 
 five weeks after the passing of the Act. It has nothing to do w t 
 the ordinary working of the District Boards. We are dealing with 
 a case where the Board meets and discusses the matter, and wheie 
 the two sides disagree. That is not a failure to do their duty jA alh 
 They disagree, and then all you give the Chairman under Sub-sect o 
 (2) of Clause 2 is a casting vote. There is no question of failure. 
 The Board -has done exactly what it is intended to do. It has 
 brought the people together, and made them discuss the matt . 
 They differ, and therefore it is Clause 2 and not Clause 4, Sub- 
 section (2), which comes into operation. I am sure the rig 
 honourable gentleman is entirely wrong m his construction ottne 
 Bill. That is not what was intended by Clause 4, Sub-section (-0, at 
 all. I am sure he must agree upon reflection that it is absolutely 
 essential if these Boards are to succeed, that you should not merely 
 have a Chairman entitled to say “ Yes ” or “ No,” but that he must 
 be a man with full power. We all agree his mam business is to be 
 a conciliator. That should be his object. If he is there merely to 
 sav “ Yes ” or “ No ” he will have no powers of conciliation. Lacti 
 side will press its view and will say,“ You must say Yes or Ro ; 
 but you want him to be able to say, “ No, I shall not do that , 1 
 shall give a decision between you two, which, m my opinion, is more 
 just and equitable.” I do not understand the right honourable 
 gentleman when he says it only deals with preliminary procedure. 
 It deals with the whole affairs of the Board. It appeaf s to me to be 
 a point on which we are right. We are proposing an amendment 
 really to improve the practical working of the Act, and, if the ri^ht 
 honourable gentleman does not feel able to concede it, I do fee t is 
 one of the few cases in which we must press the matter to a Division. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I think the noble lord has misunderstood the 
 Sub-section. The intention was this. In the first instance, you 
 will have these Boards with a neutral Chairman. During the 
 course of their proceedings the neutral Chairman has a casting vote 
 on any question arising. We are all agreed that in the early stage 
 and even up to the last he should act rather as a conciliator than as 
 a Chairman with arbitrary power. In the event oh the two sides 
 being unable to come to some agreement as to what should be the 
 rule the Chairman will in all probability elect, if there aie two 
 proposals, the one which appears to him to be fair and will give h s 
 casting vote for that proposal. But m the event of his think g 
 that neither of these proposals is good, and if he has a better one 
 himself he will not give his casting vote. 
 

 122 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : But nothing can then be done for 
 five weeks. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Five weeks is put in for a special object. It 
 is the maximum time. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : If the right honourable gentleman! 
 will read the Sub-section he will see that the point is not to ariseV 
 until five weeks have elapsed. I do not know what the draughts-! 
 man may have intended, but I take it the intention was to secure i 
 that should the Board prove futile then it should be superseded by i 
 the Chairman after five weeks have elapsed. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : That is the object of the clause. The arbitrary ) 
 position of the Chairman will come in there. I am, however, quite ' 
 willing to consider the point put forward by honourable Members 
 on both sides, although I hold there is a good deal more to be said 
 for the proposal of the Bill than for that of the noble lord. Not 
 only should the Chairman have, in the final resort, the decision, but 
 of the proceedings also he should have a deciding voice. I certainly 
 think that the better method of procedure, but I am quite willing 
 to further consider the point. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : May I ask the right honourable gentle- 
 man whether the powers given to the Chairman in Section 4 will 
 apply to future disputes as to altering the minimum wage. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : It is intended to have that effect, and I am 
 quite prepared to see that it has that effect. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I want to make one or two observa- 
 tions in regard to the experience that we have had in regard to 
 Conciliation Boards. I want as little interference from the outside 
 man in these matters as is possible. I have been on the 
 Conciliation Board for the federated area for the last nineteen 
 years. We meet and discuss these questions without an 
 Independent Chairman, and in ninety-nine cases out of one 
 hundred we come to an agreement without this man being there. 
 
 If the Chairman is there, and is going to give a casting vote, each 
 side is on the alert to put forward their very best case, 
 and even exaggerate their claims, which they would not do if we 
 were having a peaceful “ confab ” between employers and employed. 
 Lord James of Hereford was our chairman, and we never called 
 him in unless it was absolutely essential. I do not want anybody 
 to believe that from our side we want an interfering Chairman when 
 a Chairman is not required. What I would like to see carried out 
 is this : that the two sides should meet and discuss the question. 
 They will discuss it in a friendly way if our federated areas are 
 anything to go by, and if they fail to agree then an outside man 
 
123 
 
 should be called in. I believe that a system o£ mutual discussion 
 on these questions is beneficial even before you call him in. I am 
 not enamoured of these outside men dealing with these questions, 
 which some of them do not understand. 
 
 Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : I quite agree with the 
 honourable member that it would be much better not to have 
 independent Chairmen at all, and that the matter should be settled 
 between employers and employed. But that is not the Bill, an 
 is no use discussing that point. I am inclined to agree with the 
 right honourable gentleman, but I think that where he has made 
 the mistake is in introducing Clause 4, Sub-section (2). I cannot 
 see that Clause 4, Sub-section (1) or (2) have anything whatever to 
 do with the amendment. Sub-section (1) of Gkuse 4 deals mth the 
 case which may arise if there are no recognised District Boards. 
 That is not the case of my noble friend. Sub-section (2) deals wi 
 the case of a District Board failing to perform its duty. That is not 
 the case of my noble friend. Therefore, neither of the arguments 
 based upon that clause which were advanced by the right honourable 
 gentleman have anything to do with the question The r^ght 
 honourable gentleman has said that the clause gives to the Chairman 
 a casting vote, and I understand that, in the event of neither side 
 being able to come to an agreement, the casting vote does give to 
 the Chairman the power of deciding the question. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : No, he must say aye or nay. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : Let us say that 6s. is proposed, and that 
 neither side will agree to it. Has not the Chairman the power o 
 saying yes or no that the 6s. shall be given . 
 
 Lord EOBEET CECIL : He has no power of decision. 
 
 Sir E. BANBUEY: I see what my noble friend wants. It is 
 that in the event of one side asking for 6s. and the other side 5s., 
 the Chairman shall be able to split the difference and say that it shall 
 be 5s. 6d. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend because 
 that is a spirit of compromise, which I believe to a great extent lias 
 brought about the situation we are faced with to-day. That being 
 so, I really do not see why the right honourable ^ gentlemen does not 
 accept the amendment, because the whole spirit of the Bill is to do 
 exactly that which my noble friend desires to do. The Bill provides 
 that in the event of there being no District Board, or m the event 
 of the District Board failing to do its duty, there should be a 
 Chairman appointed, who can do what my noble friend desires. 
 The actual case of a District Board being instituted and approved 
 bv the Board of Trade and then failing to come to an agreement 
 has been omitted altogether. What does the right honourable 
 gentlemen propose to do in that case ? 
 
124 
 
 Mr. BUXTON: It would come under Sub-section (2) of 
 Clause 4. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : No, it would not. That sub-section 
 
 says: 
 
 “ If within five weeks after the passing of this Act the , 
 Joint District Board for any district fails to perform 
 any duty.” 
 
 They have not failed to perform any duty. They have tried to 
 perform their duty and have not been able to do so because they 
 cannot come to an agreement. That, again, is limited to five weeks 
 though the Board of Trade may extend the time. All this leads to 
 a further extension of the time. You will have to apply to the 
 Board of Trade to extend the time even if you can prove that the 
 District Board has failed in its duty. In the case quoted by my 
 noble friend it will not have failed in its duty. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Yes, it will. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : Its duty is to endeavour to settle the rate. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : To settle the rate ? 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : To perform any duty with respect to the 
 settling of the first minimum rate of wages and district rules. It 
 has not settled it because it cannot do it because the Chairman has 
 not got the power. “Failing in its duty ” does not mean that it has 
 refused to perform it or owing to laxity has not done what it w T as 
 appointed to do. That is quite a different thing from not being able 
 to do it under the provisions of the Bill. But even supposing the 
 right honourable gentleman is right, the Board of Trade has to be 
 approached and a further specific period has to be arranged. All 
 that trouble would be avoided if the amendment was adopted. 
 According to the right honourable gentleman himself the amendment 
 will eventually be carried after a considerable amount of trouble and 
 many applications to the Board of Trade. If the amendment is 
 accepted the Board of Trade will be spared a considerable amount of 
 trouble and the masters and men will be spared a considerable waste 
 of time and a conclusion will be arrived at far sooner, which I presume 
 is what is desired. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : Surely the point can be put in very few words. 
 It is that during the first five weeks of any negotiations which follow 
 the introduction of this Act the Chairman will only be able to say 
 yea or nay to a body of proposals put forward either by the men or 
 by the masters. I suggest that if each side will be inclined to put 
 forward exaggerated claims the result will be that the Chairman will 
 
125 
 
 not be willing to say aye or nay to either set of proposals. Then the 
 I result will be that in some cases the minimum wage will not be fixed 
 until after five weeks’ delay. It is only after five weeks’delay that the 
 l Chairman will have power to act. They would say, “ We cannot 
 agree with either side entirely, and we will strike the happy medium, 
 i and so give a decision which will be satisfactory to both parties. I 
 I S ay that in settling the minimum wage and the rules it is desirable 
 that the Chairman should have the power at the start which he is 
 I going to have after five weeks. 
 
 Mr. C. DUNCAN : It seems to me that the House is getting 
 into a bit of a fog in regard to this amendment. The case can be 
 put simply and tersely. It has so far been put by the honourable 
 member opposite. He said that, after a discussion as between 5s. 
 and 5s. 6d., possibly the Arbitrator will come in and give, not 5s., but 
 4s. or 4s. 6d. Therefore the point is an exceedingly clear and simple 
 one. I think the House would not be inclined to give the Arbitrator 
 such power. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : The Chairman will have that power in five 
 weeks. 
 
 Mr. C. DUNCAN : That is another matter. 
 
 Mr. WEDGWOOD : The whole question is whether there is to 
 be a Chairman or an Arbitrator. We have had plenty of experience 
 of Arbitrators in the Potteries, and I should advise the working men 
 not to have Arbitrators, who are generally men drawn from the 
 upper classes. It is far better that the Chairman should have merely 
 the opportunity of voting “ Yes ” or “ No,” and that he should not 
 be able to split the difference as between the masters and workmen, 
 and so give a decision which would not be satisfactory to either 
 party. The masters, members on the one hand, and the employes, 
 members on the other, would each put forward an exaggerated case 
 with the view of getting a decision as nearly as possible favourable 
 to their own side. I do not think that is desirable in the interest of 
 peace. I am of opinion that if the Government appoint an outside 
 man he should merely have a casting vote, so that he may decide 
 “ Yes ” or “ No ” directly on the proposals which come before him. 
 You cannot possibly secure a Conciliation Board which will give 
 absolute satisfaction in its results, but I feel confident that you will 
 secure much more satisfactory results from the casting vote of the 
 Chairman than from the splitting of the difference by an arbitrator, 
 who possibly does not carry the full confidence. of the working 
 classes. Therefore I hope the Government will stick absolutely to 
 what they have in the Bill. 
 
 Question put, “ That the word giving ’ stand part of the clause.” 
 The Committee divided : Ayes, 249 ; Noes, 109. 
 
126 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Eyland D. 
 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Alden, Percy 
 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Armitage, R. 
 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, Harold T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George 
 Boland, John Pius 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North 
 Brace, William 
 Brady, Patrick Joseph 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Bryce, J. Annan 
 Buckmaster, Stanley 0. 
 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Chancellor, H. G. 
 
 Clancy, John Joseph 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 Cullinan, John 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, Ellis William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Delany, William 
 Denman, Hon. R. D. 
 
 Devlin, Joseph 
 Dillon, John 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 
 Falconer, J. 
 
 Farrell, James Patrick 
 Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Field, William 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 Furness, Stephen W. 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Robert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire 
 Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock- Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayden, John Patrick 
 
127 
 
 Hayward, Evan 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, lit. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Hodge, John 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Lief S. (Notts, Rushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, Matthew 
 Kelly, Edward 
 Kennedy, Vincent Paul 
 Kilbride, Denis 
 King, J. (Somerset N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. 
 Molton) 
 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 
 Lardner, James Carrige Rushe 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 Lynch, A. A. 
 
 Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester 
 McGhee, Richard 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 MacNeill, J. G. S. (Donegal, South 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 
 MacVeagh, Jeremiah 
 McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, M. 
 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Montague, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Mooney, J. J. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Muldoon, John 
 Munro, Robert 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Nannetti, JosephP. 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Norman, Sir Henry 
 Nugent, Sir Walter Richard 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Doherty, Philip 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shaughnessy, P. J. 
 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 Pollard, Sir George H. 
 
128 
 
 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford, E. 
 Pringle, William M. R. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough 
 Reddy, M. 
 
 Redmond, John E. (Waterford 
 Redmond, William (Clare, E. 
 Richards, Thomas 
 Richardson, Albion (Peckham 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, George H. (Norwich 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Roe, Sir Thomas 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Sherwell, Arthur James 
 Shortt, Edward 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 Snowden, Philip 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes Mr. 
 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. / 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark,! Y 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Tennant, Harold John l 
 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 1 
 Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton » 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan Charles Philips \ 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walton, Sir Joseph \ 
 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent , 
 Wardle, G. J. 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay \ 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradestoi 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Whyte, A. F. (Perth 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir Archibald 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. I 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon 
 (Glasgow) 
 
 Young, William (Perth, East j 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 
 Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N. 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Barlow Montague (Salford, South 
 
 Barnston, H. 
 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicl 
 Beckett, Hon. Gervase 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 
129 
 
 Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell 
 Burn, Col. C. R. 
 
 Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N. 
 
 Dampion, W. R. 
 
 larlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 
 Cassell, Felix 
 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 
 ZJator, John 
 
 Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Mitchin 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. 
 >aig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Croft, Henry Page 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 
 Denniss, E. R. B. 
 
 Dixon, C. H. 
 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George D. (Clapham 
 Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. 
 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. 
 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead 
 
 Gilmour, Captain John 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Grant, James Augustus 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. 
 Edmunds) 
 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hamersley, A. St. George 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire 
 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Col. Thomas E. 
 
 Hills, John Waller 
 Hoare, Samuel John Gurney 
 Hohler, G. F. 
 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Houston, Robert Paterson 
 Hume-Williams, W. E. 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Lee, Arthur Hamilton 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 M‘Laren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine’s 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashb’rt’n 
 Morison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton 
 Perkins, Walter Frank 
 Pryce-Jones, Col. E. 
 
 Quilter, Sir William Eley C. 
 
 Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel 
 Rawson, Colonel Richard H. 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool, 
 West Derby) 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 Smith, Harold (Warrington 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 
 J 
 
Stanier, Beville 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford 
 
 Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W. 
 Terrell, Henry (Gloucester 
 Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North 
 
 130 
 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 
 Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon 
 
 Younger, Sir George 
 Tellers for the Noes:— Mr. Cave and Mr. Evelyn Cecil. 
 
 Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word “ a 
 (“ district shall settle a (Mr. Buxton.) 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), 
 after the word “ wages ” (“ minimum rate of wages ”), to insert the 
 words “ in respect of the different classes of workmen concerned. 
 
 It is quite clear that the rules must provide for different classes of 
 workmen. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : These words are really superfluous. 
 
 j 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave ; 
 out all the words after the word “ mines ” (“ underground in those 
 mines ”), and also to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5). 
 
 This is one of the things we entirely object to, as we are against 
 districts being split up. This proposal is foreign to all precedents 
 we have had for many years in the Midland Federation, and will J 
 make and create things that will cause trouble and dissatisfaction in 
 the districts. Take a concrete case. In my own county we have ; 
 regulated matters with the consent of the coalowners. We have i 
 forty thousand men who are not governed by sections, either from 
 the men’s standpoint or the employers’ standpoint. We deal with 
 them through the coalowners’ association and the men’s association, 
 and we have a distinct objection to those districts being split up. We 
 have price lists operating, not uniform I admit, in every colliery in 
 the county. We look on this as a very serious innovation on the 
 arrangements that have been in existence for very many years. 
 This means that you can interfere with all the previous arrange- 
 ments which are in existence and all the machinery that has been 
 set up and has worked so well. I hope the Government will see the 
 seriousness of this position. Since the settlement of the strike m 
 1893, at the Foreign Office by Lord Rosebery, and it lasted seventeen 
 weeks, though there has been a little trouble here and there, yet for 
 
nineteen years we have managed the business in counties and in 
 sections representing the counties. This is a very serious matter 
 to us, and we think it so important that we are bound to go to a 
 division. It is one of the matters about which the Conference feels 
 to be very serious. We are going to keep our Miners’ Federation 
 intact whatever happens, because it means the life and well-being 
 of our men. I will do nothing that will tend to the disintegration or 
 injury of the coal trade, and I want to see the old system, which 
 has worked so well, preserved. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I fail to see how these words can effect 
 the Miners’ Federation, or in the slightest degree cause them to 
 dissolve or to become less powerful. The honourable member said, 
 quite truly, that the question involved is a very serious one. It is 
 serious to both men and employers. The very basis of the Bill is 
 that there is to be a general minimum rate applicable to various 
 classes of workman, subject to various safeguards and conditions, but 
 that in special conditions that general rate shall not apply. That is 
 of supreme importance. What would be the effect upon miners 
 generally if these elasticity clauses were omitted ? The District 
 Boards will have to consider the different classes of workmen and 
 all the various circumstances applicable to the several collieries 
 throughout the districts, and without these elasticity clauses they 
 will inevitably fix a much lower general minimum rate than they 
 otherwise would. Therefore these provisions are in the interest of 
 the men themselves. Let me point out why. Take the case of a 
 colliery working under special conditions. What the Government 
 proposes is that a general minimum rate shall be fixed first of all ; 
 then, if there are special cases, special collieries, special classes of 
 collieries, that they shall be taken into account by the General 
 District Boards, who shall then determine what shall be the special 
 rate applicable to them. I fail to see how it would be possible for 
 us to continue with this Bill if you take out those clauses, either in 
 the interests of the men or the employers. I hope the House will 
 keep these clauses in, and will not support the amendment, so that 
 we may preserve impartially, as it is the duty of the Government to 
 do, between the men and the employers. If we have to do so, we 
 submit to the House that it is essential that we should preserve 
 these elasticity clauses in the Bill as they are. 
 
 Mr. SANDERSON : I cannot understand how this amendment 
 can be moved from the benches opposite, because it seems to me 
 that one of two consequences must result. One has been very ably 
 enforced by the Attorney-General. If you compel the District 
 Boards to settle their minimum rates, having regard to the general 
 district, there is a grave chance of the minimum rate being set so 
 low that all the mines in that district may be worked under it. Or 
 you may, alternately, have the minimum rate so high that certain 
 
132 
 
 mines in the district may be shut out, and a considerable number of 
 miners may be thus thrown out of employment. I have one instance 
 of a mine in my mind which turns out many thousands of tons of 
 coal per day. The miners are earning considerable wages. Not far 
 away is another mine which has never yet paid a dividend, and 
 which, in all probability, cannot possibly, under the conditions under 
 which they have to work, pay anything like the high minimum rate 
 as the other mine. If you accept this amendment you deprive the 
 District Committee of all capability of providing special terms for 
 that mine. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If my honourable friend goes to a 
 Division I shall be very glad to vote for him. After all, the question 
 reduces itself down to a very simple one, namely, that the worst 
 mines determine the wages of the whole of the people of the 
 industry. If a few mines have to go under, I believe the great 
 majority are in favour of that principle, although hardship may 
 come to some, because it is for the general advantage of the greater 
 number. Therefore, if my honourable friend goes to a Division, I 
 shall vote with him. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN put the amendment, and there were cries of 
 “ Aye ” and “ No,” whereupon he said, “ Clear the Lobby.” 
 
 Mr. J. W. WILSON (speaking seated with his hat on) : On a 
 point of order, Mr. Whitley. I understood you to put the question, 
 “ That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,” 
 and that you declared “ The Noes have it.” 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I did not declare that either side had it. I 
 put the question, “ That the words proposed to be left out to the 
 end of line 15, end of Sub-section (3), stand part of the clause.” 
 There were cries of “ Aye ” and “ No,” and I therefore said, “ Clear 
 the Lobby.” The amendment proposed is, “ To leave out from the 
 word ‘mines ’ in Sub-section (3) to the end of Sub-section (5).” The 
 question I have to put is, “ That the words, ‘ In the district and to 
 all workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those 
 mines, other than mines to which and workmen to whom a special 
 minimum rate or special district rules settled under the provisions 
 of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and workmen to 
 whom the Joint District Board declare that the general district 
 rates and general district rules shall not be applicable pending the 
 decision of the question whether a special district rate or special 
 district rules ought to be settled in their case ’ proposed to be left 
 out stand part of the clause.” 
 
 The Committee divided : Ayes, 254 ; Noes, 65. 
 
AYES. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. 
 Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Armitage, Robert 
 
 Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J. 
 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N. 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Montague (Salford, South 
 Barnston, Harry 
 
 Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, William 
 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Beckett, Hon. Gervase 
 Benn, W. W. (T. H’mts., St. Geo. 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid. 
 Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell 
 Brocklehurst, William B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Bryce, John Annan 
 Buckmaster, Stanley 0. 
 
 Burn, Col. C. B. 
 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 
 Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N. 
 Campion, W. R. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cator, John 
 Cautley, H. S. 
 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood 
 Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin 
 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 
 Chancellor, H. G. 
 
 Clancy, John Joseph 
 Clough, William 
 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Croft, H. P. 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas 
 Dixon, Charles Harvey 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley 
 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George D. (Clapham 
 Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. 
 Falconer, James 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thos. Robinson 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. 
 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead 
 Foster, Philip Staveley 
 Furness, Stephen W. 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gilmour, Captain J. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 
134 
 
 Gordon, Hon. John Ed. (Brighton 
 Grey, Bt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E. 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. 
 Edmunds 
 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hamersley, Alfred St. George 
 Harcourt, Robert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds 
 Harmswortb, R. L. (Caithness-shire 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayden, John Patrick 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berks, 
 Abingdon) 
 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Col. T. E. 
 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hills, John Walter (Durham 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hoare, Samuel John Gurney 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Holt, Richard Durning 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Houston, Robert Paterson 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hughes, S. L. 
 
 Hume-Williams, William Ellis 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, 
 
 S. Molton) 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 Lee, Arthur Hamilton 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey 
 Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee 
 Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich 
 Lyell, Chas. Henry 
 
 Mackinder, H. J. 
 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 M‘Callum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 
 M‘Laren, W. S. B. (Cheshire, Crewe 
 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine 
 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Manfield, Harry 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s County 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Montagu, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrison-Bell,Capt. E. F. (Ashburt’n 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. j 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newman, John R. P. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster 
 Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Palmer, Godfrey 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 
135 
 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Smith, Harold (Warrington 
 Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton Spear, Sir John Ward 
 
 Perkins, Walter Frank Spicer, Sir Albert 
 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Stanier, Beville 
 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Pringle, William M. R. Starkey, John Ralph 
 
 Pryce- Jones, Col. E. Stewart, Gershom 
 
 Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, West 
 Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Swift, Rigby 
 
 Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel 
 Rawson, Col. Richard H. 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough 
 Richardson, Albion (Peckham 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Royds, Edmund 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Salter, Clavell 
 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange 
 Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Sherwell, Arthur James 
 Shortt, Edward 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Terrell, Henry (Gloucester 
 Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Yalentia, Viscount 
 Verney, Sir Harry 
 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 
 Ward, Arnold (Herts., Watford 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradeston 
 Whyte, A. F. 
 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir Archibald 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore., N. 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas, 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 Young, W. (Perthshire, E. 
 Younger, Sir George 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes: — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 Alden, Percy 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A, 
 
136 
 
 Baker, H. T. (Accrington 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Dawes, James Arthur 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Edwards, Jno. H. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 
 Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles 
 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 
 Hall, F. (Yorks., Normanton 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Hayward, Evan 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles 
 Hodge, John 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — 
 
 Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Morrell, Philip 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pollard, Sir George H. 
 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 Richards, Thomas 
 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Snowden, Philip 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W. 
 Sutton, J. E. 
 
 Taylor, John W, (Durham 
 Thomas, J. H. (Derby 
 
 i 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Ward ; John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westtioughton 
 
 Mr. George Roberts and Mr. T. Richardson. 
 
 Mr. W. M'LAREN : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), at the end, 
 to add the words : — 
 
 “ (4) In settling the first minimum rate of wages a Joint District ; 
 Board shall take into consideration contracts for the sale of 
 coal existing at the date of the passing of this Act.” 
 
187 
 
 I move this amendment in order to enable the District Board 
 to consider evidence of very great importance which may be brought 
 
 I before them, and which, if this amendment is not included in the 
 Bill, they may ignore. It is well known to all in the least degree 
 familiar with the coal trade that large contracts are habitually made 
 twelve months in advance. The great English railways buy their 
 coal twelve months in advance, and the great bulk of our export 
 trade is made in yearly contracts. In accordance with the usual 
 practice, this has been done during the past year, and it has been 
 done at any rate, so far as Scotland and South Wales are concerned, 
 with all the more confidence because the coalowners relied upon 
 agreements which they were convinced would be kept. I hold with 
 regard to the export coal trade the Fife coal owners have at least 
 forty per cent, of their output contracted for delivery before the end 
 of the present year. And in South Wales at least three-quarters of 
 the output is contracted for in advance. The colliery owners were 
 all the more ready to make these contracts because they had a five 
 years’ agreement which still had two and a half years to run, and 
 that agreement gave them a feeling of complete security that the 
 ordinary rate of wages would not be disturbed in the case here of 
 two collieris. One has an output of one and three-quarters million 
 tons a year, and it has sold a million tons for delivery before the end 
 of the year. The other has contract to deliver 1,100,000 tons before 
 the end of the year — equal to three-quarters of their output. These 
 contracts were only entered into because there was reasonable 
 security that the existing agreement could be carried out. I have 
 always been in favour of the principle of the minimum wage. Six 
 years ago I declared in favour of it in my own colliery district, and 
 I have never since deviated from that view. Our workmen can 
 make far more than the minimum wage if they choose. But I 
 want it to be borne in mind that contracts have been made in the 
 security of the agreements, and we suggest that as the District 
 Board are appointed to settle the new rate of wages, the owners 
 shall be entitled to bring before them their order book to the end of 
 the present year, and that that should be borne in mind in settling 
 the rate of wages to the end of the year. We are quite willing 
 to take the chance of what may happen afterwards, because 
 if wages are increased no doubt the colliery owner will ask 
 more for his coal. All I ask is that the District Board shall 
 take into account in settling the rate of wages the existing contracts 
 of the colliery owners. The Government may well accede to this 
 request, because they cannot desire to keep back from the District 
 Boards any evidence that may legitimately be put before them, and 
 which undoubtedly ought to have a marked influence upon the rate 
 of wages. I earnestly beg the Government to accept this amend- 
 ment. I am certain it will go very far indeed to calm the feeling 
 and allay the irritation which undoubtedly does exist — and you 
 cannot blame anybody for feeling strongly to some extent, no matter 
 how much they are in favour of the principle of a minimum wage. 
 These wages ought to have due regard to the existing interests that 
 
138 
 
 have been created. Seeing that the men are going to have in 
 future the enormous advantage which this Bill unquestionably 
 confers upon them, and having regard to the fact that the 
 agreements they entered into two and a half years ago they are 
 deliberately tearing up, they should try to meet the coalowners 
 half-way, and take into account the contracts that were made on the 
 faith of the agreements, which all of them signed. I am only asking 
 what is fair and reasonable, and a matter of ordinary business, when 
 I ask that we should be allowed to bring to the District Boards 
 evidence which is material to the fixing of the wages. I beg the 
 Government to give this amendment their friendly consideration, as 
 they are trying in a conciliatory spirit — in which we sincerely desire 
 to join, and that we shall do our best to promote — to settle this 
 question, and I ask that this particular class of evidence shall be 
 brought before the Boards. 
 
 Sir KUEUS ISAACS: The case put forward by my honourable 
 friend is for a direction in the Bill to the local District Board. That 
 would be a departure from the principle we have hitherto observed. 
 Directions have not been given to the Boards, but the policy has 
 been to leave it to the Joint District Board to take into account all 
 the circumstances which bear upon the fixing of the minimum wage. 
 That is where it seems to me this matter must be left. It is quite 
 impossible to put this in without putting in a number of other 
 directions. The inclusion of only one direction would be a very 
 serious matter, because when the Boards saw that Parliament had 
 said that this particular matter must be considered, they would 
 regard it as something very special, and would take it more into 
 account than any other circumstances. I cannot accede to the amend- 
 ment. I will not argue with the honourable baronet and those associated 
 with him as to the question of contracts. It is a little difficult to 
 understand how anyone who had coal to sell and who had to make 
 a contract during the last few months should not have taken into 
 account the circumstance that a strike was threatened. As to the 
 question of agreements, that is exactly the same kind of difficulty 
 we get over and over again in a great number of the Bills we pass. 
 I trust the Committee will be satisfied to leave the matter to the 
 Joint District Boards for them to determine, with the other matters, 
 how far it shall affect the wages fixed by them. 
 
 Mr. PIKE PEASE : I agree with the Attorney-General, but I 
 should like to say a word in reference to his remarks on the sanctity 
 of contracts. We shall never have industrial peace or a satisfactory 
 state of industrial enterprise in this country until both sides realise 
 that a contract is sacred. I am a director of a firm which has 
 1,000,000 tons of material sold, and it would not be an unreasonable 
 for these Boards to take that fact into account. I want to impress 
 on the right honourable gentleman the absolute necessity of the 
 Government doing all they can to see all contracts carried out in 
 future by both parties. 
 
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : The Attorney-General said that 
 owners must have considered the possibility of this strike, but 
 owners have been innocent enough to believe they need not be 
 anxious about contracts which were in existence and which would 
 last for three years. That is what has happened in South Wales at 
 present, and it is hardly fair to taunt them with not having 
 considered the matter fairly and reasonably as men of business. 
 This question of contracts undoubtedly is an extremely difficult one. 
 I do not altogether agree with the amendments from the opposite 
 side as to the best manner of dealing with it, because apparently it 
 would penalise the men for no fault of their own, but in a matter 
 for which their is no precedent, in which they fling away almost 
 without a word existing contracts of the most solemn nature, it is 
 for them to consider whether they ought not to bring something 
 into effect in order that those who have contracts may be saved 
 from some of the evil influences which may be brought to bear on 
 the action of the Government itself. 
 
 Mr. W. F. ROCH : I am inclined to agree with the Attorney- 
 General that the amendment is not the best means, or indeed a 
 possible means, of settling the difficulty which arises with regard to 
 contracts in South Wales, but I am inclined also to agree that this 
 will be an element in the fixing of the minimum wage which will 
 not be satisfactory to the men nor is it a satisfactory way of dealing 
 with the question. The Attorney-General said that the owners in 
 South Wales, who are the exporters of coal to the extent of about 
 sixty per cent, of their output, as prudent men should have known 
 that the strike was ahead, and should have adjusted their contracts 
 on that basis. But the South Wales coalowners were dealing with 
 the competition of the world in fixing their prices for export, and 
 they had to make their contracts at the price then existing. As 
 prudent men, too, the South Wales coalowners were not entitled 
 to take into consideration that the Government of the day is opposed 
 to contracts. The Government is put in the same legislative position 
 as a trade union. They may break a contract, but they are not 
 liable in damages for the breach. The Government are purchasers 
 through the Admiralty of over a million tons of Welsh coal. They 
 have broken the contract on which the price at which that coal was 
 sold to them was fixed. (An Honourable Member : “ In what 
 way ? ”) The price at which the coal was sold to the Admiralty 
 was based on the faith of a written agreement with the men, 
 and without the legislative action of the Government that would 
 now be in force. And yet the Government is now turning 
 round and saying we will accept no liability for the position which 
 we have ourselves created. There is an additional case of hardship 
 on the South Wales owner. Let us suppose that this Bill becomes 
 an Act of Parliament ; it is common ground with everybody that 
 there will be a shortage of coal and that the supply will not meet the 
 demand. I am perfectly ready to admit that the price of coal in the 
 next six months will go up. In that case, what will be the position 
 
140 
 
 of the South Wales producers who have made contracts ahead ? The 
 effect will be that the wages of the men will automatically rise, and 
 the South Wales coalowners, having contracted for the export of 
 coal, will not be able to take advantage of the advance in the price 
 of coal. I venture to say that when the Government is interfering 
 in the interest of the general community with a somewhat heavy 
 hand this point ought to receive their consideration at some future 
 stage of the discussion. I agree that the point is not met by the 
 amendment or by the argument of the Attorney-General that it 
 could be dealt with by the District Board. It is a matter which 
 deserves the careful consideration of the Government. 
 
 Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich) : I should like to direct the 
 attention of the Committee to one remark of the Attorney-General. 
 He assumed that the contracts were entered into in the course of 
 the last few months. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent. 
 
 Mr. FRED HALL : I am glad to know the honourable and 
 learned gentleman did not assume that, but he stated to the 
 Committee that the colliery proprietors ought to have taken the 
 possibility of the present dispute into account. I am afraid that the 
 Attorney-General is unaware of the fact that the large majority of 
 the contracts for the export of coal are made in August or September. 
 Therefore, I venture to suggest that the colliery proprietors could 
 not have been under the impression that any material increase would 
 be put on the cost of production. I hope that, in going carefully 
 into this matter, the Government will look into the question 
 whether some consideration cannot be given to those who have made 
 their coal contracts on the assumption that the contracts they 
 had entered into with the miners would be binding on their part. 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDS : I hope the Government will stick to what 
 they have put in the Bill, and that the special stipulation which has 
 been proposed will not be inserted. I am very reluctant at this 
 stage of the proceedings to say a word which would impart feeling 
 or temper into the discussion in replying to my honourable friends. 
 If this Bill should be passed, we shall have to meet and try to come 
 to an arrangement as to all the difficulties that will arise. I do not 
 find very much fault with what was said by the mover of the 
 amendment. He repeated the old argument about the cost of 
 production being increased Is. per ton if this Bill were put into 
 operation in South Wales. We have heard that so often in regard 
 to previous legislation that I hardly think it worth while to deal 
 with the statement. If the consumers export contracts are to be 
 taken into account, will attention also be given to the wealth which 
 has been made by the coalowners — a question which has been a bone 
 of contention for a great many years — will the coalowners immense 
 profits be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum rate. We 
 know that enhanced prices were charged for South Wales coal for 
 
141 
 
 several months before the strike took place. We also know from 
 past experience that the obstinancy which they have displayed is 
 largely due to the speciality of the article they have to sell. If they 
 had the article of the midland owners, the South Wales owners 
 would have been as reasonable, but the South Wales owners know 
 that the longer the strike lasts the higher the prices they will get 
 when they commence work. The year 1898, when we had five 
 months of a dispute, is conclusive proof on that point. The prices 
 of the South Wales best commodity that are sent out to depots to 
 supply the world never come into the calculations of the workmen’s 
 wages. I do not want to enter into this matter now, but I hope to have 
 an opportunity of doing so when we meet face to face across the table. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If my honourable friend goes to a Division 
 I shall certainly vote with him. The case is quite unanswerable. 
 At all events, the reply of the Attorney-General is absolutely 
 ludicrous. He has replied that an agreement was entered into by 
 force, that it was shoved by force down the throats of the Welsh 
 colliers, and they were told that they would be locked out if they did 
 not enter into it. But it was on the faith of that contract 
 deliberately entered into that large quantities of coal have been sold. 
 The honourable member has referred to the large profits in South 
 Wales. I am associated with a company which has sold in his 
 constituency over a million tons of Welsh coal. This company has 
 been a poor company, distributing an average of about five per cent, 
 in dividends. No one is going to say that five per cent, is an 
 unreasonable profit. At all events, I would not put my money into 
 any mine unless I thought that I was going to get more than five 
 per cent. There would be general astonishment among the British 
 public if they knew the result of the working of Welsh collieries 
 during the last year. In the case of many collieries the public will 
 find, when they know the facts, that instead of large profits made in 
 1910, there was a large loss made in many of the Welsh collieries. 
 I do not think that the whole burden of this should fall on the men, 
 or that they should be kept back from receiving a fair advantage, 
 but where it can be shown that under the operation of this Act, which 
 is being forced on the owners in South Wales, I think that the 
 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer (Honourable Members: “Oh!”) 
 
 Why not ? If the country breaks a contract, is not the honour of a 
 nation equal to the honour of an individual ? If a nation comes in 
 and breaks deliberately a contract which entails a loss on innocent 
 people, it is scrapping the whole of the principles on which our legis- 
 lation has been based, and, therefore, if we can get no better answer 
 from the Government than we have had from the Attorney-General, 
 I shall certainly support my honourable friend if he goes to a Division. 
 
 Mr. KEATING : The effect of this amendment will be to give 
 instructions in one direction in the face of what the Committee have 
 done in another, and I do not see why, if you give instructions in 
 the interests of the coalowners, you rejected the miners’ schedifie, 
 
142 
 
 Question put, “That those words be there inserted.’* 
 The Committee divided : Ayes, 130 ; Noes, 248. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Armitage, Robert 
 
 Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J. 
 
 Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N. 
 
 Bal carres, Lord 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Barnston, H. 
 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Beckett, Hon. Gervase 
 Bennett- Goldney, Francis 
 Boscawen, Sir A. S. T. Griffith- 
 Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell 
 Bridgeman, W. Clive 
 Burdett-Coutts, William 
 Burn, Colonel C. R. 
 
 Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N. 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cator, John 
 
 Cautley, Henry Strother 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 
 Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. 
 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 
 Croft, H. P. 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies David (Montgomery Co. 
 Dixon, C. H. 
 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George Denison (Clapham 
 Falle, B. G. 
 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. 
 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampsteac 
 
 Foster, Philip Staveley 
 
 Gibbs, G. A. 
 
 Gilmour, Captain John 
 Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Gordon, Rt. Hon. J. E. (Brighton 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury 
 S. Edmunds) 
 
 G wynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 i 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hamersley, A. St. George 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, M’jor H. (B’rks, Abin’d’r 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel \ 
 Hickman, Col. Thomas E. 
 
 Hills, John Walter 
 Hoare, S. J. G. 
 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Hohler, G. F. 
 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Houston, Robert Paterson 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey 
 
143 
 
 Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee 
 Lowther, Claude (Cumberland 
 
 Mackinder, H. J. 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine’s 
 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Mildmay, EYancis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashb’rt’n 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newman, John R. P. 
 
 Newton, Harry Kottingham 
 Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid. 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Perkins, Walter F. 
 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pollock, Ernest Murray 
 Pryce-Jones, Col. S. (Montg’y B’gs 
 
 Quilter, Sir William Eley C. 
 
 Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel 
 Rawson, Col. R. H. 
 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Royds, Edmund 
 
 Rutherford, Watson (L’pool,W. D’y 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 
 Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange 
 
 Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. 
 
 Smith, Rt. Hon. F.E.(L’pool, Walton 
 
 Smith, Harold (Warrington 
 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 
 Stanier, Beville 
 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 
 Starkey, John R. 
 
 Steel-Maitland, A. D. 
 
 Talbot, Lord E. 
 
 Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W. 
 
 Terrell, H. (Gloucester 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 
 Yalentia, Viscount 
 
 Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, Major G. D. (Lancs., S’port 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon 
 Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 
 Younger, Sir George 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes: — Sir A. Markham and Mr. W. McLaren. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, H. T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Barlow, Montague (Salford, South 
 Barnes, G. N. 
 
 Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick 
 Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo. 
 Boland, John Pius 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
144 
 
 Boyle, D. (Mayo, N. 
 
 Brace, William 
 Brady, P. J. 
 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, J. F. L. 
 
 Bryce, J. Annan 
 Buckmaster, Stanley 0. 
 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar 
 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawlev, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Chappie, Dr. W. A. 
 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 Cullinan, John 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 
 Dawes, J. A 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 
 Delany, William 
 
 Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas 
 
 Devlin, Joseph 
 
 Dillon, John 
 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley 
 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 
 Farrell, James Patrick 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thos. Robinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Field, Willliam 
 
 Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward 
 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 Furness, Stephen W. 
 
 Gill, A. H. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 
 Guest, Hon. Fredk. E. (Dorset, E. 
 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Robert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardie, J. Hardie (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harmsworth Cecil, (Luton, Beds. 
 Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire 
 Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayward, Evan 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Hodge, John 
 Holt, Richard Durning 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts., Rushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Jowett, F. W. 
 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, M. 
 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 Kelly, Edward 
 
145 
 
 Kilbride, Denis 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, 
 
 S. Molton) 
 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 
 Lardner, James Carrige Rushe 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 
 Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas 
 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 
 Lundon, Thomas 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 Lynch, A. A. 
 
 Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 McGhee, Richard 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 McNeill, J. G. S. (Donegal, South 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 McVeagh, Jeremiah 
 McCallum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M’Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, M. 
 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Montagu, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Muldoon, John 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster 
 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 
 Norton, Captain Cecil W, 
 
 Nugent, Sir Walter Richard 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 
 O’Doherty, Philip 
 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 
 O’Dowd, John 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 O’Malley, William 
 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 
 O’Shaughnessy, P. J. 
 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan Y. 
 
 Ponsonby. Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford 
 Pringle, William M. R. 
 
 Radford, G. H. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough 
 Richards, Thomas 
 Richardson, Albion (Peckham 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, G. H. (Norwich 
 Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rowlands, James 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 
 J 
 
Wadsworth, J. 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 White, J. I). (Glasgow, Tradeston 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Whyte, A. F. (Perth 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, J. (Glamorgan 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., IS 
 Wilson, W, T. (Westhoughton 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas 
 
 Aoung, W. (Perthshire, E. 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 i 
 
 ' 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY had given notice, after Sub-section (3), 
 to insert the following new sub-section : — 
 
 “ (4) In districts where existing rates of wages vary in the 
 different coal mines, the Joint District Board shall 
 settle the minimum rates of wages for the different ‘ 
 coal mines in the district, and the respective minimum 
 rates shall be the rates applicable to the respective coal 
 mines in the district, and to all workmen or classes of 
 workmen employed underground in those mines.” 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : This point has been covered by a decision 
 already taken. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I think not. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : The honourable member was not in the 
 House. An amendment was moved to leave out that provision. A 
 long debate ensued, and on a Division the Committee decided to 
 retain the provision, Is there any special point ? 
 
 Samuel, J. (Stockton 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Sberwell, Arthur James 
 Shortt, E. 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 Snowden, P. 
 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Thomas, J. H. (Derby 
 Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Verney, Sir Harry 
 
147 
 
 Sir C. CORY : The proposal appears to refer to physical 
 
 conditions, whereas there may be other conditions, such as different 
 rates of wages. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I submit that this point has already 
 been settled. It is entirely a question of elasticity, and that we have 
 decided. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : That was my opinion. The amendment 
 cannot be moved. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : I have handed in a manuscript amendment to 
 leave out Sub-section (4). 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : That is covered by my previous ruling. I 
 sent the honourable member word. The honourable member for 
 Derbyshire moved to leave out the words from the middle of Sub- 
 section (3) to the end of Sub-section (5). Owing to the technical 
 rules of the House I put the question “ that the words proposed to 
 be left out to the end of Sub-section (3) stand part.” That was in 
 order to save the amendment of the honourable member for Crewe 
 (Mr. M’Laren). But that does not entitle honourable members to 
 raise again the question whether these sub-sections should be left 
 out. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : I think there is a great deal of force in your 
 ruling. But may I submit this point. The division had reference 
 only to the end of Sub-section (3). Since then there has been a 
 complete debate as to whether a certain form of words should be 
 added at the end of Sub-section (3). I submit therefore that the 
 Committee cannot act on the assumption that all the words after 
 Sub-section (3) have been decided upon. The general debate that 
 has ensued since has been upon the question as to whether certain 
 words should be added at the end of the specified line. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : The question is put that certain words 
 down to a specified point should be left out to give the opportunity 
 for a fresh point to be raised. But that does not give honourable 
 members the right to raise an issue already settled ; for a member 
 with an amendment of 500 words might wish to move it word by 
 word. That would not be according to our rules. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Bub-section (4), 
 to add the words : “ in settling any minimum rate of wages the 
 Joint District Boards shall have regard to the provision or payment 
 by the employer for any dwelling-house, coal, or rent, or other 
 allowance in the contract of employment made in addition to any 
 money wages.” 
 
148 
 
 The Attorney-General will probably answer that this should be 
 left entirely to the District Boards. It might be held that nothing 
 but the actual wage should be considered in dealing with the 
 minimum wage ; therefore words require to be added to give the 
 District Boards power to consider further than the wage ; to take 
 into account the perquisites. In many districts there are customs 
 that mean money value, as, for instance, in Durham county, where 
 the married miners get house and coal. The fact of the money 
 value is best proved by cases under the Workmen’s Compensation 
 Act, in relation to which, I am informed, the perquisites that I 
 indicate in my amendment are reckoned at 5s. per week. It is 
 evident that there is a high money value in some districts attaching 
 to these extras. I desire that on the face of the Bill there may be 
 some statement which will enable the District Boards to go outside 
 the question of the actual money wage. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The District Committees will undoubtedly 
 have the opportunity of taking all these various circumstances into 
 account. There is no necessity — so far as we could see when we 
 drafted our Bill — to deal with these specific questions. It is quite 
 clear that the Joint Committee considering the question of the 
 minimum wage will consider what the actual results of the trade 
 are in relation to all matters, whether they be matters of rent, coal, 
 or anything else. They might admit other matters also relevant to 
 the question of the minimum wage which should be taken into 
 consideration. I think it would be a mistake to put these matters 
 into the Bill. 
 
 Mr. L. HABDY : I do not wish to press the amendment to a 
 division, but I am very glad to get that expression of opinion from 
 the right honourable gentleman. I am sure the District Boards will 
 appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s opinion that it was the 
 intention of the Government that they should consider the whole 
 matter of payment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON : I beg to move in Sub-section 
 (5) to leave out the word “ sub-divide ” (“ the Joint District Board 
 may sub-divide their district,”) 
 
 Perhaps I had better explain my full amendment. If I succeed 
 in deleting the word “ sub-divide,” I propose to insert the word 
 “ divide ” and the sub-section would then read “ the Joint District 
 Board may divide their district ” into parts and then at the end of 
 the sub-section I should propose to add, “ Provided the district may 
 be further sub-divided if the two classes on the Joint District Board 
 agree.” I do not think the Committee has given the attention to 
 this clause it really deserves. We on these benches who are 
 exceedingly anxious through this Bill to promote peace, recognise 
 
149 
 
 hat this is one of the most dangerous parts of the entire Bill. The 
 Bill proposes to set up machinery to establish a minimum wage, and 
 in these Sub-sections it is possible to so divide the whole of the 
 districts for the purpose of the minimum wage as to make it possible 
 very largely to defeat, so far as the men are concerned, the whole 
 object over which this dispute occurred. In moving to leave out the 
 whole of the sub-sections, as we did earlier in the evening, it might 
 be thought that we were going a little too far. 
 
 My amendment is an alternative. It seems to me that if we 
 erred too much in that, on our side, the Bill as it stands errs too 
 much in the other direction, and my alternative is a middle course. 
 We propose that one side of the Board by the power of the casting 
 vote of the Chairman might divide each district now in the schedule 
 into two. It might be argued that there was necessity for further 
 sub-division in the interests of the industry. The evidence must be 
 brought forward by the other side of the Board, and they must be 
 convinced it is in the interest of those concerned before further 
 sub-division should be permitted. Those of us who have experience 
 of the work in connection with our organisations, and from 
 experience we have had in recent times of the working of the 
 Government’s “ Fair Wages Clauses,” know how the whole benefit 
 intended by Parliament under those clauses is being filched away 
 from the workmen by the policy of divided districts. Along with 
 the honourable Member for Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), I 
 recently brought a case before one of the departments, and the 
 reply we got was that the firm was in a district by itself. It was a 
 single firm in the district of Hammersmith where there was no 
 other industry, and although it was separated from the whole of the 
 metropolitan district, they established the right for that one firm 
 alone. We were convinced that that was a complete violation of 
 the avowed intention of this House when it passed the Fair Wages 
 Clause. I appeal to the Attorney-General on this point. There 
 were three points on which our colleagues, the miners’ leaders and 
 the members of the Federation, were anxious to come to an 
 agreement upon. The first was the 5s., which has been declined; 
 the second was a proviso that the minimum should not come below 
 existing rates, and that point has been met ; and the third was one 
 to which many of the miners’ leaders attach great importance— 
 namely, that some alteration should be secured in regard to this 
 power of sub-dividing. A district might be divided down to a single 
 man, and thus defeat the whole object of the Bill. I therefore 
 appeal to the Attorney- General to give this proposal serious 
 consideration. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : Undoubtedly my honourable friend has 
 made out a case for some mitigation and reconsideration of this 
 power of sub-dividing. I cannot, however, say that I can accept 
 the words he has proposed. I am not at all sure that we can accept 
 the honourable member’s words in their present form, but we will 
 
150 
 
 give this amendment every consideration, because certainly it is not 
 the intention of those responsible for this Bill that there should 
 be unlimited sub-division. Therefore, I think there is a great deal 
 to be said for the view put forward by the honourable member, but 
 the exact form in which the limitation must be proposed must form 
 the subject of consideration and be brought up by us on Report 
 The only thing I desire to say is that we must allow some discretion. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HABDIE : I would like to ask whether Sub-section 
 (5) has not slipped into the Bill by mistake. The President of the 
 Board of Trade is aware that the miners submitted seventeen 
 districts for the purpose of this wages settlement. The employers 
 took exception to some of the districts, and suggested that they were 
 too large, and should be divided, and Sub-section (5) was probably 
 drafted in order to meet the position. What has happened since 
 then? The Government itself in the schedule to the Bill has made 
 the division which the employers asked for, and instead of seventeen 
 districts there are now twenty-one divisions in the schedule. 
 Therefore, it seems a likely hypothesis that this clause was recently 
 framed to meet the claim of the owners.* I think the Attorney- 
 General and his colleagues ought to consider whether they cannot 
 see their way to withdraw this clause altogether. Tremendous 
 powers of division are given to the Boards. They have power to 
 separate any class of coal mines within a district, any class of 
 workmen within a district, sections of mines within a district and so 
 on, and surely with the vast powers they already possess the 
 Government should be content. This is one of two really big 
 questions standing in the way of a settlement of this dispute, and I 
 am sure the Government and the House do not want to accentuate 
 the differences. 
 
 Sir C. COBY : I see danger and the possibility of injustice 
 •ahead if this be agreed to, and I trust the Government, before they 
 a ccept it, will give it their very careful consideration. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This is not a matter on which we have been 
 dictated to by the owners. The reason the seventeen areas have 
 keen extended to twenty-one in the schedule is that we could not 
 But into the Bill the Midland area of the Miners’ Federation if it 
 includes Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire. 
 It is obvious this area would have to be divided into districts. It is 
 not a question in any sense between the owners and the miners. It 
 is a geographical question which the Government has had to solve. We 
 do not desire to split up the areas more than necessary, but the 
 various District Boards, when they come to consider the matter, 
 might think it expedient to have different rates in different areas 
 under their control. We thought, therefore, they ought to have 
 some discretion in regard to the matter. But I want to emphasise 
 what fell from my honourable and learned friend. There is no 
 intention by putting in Bub-section (5) to do anything in the nature 
 
151 
 
 of destroying the schedule as it stands. It was only intended to 
 come into force in exceptional circumstances, where it was quite 
 obvious that it would be an advantage to all parties to have a different 
 minimum rate, and we shall certainly be prepared — we will consider 
 it between now and Beport — to see how far there should be some 
 limitation on the power of sub-division because we have no desire in 
 any sense of the term to give this power in order to destroy the 
 schedule as a whole. It is quite possible that a certain amount of 
 elasticity would be necessary, and that was the reason for the sub- 
 section being put in. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD : I quite agree with the honourable member (Mr. 
 Arthur Henderson) in what he said as to the dangers in too much 
 sub-division in this matter, but in view of an amendment I have 
 later on the paper, I hope the Committee will allow a certain latitude, 
 that is to say, in view of the possibility of our losing the amendments 
 down on the paper they will not lose entire power in this matter to 
 allow a division which would leave, to a district like Cannock Chase, 
 the power and the right to have a district for themselves. 
 
 Mr. PIKE PEASE : It seems to me that there can be no 
 satisfactory result without having complete trust in whoever , is 
 appointed to be Chairman of the Boards. It is in the interests of 
 the workmen as much as the employers to make a division. There 
 are places in the county of Durham where large collieries employing 
 a thousand men make practically no profit at all, while there are 
 other collieries nearer the sea with a better quality of coal and much 
 thicker seams which make a large profit. Under the circumstances 
 naturally the colliery, which is some distance from the coast cannot 
 possibly pay the same minimum wage as the colliery nearer the 
 coast, and under the circumstances it would be well to realise that 
 if we want to make a success of this we should express that 
 confidence in the Chairman, which I am sure we all wish to feel. 
 
 Mr. LAUBENCE HAKDY : I would ask the right honourable 
 gentleman at all events not to accept the particular solution before 
 us now. There is one district which I hoped some other member 
 who is much more acquainted with the subject would have brought 
 up, but I think Scotland is one very much to the point. Scotland 
 possesses at least three entirely different coalfields altogether, which 
 are now included in one district and very probably the District Board 
 would think it desirable that these three should be divided up. The 
 Government ought to protect in every way the right of the District 
 Board for Scotland to divide itself up at least into three parts. There 
 is no intention of pressing for an undue division, but a certain amount 
 of division ought to be provided under the Bill. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I hope that the point put forward by the 
 honourable Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson), 
 will be reconsidered by the Government. The last speaker has given 
 Scotland as an instance suitable for further sub-division. I should 
 
152 
 
 like the Government to take into consideration the facts as they , 
 relate to the Scotch collieries. For the past thirteen years we have 
 had but one Conciliation Board, which has regulated the coal trade 
 with the utmost satisfaction to both parties. There has been no 
 occasion that called for sub-division of the districts. 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDSON : I think the Committee will more 
 fully appreciate the fears entertained by members on these benches 
 after the speech made by the honourable Member for Darlington \ 
 (Mr. Pike Pease.) We have very substantial fears that Sub-section 
 (4) is so elastic that it will be quite possible for the manager of a 
 colliery to make application to these District Boards for a special 
 rate of wages to be fixed for that colliery. I think that is borne out 
 in a very substantial way by the observations of the honourable 
 Member for Darlington. In this connection may I ask the Committee 
 to remember that so far as Durham county is concerned, for the last 
 thirty years the wages of the whole county have been governed by a 
 body representative of the workmen and owners. If there is any 
 possibility of this. Bill being placed on the Statute Book in such an 
 elastic form as to make it possible for the owner of a colliery, or the 
 owners of a group of collieries, to make an application to the 
 District Board for a special minimum wage for that particular 
 colliery or group of collieries, the purpose and intention of this 
 agitation and industrial strife, and the purpose of the Government 
 in this Bill, will have been frustrated, and its end deviated in a very 
 unsatisfactory manner so far as the miners are concerned. I appeal 
 to the Government, in considering this question to safeguard the , 
 possible unlimited opportunities that the Bill now presents, and to 
 see that the door is not only not wider opened, but that they will 
 exercise the greatest possible care to retain those districts which are 
 now specific districts for the fixing of wages, such as have been in ; 
 existence in Durham and many other counties for twenty or thirty l 
 years. I can assure the Committee, from my knowledge of the 
 miners and the miners’ leaders, that they attach the utmost'; 
 importance to this proposal. 
 
 Mr. S. ROBERTS : There seems to be a misapprehension on 
 the part of honourable members below the gangway. They seem to 
 think some part of the area might separate itself from the District 
 Board. But that is not so. The Joint District Board may 
 sub-divide, but a district may not take the matter into its own 
 hands and claim to sub-divide. I understand it is proposed to limit 
 the power to sub-divide into two districts. That is a pity, as there 
 may be cases where it may be desirable to have three districts. I ! 
 hope the Attorney-General will give consideration to that point. 
 
 Mr. A. HENDERSON : In view of the promise of the Attorney- 
 General to consider this point between now and report, I ask leave 
 to withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
153 
 
 Mr. CAWLEY : I wish to propose an amendment to Sab-section 
 (6) settling the minimum rate of wages, giving the District Board 
 liberty to settle the rate in different mines from time to time in 
 accordance with the average piece work. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : Has not this point already been settled. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I think it has. Sub-section (4) Section 2 
 leaves entire elasticity. 
 
 Mr. CAWLEY : I only want an assurance from the Attorney- 
 General that there is a sliding scale in regard to the minimum work 
 in different mines in different districts. 
 
 The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN : That seems to be substantially 
 the same point. The question is “ That the Clause, as amended, 
 stand part of the Bill.” 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : I hope that between now and the 
 Report Stage, the Government will carefully consider Sub-section 
 (4) of this clause. This is one of the clauses which the miners will 
 not accept if it remains in the Bill. I am not saying that as a 
 threat. Sub-section (4) gives the Board power — the Chairman of 
 the Board, for that is what it comes to — to isolate a single mine, 
 and to make a special rate for it, to isolate sections of workmen in 
 thin mines, and to make a special rate for them, and to isolate groups 
 of mines and to make special rates for them. The object of this Bill 
 is to establish a minimum wage, and surely the same wage should 
 apply within the same area. The noble lord’s amendment raised 
 the point that the fact of the circumstances being different should 
 justify a different rate of wages. Probably the noble lord is not 
 aware that different circumstances exist now. There is no different 
 rate of wages in consequence of a difference in circumstances in a 
 mine. All the day wage men employed in a mine receive the same 
 rate of pay, whether they are in normal places or not. If there is a 
 part of a mine which is deficient and not paying, the coalowners do 
 not on that account pay a lower rate of wages to the men within 
 that part. If that be so, why should you establish a new condition 
 of wages under this Bill ? The coalowners have never claimed that 
 there should be different rates of wages for these men within the 
 mine. Now the Government for some mysterious reason has 
 inserted this clause in the Bill without having informed the miners 
 of the intention to put it n, and without having consulted the 
 miners upon it, and is thereby going to create fresh divisions 
 throughout the coalfields, which will lead to friction and lay the 
 foundation of possible strikes in future, and all for a chimera 
 conjured up in the imagination of those who wish to put obstacles 
 in the way of the miners being united. I hope that between now 
 and the report stage the Government will consider how far 
 Sub-section (4) is necessary at all. Under Sub-section (5) there 
 
154 
 
 will be power to sub-divide a district, and we submit that that is all 
 the power that is needed to meet any exceptional case that may 
 arise. If the clause is brought forward in this form on the report 
 stage, the Labour party, acting on behalf the miners will oppose it 
 and do their best to have it deleted. 
 
 Question put, and agreed to. 
 
 Clause 4. — (Provision for bringing Act into operation, &c.) 
 
 (1) If within two weeks after the passing of this Act a Joint 
 District Board has not been recognised by the Board of Trade for 
 any district, or if at any time after the passing of the Act any 
 occasion arises for the exercise or performance in any district of any 
 power or duty under this Act by the Joint District Board, and 
 there is no Joint District Board for the district, the Board of Trade 
 may appoint such person as they think fit to act in the place of 
 the Joint District Board, and, while that appointment continues, 
 this Act shall be construed, so far as respects that district, as if the 
 person so appointed were substituted for the Joint District Board. 
 
 (2) If within five weeks after the passing of this Act the Joint 
 District Board for any district fail to perform any duty with 
 respect to the settling of the first minimum rate of wages and 
 district rules in that district, the Chairman of the Joint District 
 Board shall perform that duty in place of the Joint District Board, 
 and any minimum rate of wages or district rules settled by him 
 shall have the same effect for the purposes of this Act as if they 
 had been settled by the Joint District Board : 
 
 Provided that, if the members of the Joint District Board 
 representing the workmen and the members representing the 
 employers agree, or if the Board of Trade on a report from the I 
 Chairman of the District Board direct, that a specified period J 
 longer than five weeks shall for the purposes of this sub-section be 
 substituted for five weeks, this sub-section shall have effect as if 
 that specified period were therein substituted for five weeks. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out 
 the words “ the Board of Trade may appoint such person as they 
 think fit to act in the place of the Joint District Board, and, while 
 that appointment continues, this Act shall be construed, so far as 
 respects that district, as if the person so appointed were substituted 
 for the Joint District Board,” and to insert instead thereof the 
 words, “ representatives that have been elected by either the 
 workmen or employers shall be recognised by the Board of Trade 
 as a Joint District Board, and the decisions of the Board shall be j 
 construed, so far as respects that district, as if the Board so 
 constituted complied with the provisions of Section 2 of this Act.” 
 
Mr. BUXTON : My honourable friend will remember that at 
 an earlier stage the Committee decided that the Chairman should 
 have a casting vote. Take the case of the owners forming their 
 side of the Joint Board and the miners for some reason declining to 
 form theirs, and then the owners fixing the rate at 3s. The 
 Chairman could not vote against one side, and the 3s. rate would 
 then be declared to be the district minimum. So from the 
 practical point of view I think that the Chairman must act alone. 
 Otherwise he might be put into an impossible position which might 
 lead to grave injustice. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the 
 word “may” (“the Board of Trade may”) to insert the words 
 “ either forthwith or after such interval as may seem to them 
 necessary or expedient.” 
 
 The object of my amendment is that as the clause is now drawn 
 it will be essential within five weeks after the passing of the Act 
 that the decision by the Chairman shall be made with respect, both 
 to the rate and to the district rule. It might happen that in the 
 event of either the owners refusing to have the men back or the 
 men not returning to work during that interval it might be 
 impossible in the prescribed period to create joint committees district 
 chairmen, and get them into working order. Therefore we think 
 it is essential in order to provide, when any delay occurs in beginning 
 work, that some latitude should be given to the Board of Trade in 
 the selection of a Chairman, in the event of the Joint Board not 
 being formed and a Chairman not being selected. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Further amendments made : In Sub-section (2) leave out the 
 words “ within five weeks after the passing of this Act.” 
 
 After the word “ Board ” (“ Joint District Board ”) insert the 
 words “ within three weeks after the time at which it has been 
 recognised under this Act.” 
 
 Leave out the word “ rate ” (“ minimum rate of wages ”) and 
 insert instead thereof the word “ rates.” — (Mr. Buxton). 
 
 Consequential amendments made. 
 
 Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN : I beg to move, in Sub- 
 section (2), to leave out the words “ the Board of Trade, and report 
 from ” (“ or if the Board of Trade on a report from.”) 
 
This is an amendment which I think ought to be made to meet 
 a practical difficulty. If at the end of five weeks an agreement is 
 not come to, I think the Chairman ought to have the right to 
 extend the time for consulting the Board of Trade. If that were 
 not so, the time might elapse before our answer is received from | 
 the Board of Trade, and the whole thing becomes nought. My 
 amendment gives the Chairman the right to extend the time on his 
 own authority, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposal, 
 and meets a practical difficulty. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I think I am in agreement with the honourable 
 member, but I should like to consider the matter further, and bring 
 it up on the report stage. 
 
 Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN : After the statement of the 
 right honourable gentleman I ask leave to withdraw my amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Question, “ That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill,” 
 put and agreed to. 
 
 Clause 5. — (Interpretation and Provision as to Chairman). 
 
 (1) In this Act — 
 
 The expression “ coal mine ” includes a mine of stratified ' 
 ironstone. 
 
 The expression “ workman ” means any person employed in a 
 mine below ground who is not a person employed solely in 
 surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine. 
 
 (2) If it is thought fit by any persons when appointing a 
 Chairman for the purposes of this Act, or by the Board of Trade 
 when so appointing a Chairman, the office of Chairman may be 
 committed to three persons, and in that case those three persons 
 acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the Chairman for the 
 purposes of this Act. 
 
 Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN : I beg to move in Sub- ! 
 section (1) to leave out the words “ the expression ‘ coal mine ’ 
 includes a mine of stratified ironstone.” 
 
 I move this amendment for two reasons. I think the 
 Committee will recognise that it is not an unreasonable desire to 
 have a word of explanation from the Government as to why mines 
 of stratified ironstone are included in a Coal Mines Bill. I asked a 
 question yesterday in the course of the Second Reading Debate and 
 the Secretary of State, who replied, did not answer me on the 
 
 
157 
 
 point. I make no complaint of that. His speech was not directed 
 to my speech at all. He was addressing a different question of the 
 House, and it would have been inconvenient for him to interfere 
 with his argument, and turn aside to answer my question. I think 
 it was perfectly natural under the circumstances that it should not 
 !be answered, but I do think that we ought to have some statement 
 from the Government as to why this provision appears in the Bill 
 before we assent to it, and pass it into law. I admit at once my 
 information on the subject is not of a very complete kind. As far 
 as it goes it is to this effect that in the Cleveland district of 
 Yorkshire the workers in the stratified ironstone mines are 
 included in the Miners’ Federation in that area, and are involved in 
 this strike. 
 
 As far as they and any other district, if there be any other 
 district where the same circumstances prevail are concerned, there 
 is the prima facie reason for including those mines in the Bill. But 
 my information — and I am subject to correction — is that there are 
 many mines, I do not say very big ones, in other parts of the 
 country, and notably in Scotland, of stratified ironstone, which are 
 not affected by the present strike, where there is no disagreement 
 between masters and men, where neither side has pursued the 
 differences which prevail in the coal trade, and where there is no 
 reason whatever for Parliament to step in and interfere with 
 arrangements which are the result of mutual agreement between 
 employers and employed, and are working satisfactorily, 
 uninterrupted by the strike which prevails in the coal trade. That 
 is the information as to the facts as far as I possess it. I think at 
 any rate it justifies me in prima facie asking the Government for 
 some explanation of why they have included the whole of the 
 stratified ironstone mines of the United Kingdom in the Bill, and 
 whether they have considered this diversity of circumstances which 
 prevail in that trade. I am told different rates of wages prevail in 
 those two classes of mines because the circumstances of the work 
 are different, and that the regularity of work in the case of 
 ironstone mines is greater than in the case of the coal mines. 
 
 That is my first consideration, and now I come to the second. 
 It will be, with the recollection of the Committee, that just at the 
 close of the proceedings last night a point of order was raised as to 
 these words. Mr. Speaker was in some doubt as to the facts of the 
 case upon which his ruling would necessarily be based, and he 
 applied to the Government for information as to the facts in order 
 that he might give a ruling. Nothing could be further from my 
 thought than to question the ruling of Mr. Speaker, or to suggest 
 at this stage that that ruling could be revised. But I desire to 
 question the Attorney-General as to the statement of fact supplied 
 to Mr. Speaker by the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker inquired of 
 the Government why these words were included. Prima facie they 
 were outside or beyond the scope or the title of the Bill. The 
 
 6 
 
158 
 
 answer of the Government was that they were restrictive words, 
 that bat for them the title of the Bill, which named only coal 
 mines, must necessarily, in consequence of previous legislation, 
 include not only stratified iron mines, but shale mines, and, I think, 
 fire clay works. The Attorney-General said the previous Acts 
 dealing with the subject included these under the title of coal mines. 
 The latest legislation on the subject is the Consolidation Act of 1911. 
 What is the case of the Government ? That the Coal Mines Act, 
 and the title of that Act, is made to include these other mines, and 
 that therefore the title “ coal mines ” in this Bill must include them 
 also unless such words as these are put in. Let the House listen to 
 the title and the first section of that Act, and judge of the merits 
 of that contention. The title is “An Act to consolidate and amend 
 the law relating to coal mines and certain other mines.” That is to 
 say, if it had stopped at coal mines, it would have meant coal 
 mines ; but, because it meant other mines besides, it said other 
 mines, and the first section of the Act, which the Prime Minister 
 did not read, states that “Mines to which this Act applies are mines 
 of coal, mines of stratified ironstone, mines of shale, and mines of 
 fire-clay, and in this Act the expression “ mines,’ unless the context 
 otherwise requires, means the mines to which this Act applies.” 
 That does not bear out the contention of the Government. 
 
 I go back to the previous Act — the Act of 1887. That is also a , 
 consolidating and amending Act of the Coal Mines Act, but it does 
 not stop there. Its title is “ An Act to consolidate with amendments 
 the Coal Mines Acts of 1872 and 1886, and the Stratified Ironstone' 
 Mines (Gunpowder) Act, 1881.” In both those cases, in order to 
 include stratified ironstone mines, the title is expressly defined. In 
 one case those mines are specifically mentioned, and in the other 
 case coal mines and certain other mines are mentioned. There is a 
 similar section in the latter Act, but I will not trouble the House by 
 reading it. Therefore both those consolidating and amending Acts 
 referring to coal mines specifically mention other mines besides coalf 
 mines in their title in order to include stratified ironstone mines; 
 amongst others. If those Acts had been presented to Mr. Speakers 
 by the Government when Mr. Speaker appealed to the Government 
 for the facts of the case, there is but one ruling that would have been 
 possible under the rules of this House. The Government Bill has 
 been drafted in such haste and so carelessly, that it is out of order, 
 and had the facts been properly presented, Mr. Speaker would have 
 been obliged to declare that if the objection were presisted in the 
 Bill would have to be withdrawn and re-presented. I am quite sure 
 my honourable friend, and all my honourable friends on this side, 
 would not have desired, under the special circumstances of the case, 
 to press such an objection. The Attorney-General asks me ; AVhy 
 then did we raise it ? I think we have not only the right to raise it 
 but I think we have a duty to raise it. Then because of theii 
 slovenly action, and now in order to cover their slovenly action, thej 
 give careless and false information. I think it is right that the 
 
159 
 
 attention of the Committee should be called to these matters, and I 
 think the Government should take some steps in consequence. 
 
 What explanation the Attorney-General has to offer 1 do not 
 know, and I am waiting to hear it, but I venture to say that, as a 
 matter of order and regularity of our business, one or two courses is 
 really necessay. If this provision for stratified ironstone is not 
 required, the words can be struck out. If it is required for the 
 purpose of the Bill, then the title of the Bill ought to be amended 
 in accordance with the title of the other Bills dealing with the 
 regulation of coal and similar mines. Whatever the Mines 
 (Eight Hours) Act says has no bearing on this point. It is not 
 incorporated in this Act, and no lawyer would venture to say, 
 after reflection, that a definition in a particular Act for the purpose 
 of that Act is binding on another Act, in spite of the common use 
 of language and statutory use of language in many Acts of 
 Parliament, unless that definition is incorporated in the Bill by a 
 special reference. I have stated my case, and I should be glad to 
 hear what the Attorney-General has to say. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The first point which I desire to make 
 in answer to the right honourable gentleman is as to the inclusion 
 of the stratified ironstone in the definition of coalmines. As I 
 gather from his observations, the right honourable gentleman is 
 aware of the fact that, at least as regards the Cleveland District, the 
 stratified ironstone mine stands very much in the same category as 
 the coalmine. It is no doubt perfectly true that it is worked in the 
 same way. The miners belong to the same Federation ; and, 
 indeed, I understand, one of the representatives of the ironstone 
 miners is on the Executive which has waited on the Government. 
 Except that they are smaller in numbers, they are as interested in 
 this question as the coalminers. The right honourable gentleman 
 said there were some stratified ironstone mines in Scotland not 
 included in the dispute. I am not aware of it, but will inquire to 
 see if that is the case. I will take steps to see that if they are not 
 included in the dispute they shall not be included by way of 
 definition. 
 
 I now approach the point which the right honourable gentleman 
 has made with so much emphasis, and which, I gather, he regards 
 as the most important in the Bill. My experience of the law as a 
 rule has been that when a layman wants to make a point which is 
 based on technicality he has recourse to a lawyer, but in this 
 particular case the right honourable gentleman has discovered by 
 
 himself, or with the assistance of a distinguished lawyer — he is quite 
 
 capable, however, of discovering it for himself — that this Bill is 
 
 entirely out of order, and that if only the Speaker had known what 
 
 w I * * * * * 7 e now know this Bill would have been ruled out of order, and, I 
 
 suppose, the strike would go on. I quite fail to understand the point 
 
 of the objection taken last night, unless it was to get this Bill ruled 
 
160 
 
 ■ out of order. I am sure the right honourable gentleman will excuse 
 me when I say that I am not at all certain that it is not the junior 
 Member for the City of London who is entitled to the credit of 
 the point. If our attention had been called to this particular point 
 more than just half-a-minute before the question was put by the 
 Speaker, of course it would have been easy to have replied. But 
 this question was kept quite dark. I am not complaining, I want to 
 say that whatever the Prime Minister said last night was said very 
 hurriedly, because he had no time to consider the matter, and what 
 was said was said entirely upon my suggestion. Therefore, 
 whatever blame there is, is due to me and not to the Prime 
 Minister. 
 
 Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBEBLAIN : I do not want to dispute 
 anything the Attorney-General has said so far, but I do want to 
 relieve him of one misapprehension. He seems to think that we 
 had become aware that there was this point of order a long time in 
 advance and had kept it deliberately in the dark. That is not so. 
 We had only just become aware of it. My hqnourable friend gave 
 notice to Mr. Speaker of his intention to raise it the moment he 
 became aware of it. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it is exactly what I have 
 
 stated. But really what point is it we are discussing. Here we are 
 at this moment discussing as important a Bill as has ever been 
 before the House of Commons. We have been engaged the whole 
 day in fighting this Bill and in attempting to pass it through 
 Committee, and the question raised now by the right honourable 
 gentleman with so much emphasis and passion, and on which he 
 lays so much stress, is that we said last night that stratified 
 ironstone has been dealt with in other Bills dealing with coal mines. 
 It is included in the Act of 1911, and the Act of 1887. The whole 
 point is that in these Acts stratified ironstone, shale, and fire clay, 
 were all dealt with along with coal mines. We are quite entitled to 
 say it deals with coal mines and other mines. That is the whole 
 point. The whole point is, that in the title, instead of confining it 
 to coal mines, it says coal mines and other mines. The whole 
 question arises through dealing with coal mines and other mines. 
 
 Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : What the Prime Minister 
 told me was that in a former Act was included shale mines, 
 stratified iron, and something else — fire clay. That is not the fact. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : Really, if that is the point that the 
 right honourable gentleman the Member for East Worcester and 
 the honourable baronet are making, I make them a present of it. 
 So far as I am concerned, in my view it is not worth another 
 moment’s discussion. The whole point is that in this Bill we 
 intended, by calling it the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, that 
 it should apply not only to coal mines, but to stratified ironstone, 
 
161 
 
 The whole contention of right honourable gentlemen opposite is that 
 they are able to say that the Bill has been badly drafted. 
 
 Sir ROBERT FINLAY : The point to which my right 
 honourable friend has called attention to is very much more 
 important than any question of the drafting of the Bill. The 
 question is not whether the Bill is w r ell or ill-drafted. The question 
 is whether, when the Speaker appealed to the Prime Minister for 
 ! information, the Prime Minister gave corrector incorrect information. 
 I may relieve my honourable and learned friend from any idea that 
 j there was any intention to keep back information from him. I 
 never heard of this point until the junior member for the City of 
 London (Sir F. Banbury) rose to take the point of order and the 
 ; Speaker then appealed to the Prime Minister on the point. The 
 Prime Minister in reply said distinctly, “ These words are not words 
 of extension ; they are words of limitation ” — (Honourable Members : 
 
 I “No, no.”) — and he gave this reason — “ There is in a previous Act 
 of Parliament a definition of coal mines which includes shale, iron- 
 stone, and fire-clay.” That was the information which was given to 
 the Speaker and, on that information, the Speaker very naturally 
 gave the ruling which he gave. It turns out that that has really no 
 foundation. There is no such definition. There is a definition of 
 mines.” (Honourable Members : “ Agreed.”) 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I must ask honourable members to give the 
 honourable and learned member a hearing. It is true we have had 
 a late sitting, but that is not a reason why we should not carry on 
 our proceedings with the same order as we have done all day. 
 
 Mr. CRAW SHAY-WILLIAMS : On a point of Order. May I 
 ask is what happened yesterday in order upon this amendment ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : The amendment proposed to the 
 
 Committee is to leave out those two lines in Clause 5. I think 
 it is in order to refer to what occurred in the proceedings 
 yesterday as one of the reasons for moving the amendment. Of 
 course there is a ruling, and in Committee we cannot reopen 
 matters of Order which have been already dealt with in the 
 House. 
 
 Sir ROBERT FINLAY : There is no definition such as the 
 Prime Minister stated did exist. There is no clause, no definition in 
 either Act, the Act of 1887 or the Act of 1911, as stated by the 
 Prime Minister. The definition is that mines include coal mines, 
 stratified ironstone mines, shale mines, and fire-clay, (Honourable 
 Members : “Agreed.”) Surely the honourable and learned gentleman 
 at least appreciates the difference ? Is it possible that he does not 
 appreciate the effect of that statement ? The statement was that 
 these words were words of limitation, and not of extension, because 
 if they had not been introduced the expression “ coal mines ” would 
 
 K 
 
tave included shale, fire-clay, and other mines. The statement was j 
 distinctly made, and we have had no withdrawal of that statement. 
 
 I think the matter is one of extreme importance. When the Speaker 
 calls for assistance from the Treasury Bench, statements should not ; 
 be made unless some pains have been taken to ascertain the facts. I 
 will only say in conclusion, that now that the Government have 
 found out their mistake they will, if they desire to retain this clause 
 in the Bill, find it necessary to amend the title of the Bill. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I hope the Attorney-General will not agree 
 to the ironstone miners of Scotland being excluded from the Bill. 
 These men are engaged in similar work to those who work in the 
 coal mines; they are paid by the same method; and they are also 
 engaged in this effort to secure a minimum wage, the same as the 
 miners employed in the coal mines. 
 
 Question, “ That the words stand part of the clause,” put, and 
 agreed to. 
 
 Viscount CASTLEBEAGH : I beg to move, after the word 
 “ person ” (“ The expression ‘ workman ’ means any person 
 
 employed ”) to insert the words “ ordinarily or regularly.” 
 
 I desire to move the amendment which stands in the name of 
 my honourable and gallant friend (Colonel Hickman), and I hope the 
 Government will consider whether they cannot see their way to accept 
 it. The object of the amendment is to make it clear that the Bill shall 
 apply only to persons regularly engaged underground in coal mines. I 
 think the Attorney-General will see my point which is certainly of 
 some importance. There are individuals employed usually on the 
 surface, but on certain specific occasions they are employed under-: 
 ground, such as a mechanic who goes underground to repair 
 machinery, or an electrical engineer who goes below ground to see. 
 about the electrical apparatus in connection with the electric 
 installation. I think the honourable and learned gentleman will see* 
 that as the Bill stands at the present moment such persons will, 
 come in under its provisions. I propose that these individuals who 
 are only occasionally employed underground should be exempted 
 from the provisions of the Bill. If they are already exempted of 
 course there is no need to press the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The Act is intended to apply to those who are 
 employed underground in the ordinary course of their work — under- 
 ground workers. I do not think the persons referred to by the 
 noble lord would come under that definition. It would not include 
 men who only go down the mine occasionally for a special purpose. 
 
 I am advised that there is no necessity for such an amendment, and 
 perhaps this statement will relieve the fears of the noble lord. I 
 quite agree with him that, if it were necessary, words should be ] 
 introduced exempting these particular men, 
 
163 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : In the circumstances, and after 
 the statement of the right honourable gentleman, I beg leave to 
 withdraw the amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS : I beg to move to leave out the 
 words “an official” (“or an official”) and to insert instead thereof 
 the words “ a manager or under-manager.” 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The speech of my honourable friend was so 
 remarkably short that I am unable to understand fully the particular- 
 reasons which have induced him to move this amendment. If he 
 will be good enough to give me a reason or two for the proposal I 
 shall be glad to consider it, but I must confess I should have thought 
 the words of the Bill covered all he wanted. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The explanation is very simple. The 
 point is that we do not understand what is meant by “ an official,” 
 and we wish to have the matter clearly defined in the Bill. I can 
 assure the right honourable gentleman the point is one of some 
 importance, because there are now many classes of workmen in the 
 mines to whom the term “ official ” may apply, and who at the same 
 time are simply daywage men. For that reason we want to limit 
 the application of the words in the Bill strictly to persons who are 
 really managers or under-managers. For example, the shot-firer 
 might easily be included in the term “ an official.” Bo might the 
 timber man, and certainly so would the fireman. Therefore we 
 desire that the definition here laid down shall apply specifically to 
 the manager and under-manager, to whom it is probably intended 
 to apply, and leave the rest of the workmen to receive the benefits 
 of the Bill, from which they may be excluded unless this change is 
 effected. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : May I point out that in Grand Committee 
 on the Coal Mines Bill last year we had a very long discussion on 
 this point. It was pointed out in the evidence before the Royal 
 Commission of Mines that in Scotland firemen were paid in some 
 cases as little as 4s. 9d. a day, and yet there are officials, having 
 important and responsible duties to discharge in the mine. Many 
 officials in Scotland are paid lower rates of wages than are day men 
 in England. It would be particularly unfair, therefore, to place 
 outside the operation of the Bill these low paid wagemen, who are 
 given the names of officials but are doing the drudgery of the mine 
 at* starvation wages. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : It is not intended, as the Committee will 
 readily understand, to include in this term any one who in the 
 ordinary course is a daywage man, that is to say, an ordinary person 
 who is under control. The expression is intended, of course, to 
 
164 
 
 refer to the officials in the real sense — those in authority in the 
 mine. I understand that it is the usual term used in Mines Acts 
 for such persons, and is understood in the way I have described. I 
 am bound to say that what the honourable baronet the Member for 
 Mansfield has said seems to show that in some cases the conditions 
 in Scotland are different from those which prevail in England. I 
 can assure the Committee that this paragraph has been very carefully 
 considered, and there is no intention of excluding from the operation 
 of the Bill anyone who is a day labourer or a day workman. As 
 far as my knowledge goes the term employed would not result in 
 the exclusion of any of those workmen to whom reference has been 
 made, but, of course, the matter is a somewhat technical one. 
 
 Mr. KEIB HARDIE : Shot-firers must be excluded. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : These matters, as I was saying, are somewhat 
 technical, and I have not the knowledge in regard to the terms 
 which some of my honourable friends possess, but I think the words 
 are all right. I will promise, however, to look into them, and if I 
 find that any of these men are excluded I will undertake to set the 
 matter right. I hope the Committee will allow the words to remain 
 as they are for the time being on that understanding. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I do not think this is quite satisfactory. 
 The point is this : These men are officials working on day wages 
 and their wages are much lower than the actual hewers of coal are 
 receiving. Are these men to be within the scope of the Bill or not ? 
 May I point out to my right honourable friend that these men work 
 longer hours than others. This is where the trouble arises. We 
 have no Department of Mines. The conduct of mines rests with 
 the Home Office, and here for the first time we get the Board of 
 Trade coming in. This is liable to create great confusion, and the 
 matter ought to be in the control of one department. There is not 
 a single man in the Board of Trade who knows anything about 
 mines or has ever been down a mine. Yet they are to have charge 
 of this matter. This is a very important point. We discussed it ; 
 for days upstairs in Committee last year. What I want to get at 
 is whether these wage officials, particularly in Scotland, where they 
 are paid 4s. 9d. a day, as was given in evidence before the Royal 
 Commission, are going to come within the scope of the Bill. Many 
 of these officials in small mines do work as labourers, and they are 
 fully entitled to get all the benefits this Bill may confer. I contend 
 that everyone except managers and under-managers ought to come 
 within the scope of the measure. I hope my honourable friend will 
 not withdraw the amendment unless he gets a more satisfactory 
 reply from the Government. 
 
 Sir GEORGE YOUNGER : I must ask the right honourable 
 gentleman not to accept too readily the statements made about j 
 Scotland by the honourable baronet opposite. The honourable 
 
165 
 
 baronet has an obession on this question as those of us know who 
 sat on the Coal Mines Bill Committee last year. Nothing is bad 
 enough to be said by him about Scotland so far as the owners and 
 miners are concerned. I am only putting in a word of warning to 
 the right honourable gentleman to be sure of his facts before he 
 takes without a grain of salt what the honourable baronet says on 
 this subject. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I say that I have no technical knowledge in 
 regard to this matter. I agree with the honourable baronet, the 
 Member for Mansfield, that in these matters the Home Office is the 
 expert department rather than the Board of Trade. But as I have 
 said I will look into it, and will endeavour to ascertain between now 
 and the Report Stage as to whether an official is not an official. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS : Upon the explanation given by 
 the right honourable gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the 
 amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Sir G-EORGE YOUNGER : I beg to move in Sub-section (2) 
 to leave out the words “it is thought fit by any persons when 
 appointing,” and to insert instead thereof the words, “prior to the 
 appointment of.” 
 
 This amendment and the two others in my name which follow 
 it hang together. The sub-section gives the appointment of 
 Chairman to the Board of Trade and provides that the Board may 
 appoint either one or three persons to act in that capacity. My amend- 
 ment is to the effect that if the representatives of the employers or 
 workmen so desire three persons shall be appointed. The subject is 
 one of great importance, because of the responsibility that will rest 
 on the Chairman, and in certain circumstances it would be very 
 desirable that there should be a panel of three. I do not propose to 
 adduce any arguments in support of my proposal, as I think it must 
 be evident to everybody that no precautions are provided in the Bill 
 in that connection, and it is most necessary and desirable that the 
 right of demanding the appointment of three persons to serve in 
 the capacity of Chairman should rest with either party. 
 
 Question proposed, “ That the words proposed to be left out 
 stand part of the clause.” 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I rather gather from the amendment of the 
 honourable gentleman that he desires to leave the question whether 
 there should be three Chairmen or one Chairman to the Committees 
 themselves ; or does he desire that in every case it should be 
 compulsory on the Board of Trade to appoint three Chairmen ? 
 
166 
 
 Sir Gr. YOUNGER : I had better read the clause as it will run 
 when amended : 
 
 (2) If prior to the appointment of a Chairman for the purposes 
 of this Act the representatives of the workmen or employers 
 concerned so desire, the office of Chairman shall be 
 committed to three persons, and in that case those three 
 persons acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the 
 Chairman for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I do not think I can accept the amendment. 
 In many cases it may be necessary or advisable to have three 
 Chairmen, but I do not think the Committee should say that the 
 Board of Trade ought to have no discretion. If one side desires 
 three chairmen and the other side only desires one, there must be 
 some reason on which the difference of opinion is based, and I think 
 in that case the Board of Trade ought to have a deciding voice in 
 reference to the matter. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : There are really two points involved 
 in this amendment. As the clause stands at present the matter is 
 left entirely to the initiative of the persons appointing the Chairman f 
 or the Board of Trade. The amendment of my honourable friend, 
 in the first place, gives the initiative to the workmen or the employers, j 
 Then my honourable friend desires, in the second place, to make 
 that initiative compulsory on the Board of Trade. The two points ■ 
 are altogether distinct. It seems to me that it would be desirable to 
 give the initiative to the employers or the workmen. I understand 
 that it is impossible to expect any departmental chief to assent to 
 his department being actually overruled. That, I suppose, has never 
 happened in the history of Parliament. But I do think he might 
 leave the initiative in these matters at any rate to the employers and 
 workmen, and not require the initiative as well as the control to be j 
 left entirely in the hands of the department. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : Would the honourable member be willing to J 
 make it three instead of one, which is very much better ? 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Question proposed, “ That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,” put, 
 and agreed to. 
 
 Clause 6. — (Short Title and Duration.) 
 
 (1) This Act mav be cited as the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) 
 Act, 1912. 
 
 (2) This Act shall continue in force for three years from that j: 
 date of the passing thereof and no longer, unless Parliament shall 
 otherwise determine. 
 
167 
 
 years”) and to insert instead thereof one yeai. 
 
 T would submit to the Committee, having regard to the fact 
 
 Sgardt ’^^ds of 
 
 at° the expiration of twelve months then it 
 
 Sts 
 
 woufd a&rdthh House an opportunity of W1 debate and full inquiry 
 into the working of the Act after twelve months experience. 
 
 Mr BUXTON • I am inclined to think that, so far as the 
 
 mmmmm 
 
 years from three to six. 
 
 Mr. HABOLD SMITH : 
 
 This is not a party amendment. 
 
 Mr BUXTON* As the honourable member who moves this 
 another. At all events, the honourable ' 
 
 that we are making-and professedly niakmg-this Bill ateinpo y 
 
 measure, but under the provisions of the Bill f e .™ C ; ould be 
 will provide for agreements lasting a year, and I think it wou 
 Tverv serious thing if the Act only continued m force for that time. 
 Tf it wme found by experience that it had been successful, then t 
 
 lU d be wiS the powU of the House of Commons to continue r 
 
 Operation for a further period. I think it is necessa y to pve a fan 
 period in the Bill. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I desire to enter my protest very 
 
 beginning to end . I think the right honourable gentleman, therclore, 
 might well have spared us any sneer. 
 
168 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Beally, I was not endeavouring in any sense! 
 of the term to make a party point. I can assure the noble lord and 
 the Committee that I am extremely grateful for the way in which 
 they have dealt with this Bill throughout this long sitting. No 
 party question arises. I think there is a most earnest desire on both 
 sides to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. I am sorry my attempt 
 at a little mathematical humour should have given any offence. I 
 endeavoured to deal with the amendment on its merits, and on 
 merits I really think three years are better than one. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : I beg to move in Sub-section 
 (2) to leave out the words “ unless Parliament shall otherwise 
 determine.” 
 
 If the Act is good at the end of three years the House will be 
 able to renew it ; if bad, it will not renew it. Any attempt to 
 prejudice this House in its decision with regard to the Act would be 
 a great mistake. The words in question are of no value, and I hope 
 the Government will let us send the Act out in an impartial frame 
 of mind. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The object of putting in these words is that if 
 it is thought desirable by Parliament to continue the Act for a 
 further period, it can be put, as many other Acts are, in the Expiring 
 Laws Continuance Act, and then the House of Commons has full ! 
 control from year to year, and can continue the Act without any 
 trouble. 
 
 Mr. CASSEL : It would be interesting to the Committee to 
 have the opinion of the Attorney -General as to the effect of these • 
 words if inserted. According to the President of the Board of 
 Trade if these words were left out, everything could be done just as \ 
 if they were left in. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I did not understand from the speech 
 of the Prime Minister on the Second Reading that the purpose of 
 these words was to enable the Bill to be renewed at the end of three 
 years. I read the words of the Prime Minister as meaning that this j 
 Act shall continue in force for three years and no longer, unless 1 
 Parliament otherwise determines. That suggests to Parliament that 
 when the matter is dealt with finally and satisfactorily — in a way ! 
 very different from the way suggested in this Bill that this Bill j 
 would then come to an end — that it was to enforce the temporary 
 character of the Act, and not to enforce its renewal, that these words 
 were put in. That is what I understood from the speech of the 
 Prime Minister. Having this in view, I handed in words which 
 would make the intention still more clear. I will not deal with them 
 now, but that was the reason for the words I shall move in a 
 
169 
 
 tnotnent, namely, to make it clear that this is meant as merely a 
 temporary settlement, and not as a permanent settlement. 
 
 Mr. JAMES HOPE : Does it make the smallest difference 
 whether the words are in or not ? 
 
 Sir EUFUS ISAACS: The insertion of the words make no 
 difference. The object of keeping them in is to follow other Acts. 
 
 Question put, “ That the words proposed to be left out stand 
 part of the clause.” 
 
 The CHAIEMAN : The Ayes have it. 
 
 Mr. EAMSAY MACDONALD : Owing to the noise, Mr. 
 Chairman, I did not gather your decision ; may we have it again ? 
 
 The CHAIEMAN : I put the Question, and not hearing any 
 opposition, I gave my decision that the Ayes have it. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : I think this is a matter of very great 
 importance. It is not possible to conduct the proceedings if the 
 Chair does not listen. We all heard honourable members opposite 
 challenge a division, and I think we are entitled to a division. 
 
 The CHAIEMAN : I repeatedly put the Question in order to 
 ensure that if honourable members wanted a division they should 
 have it. 
 
 Mr. EAMSAY MACDONALD: With all respect, Mr. 
 
 Chairman, I could not do no more than I did. Every time 
 you put the Question I shouted “ No,” and my honourable 
 friends above me did the same thing. 
 
 The CHAIEMAN : If that is so, it was a pure mistake on my 
 part. I am quite willing to meet the honourable gentleman, but I 
 certainly understood the intention of the Committee to be in the 
 opposite direction. I shall therefore put the Question again. 
 
 Question again put, “ That the words proposed to be left out 
 stand part of the clause.” 
 
 The Committee divided : Ayes, 212 ; Noes, 72. 
 
170 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Amory, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Armitage, R. 
 
 Baker, Harold T. (Accrington 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Barnston, H. 
 
 Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E. 
 Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North 
 Brady, Patrick Joseph 
 Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Bryce, J. Annan 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N. 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cator, John 
 
 Cecil, Lord H. (Oxford University 
 Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 Clough, William 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 Cullinan, John 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Delany, William 
 Denman, Hon. R. D. 
 
 Dillon, John 
 Dixon, Charles Harvey 
 Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley 
 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 
 Farrell, James Patrick 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Field, William 
 
 Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 i 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gibbs, George Abraham 
 Gilmour, Captain J. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldman, Charles Sidney 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E, 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbournd 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayward, Evan 
 
lelme, Norval Watson 
 lelmsley, Viscount 
 lenry, Sir Charles S. 
 ligharn, John Sharp 
 lobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H 
 Jolt, Richard Burning 
 lughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 [ones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth 
 Tones, Lief S. (Notts, Rushcliffe 
 Tones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Tones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, Matthew 
 Kelly, Edward 
 Kilbride, Denis 
 King, J. (Somerset N. 
 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. 
 Molton) 
 
 Lardner, James Carrige Rushe 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Lloyd, G. A. 
 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 
 , MacNeill, J. G. S. (Donegal, South 
 I Macpherson, James Ian 
 s MacVeagh, Jeremiah 
 McGhee, Richard 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M‘Laren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, S. Augustine’s 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 
 171 
 
 Montague, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Morrison-Bell, Captain E. F. 
 
 (Ashburton) 
 
 Muldoon, John 
 Munro, Robert 
 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Nugent, Sir Walter Richard 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Doherty, Philip 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 Rawson, Colonel Richard H. 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rowlands, James 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen 
 
 • Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees 
 Sanders, Robert Arthur 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 
172 
 
 Scott, Sir S., (Marylebone, W. 
 Seely, Col. Et. Hon. J. E. B. 
 
 Shortt, Edward 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 
 Stanier, Beville 
 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 
 Steel-Maitland, A. D. 
 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 
 Sutherland, John E. 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W. 
 Thorne, G. E. (Wolverhampton 
 Thynne, Lord Alexander 
 Touche, Alexander 
 Trevelyan Charles Philips 
 Tullibardine, Marquess of 
 
 Yerney, Sir H. 
 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Ward, A. S. (Herts., Watford 
 Waring, Walter 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradeston 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whyte, A. F. (Perth 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, Et. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N: 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks., Eipo 
 
 Young, William (Perth, East 
 Younger, Sir George 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes : — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 Ashley, Wilfrid W. 
 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Baird, J. L. 
 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 Bridgeman, William Clive 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Cautley, Henry Strother 
 Cave, George 
 Chaloner, Col. E. G. W. 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 
 Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. 
 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Hamersley, Alfred St. George 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Hope, J. Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 Dawes, J. A. Jones, Edgar E. (Merthyr Tydvil 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jowett, Frederick William 
 
jansbury, George 
 jarmor, Sir J. 
 
 Macdonald, J. Eamsay (Leicester 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 darkham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 j; Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 
 I dills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 liorrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 
 j ( Ieville, Reginald J. N. 
 
 II 
 
 t.)’ Grady, James 
 «j ( )rmsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pollard, Sir George H. 
 pollock, E. M. 
 j?ringle, William M. R. 
 
 173 
 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smith, Harold (Warrington 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Wardle, G. J. 
 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Pointer. 
 
 Question, “ That the Clause stand part of the Bill,” put, and 
 agreed to. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : We now go on to the new clauses, and 
 there is one in the name of the noble lord the honourable Member 
 for Hitchin, which I have some doubt about, but I desire to do him 
 justice and will therefore call upon him. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : I beg to move the following new 
 clause : 
 
 (1) Any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Board 
 of Trade that by reason of any adjudication under this Act he has 
 been prevented from fulfilling a contract entered into before the 
 19th day of March, 1912, without suffering pecuniary loss shall be 
 entitled to compensation. 
 
 (2) There shall be deducted from any payment made in respect 
 of a royalty on coal, or in respect of any dividends, profits, salaries, 
 or wages in connection with coal mining, in the manner prescribed 
 by the Board of Trade, such percentage as shall be from time to 
 time prescribed by the Board of Trade, and the sums so deducted 
 shall be paid to the Board of Trade to form a fund out of which the 
 compensation granted und$r this section shall be paid. 
 
174 
 
 I know the difficulty which lies in the way of a private member 
 who desires to do justice. It is exceedingly hard, and I am quite 
 aware that the second sub-section of the new clause is one which 
 exposes me to some criticism. The main object of my proposal, 
 which I wish to draw attention to, is contained in the first 
 sub-section. Owing to the discussion which took place earlier in 
 the evening upon the amendment of the honourable member for 
 Crewe (Mr. W. McLaren), I need not really deal with the matter at 
 any length, because a good many of the arguments which were used 
 upon it apply to this proposal. The point is quite simple. This j 
 Bill is introduced with a great public object, in order to settle the 
 coal strike. The result may be, and those who know best say that 
 it will be, to increase in certain mines the cost of the production of 
 coal. There is a very large number of districts to which this applies. 
 
 I am told by those who know that as much as ninety per 
 cent, of the coal produced in many of these collieries is sold under 
 contract, six monthly, yearly, and it may be, three yearly, and it is 
 quite plain, therefore, that if the cost of producing the coal is greatly 
 increased a very serious loss may be suffered by those who made the 
 contracts. If the contract has been made under severe foreign 
 competition, as may be the case in a foreign contract, and the profit i 
 has been cut very low, it may result in an actual loss to the 
 contractor in having to fulfil the contract at the price. I do not 
 pretend to judge these things. It may be true, or it may not, but I 
 do say that if such a loss occurs it ought not to be suffered by the 1 
 private individual, but it ought to be borne by some other party. , 
 
 The parties I am forced to suggest in this particular case are 
 those who are generally interested in the coal trade. I do not 
 myself think that that is an ideal solution. The ideal solution 
 would be that it would fall upon the general taxpayer and the 
 Treasury, because I think it is a national purpose which has been j 
 carried out for national reasons, and any loss that is suffered by 
 private individuals ought to be compensated for by the State. That 
 is the view I desire to submit to the Committee, and it seems to me \ 
 to be a view which the Committee will do well to consider even at 
 this late hour. Whilst we are trying to carry through what, I 
 confess, seems to me to be an ill-advised attempt to settle a great 
 national question, I think we ought to take care that we are not in 
 so doing inflicting injustice upon private individuals. The proposal 
 I make is that “ any person who can show to the satisfaction of the 
 Board of Trade that by reason of any adjudication under this Act 
 he has been prevented from fulfilling a contract ” — the wording is 
 really not very important, but this is the substance of the amendment, 
 that if he suffers pecuniary loss he shall be entitled to compensation. 
 
 I suggest to the Government that although they were unable to 
 accept the amendment of the honourable member for Crewe, which 
 would in fact have thrown the burden of the loss upon the wage 
 earner, they may consider this proposal. I propose, of course, to 
 throw it upon the whole body of the coal trade, but I do not exactly 
 
175 
 
 mean to do that ; I should prefer that it should be thrown upon the 
 taxpayer at large, and if the Government can make this amendment 
 their own they can easily put it down in some way in which the 
 compensation can be ultimately derived from that source. I do 
 suggest very strongly that it ought not to fall upon a private 
 individual but upon some public authority. 
 
 Question proposed, “ That the clause be read a second time.” 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS: As the noble lord has said, we have 
 discussed the general question raised by the first part of the clause 
 he is moving in an earlier part of the debate in Committee. 
 Therefore, I do not propose to go into that matter again. The 
 novel character of the new clause moved by the noble lord is the 
 way in which it provides for compensation, and it is to that I am 
 going to devote the few observations I shall make. I hope the 
 noble lord will pardon me when I say that probably no one is more 
 fully aware of the impossibility of dealing with the matter in the 
 way he has suggested than himself. It would, no doubt, be an ideal 
 state of things always to be able to give compensation to any person 
 who has suffered loss, but here compensation is to be given whenever 
 a person can prove he has not been able to fulfil a contract. Who, 
 I should like to know, is to inquire into the matter, and where are 
 you to find the money ? 
 
 Lord BOBEKT CECIL : The Board of Trade is to inquire. 
 
 Sir BUFUS ISAACS : It really would be a very difficult matter 
 to determine. Apart from that, from whom is the compensation 
 to be obtained ? The noble lord has a proposal which is extremely 
 interesting. It is that the compensation money should come out of 
 the royalty on coal or from dividends resulting from the working of 
 coal mines. The suggestion, in short, is that there should be a 
 kind of compensation fund made up from various levies on the coal 
 trade. There would be no objection to that, I suppose, on the part 
 of persons who are not concerned in any way in the coal trade. But 
 I cannot see that it would be just to impose on persons who are 
 royalty owners, or those who derive profits or dividends from mines, 
 a burden of this kind. It is, I am sure, an impracticable proposal, 
 and could not be carried out. 
 
 • 
 
 Lord BOBEBT CECIL : The Attorney-General has not done 
 justice to my proposal. I said that this was the best suggestion I 
 could make as a private member. The Attorney-General knows 
 that I cannot propose, under the rules of the House, as I should 
 desire, that the burden of this compensation should be thrown on 
 the Imperial Exchequer. That is where I think it ought to lie. I 
 have to take the next best course, and if I cannot throw the burden 
 on the general body of taxpayers, then I say it ought to be placed 
 
176 
 
 upon the coal trade. But if the Government approve of the principle 
 of compensation it is perfectly easy for them to deal with it. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : If the noble lord would delete the word 
 “ wages ” from the second part of his clause I would support him. 
 I put down an amendment, which was ruled out of order, very 
 nearly to the same effect as that of the noble lord. If he would 
 leave out the word “ wages ” I think honourable gentlemen sitting 
 on these benches would probably support the new clause. 
 
 Lord ROBERT CECIL : As soon as the clause has been read a 
 second time I shall be very glad to consider any amendment. 
 
 Question, “ That the clause be read a second time,” put, and 
 negatived. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : With regard to the proposed new clause 
 (“Restriction on Strikes and Lock-Outs”) standing in the name of 
 the honourable and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), I 
 think it is hardly within the scope of the Bill. 
 
 Mr. CAVE : I beg to submit this to you in favour of the clause 
 being in order. This is a Bill to fix a minimum wage, and the new 
 clause is founded on the view that if you are going to fix a minimum 
 wage in order to prevent a strike you ought at least to prevent a 
 strike against a minimum wage itself. This is closely connected 
 with the main object of the Bill, and it comes within the title which 
 is “ to provide a minimum wage in the case of workmen employed 
 underground in coal mines, and for purposes incidental thereto.” 
 
 The CHAIRMAN : I think I am bound to rule that this 
 introduces quite new matter into the Bill. 
 
 Schedule. 
 
 Districts. 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 Durham 
 
 Cumberland 
 
 Lancashire and Cheshire 
 South Yorkshire 
 West Yorkshire 
 Cleveland 
 
 Derbyshire (exclusive of 
 
 Leicestershire 
 Shropshire 
 North Staffordshire 
 South Stafford and East 
 
 Worcestershire 
 
 South Derbyshire 
 Nottinghamshire 
 
 South Derbyshire) 
 
 Warwickshire 
 Forest of Dean 
 Bristol 
 Somerset 
 North Wales 
 
 South Wales, including Monmouth 
 
 Scotland. 
 
177 
 
 Where a mine, though situate in one of these districts, has for 
 industrial purposes been customarily dealt with in the same manner 
 as a mine situate in an adjoining district, that mine shall for the 
 purposes of this Act be treated as situate in the latter district, if the 
 Joint District Boards of the two districts so agree. 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH: I have an amendment on the Paper to 
 leave out the word “South” (“South Yorkshire”), but after 
 consulting with some of my friends, and knowing, or having some 
 idea, that an arrangement may be made, it is not my intention at this 
 juncture to move; but I reserve to myself the right to put down an 
 amendment on the Report Stage if I am not satisfied. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD : I beg to move after the word “ Stafford ” 
 (“ South Stafford ”), to insert the words (“ exclusive of Cannock 
 Chase) ”. I hope I am right in assuming that the Government will 
 accept this, because Cannock Chase has conditions quite peculiar to 
 itself. It has an output far greater than one or two places which 
 form separate districts. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I find that the exclusion of Cannock Chase 
 from Staffordshire would give satisfaction on both sides, and therefore 
 I agree to it. 
 
 Amendment made. 
 
 Further amendment made : After the words “ (exclusive of 
 Cannock Chase) ” insert the words “ Cannock Chase.” — (Mr. 
 Lloyd.) 
 
 Question proposed, “ That the schedule, as amended, stand part 
 of the Bill,” put, and agreed to. 
 
 L 
 
178 
 
 TUESDAY, MARCH 26th. 
 
 As amended, considered. 
 
 Clause 1, — (Minimum Wage for Workmen Employed Under- 
 ground in Coal Mines.) 
 
 (1) It shall be an implied term of contract for the employment 
 of a workman underground in a coal mine that the employer shall 
 pay to that workman wages at not less than the minimum rate settled 
 under this Act and applicable to that workman, unless it is certified 
 in manner provided by the district rules that the workman is a 
 person excluded under the district rules from the operation of this 
 provision, or that the workman has forfeited the right to wages at 
 the minimum rate by reason of his failure to comply with the 
 conditions with respect to the regularity or efficiency of the work to 
 be performed by workmen laid down by those rules ; and any ; 
 agreement for the payment of wages in so far as it is in contravention 
 of this provision shall be void. 
 
 1 
 
 For the purposes of this Act, the expression “ district rules ” < 
 means rules made under the powers given by this Act by the Joint 
 District Board. 
 
 . 
 
 (2) The district rules shall provide, as respects the district to 
 which they apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the ; 
 minimum rate of aged workmen and infirm workmen, and shall lay 
 down conditions with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the ' 
 work to be performed by the workmen, and provide with respect to, 
 the time for which a workman is to be paid in the event of any ; 
 interruption of work due to an emergency and that a workman shall 
 forfeit the right to wages at the minimum rate if he does not 
 comply with those conditions, except in cases where the failure to 
 comply with the conditions is due to some cause over which he has 
 no control. 
 
 The district rules shall also make provision with respect to the 
 persons by whom and the mode in which any question whether any 
 workman in the district is a workman to whom the minimum rate 
 of wages is applicable, or whether a workman who has not complied 
 with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited his right to 
 wages at the minimum rate is to be decided, and for a certificate 
 being given of any such decision for the purposes of this section. 
 
179 
 
 (3) The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a 
 minimum rate shall operate as from the date of the passing of this 
 Act, although a minimum rate of wages may not have been settled, 
 and any sum which would have been payable under this section to 
 a workman on account of wages if a minimum rate had been settled 
 may be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time 
 after the rate is settled. 
 
 Mr. AMERY : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the 
 word “wages” (“to that workman wages ”), to insert the words 
 in money or otherwise.” 
 
 The object of the amendment which stands in my name is to 
 deal with the point that was raised in Committee by my right 
 honourable friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy). 
 He, on that occasion, moved to add certain words at the end of 
 Sub-section (4) of the clause, to authorise the District Boards to 
 take into consideration cases in which free coal is given to the 
 cottagers or other allowances are made. The President of the 
 Board of Trade, while agreeing with the desirability of that point 
 being taken into consideration, did not think it advisable to limit in 
 that way the absolute freedom given to the District Boards under 
 the existing elasticity clause. While the elasticity clause does give 
 very great freedom to the District Boards to take into consideration 
 any point which may affect the fixing of the minimum wage, it is 
 not quite clear that they can decide any other question than the 
 minimum wage, because there would be the difficulty of creating a 
 separate class where there were men in receipt of free coal or other 
 allowances. Therefore I suggest that the words I propose may 
 make the intention of the right honourable gentleman more clear 
 and give greater freedom to the District Boards. 
 
 The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton) : 
 I will first make this statement in regard to the position of the Bill. 
 Conferences between the parties concerned and representatives of 
 the Government are still continuing, with the object, if possible, 
 of coming to an arrangement in regard to what are called the 5s. 
 and 2s. questions. The discussions are confined to those points 
 only. I am unable to say how far those Conferences are likely to 
 lead to any settlement ; therefore the House must be left free to 
 discuss any amendment on the paper on its merits. The Government 
 think it very important that the Bill should be placed on the Statute 
 Book at the earliest possible moment. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : May I ask on what authority the 
 right honourable gentleman says Conferences are being continued at 
 the present moment with reference to this question ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : They were being conducted when I left a 
 quarter of an hour ago. 
 
180 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY : I think my right honourable 
 
 friend 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER : I think we had better proceed with the 
 matter in hand. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : With regard to the amendment before the 
 House, we have looked carefully into this point. I understand the J 
 honourable gentleman’s amendment is to insert the words, “ in 
 money or otherwise,” in order to include certain men who are now 
 receiving some allowance in coal or something of that sort. I think 
 those allowances should be taken into account in fixing the minimum 
 wage, and that is certainly the intention of the Government in 
 charge of this Bill. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I rise to a point of Order. I beg to state, Sir, 
 that the right honourable gentleman is under a misapprehension, 
 and I think it ought to be put correctly before the House. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. We are now 
 
 discussing the Amendment moved by the honourable member below 
 the Gangway, and any other observations are irrelevant. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I would like to ask your ruling, Sir. The right 
 honourable gentleman has made a statement, and I wish to know ; 
 whether I may not ask a question with regard to it ? 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER : Because one irrelevant statement is made ' 
 that is no reason why others should be made. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I understand the honourable gentleman’s 
 Amendment is to provide that the District Boards may take into ; 
 account any allowances to the men. That has already been covered > 
 by the Bill, and it is clearly the duty of the District Boards to take j 
 those matters into account. J 
 
 Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : As far as I follow it, the j 
 argument of the right honourable gentleman is that the amendment 
 of my honourable friend below the Gangway is a good one, but at 
 the same time he does not think its acceptance necessary, because 
 the Bill already carries out the intention of the amendment. I think 
 I am not misrepresenting the right honourable gentleman. May I 
 point out to him that under this Bill we are entering upon a complete 
 new departure; we are violating the old principle of political economy 
 and in so doing we should not allow the case to go by default — that 
 is to say, we should not be content to take the assurance of the 
 Ministers that the Bill means a certain thing, and we should put 
 into the Bill words which will ensure that the meaning of the 
 Government who are promoting the Bill is carried out. Supposing, 
 for the sake of argument, this Bill becomes law, and that there is 
 
i8i 
 
 I a dispute upon the question. How will that dispute be settled? 
 It will be settled by law, and not by the opinion, biassed or other- 
 wise, of the President of the Board of Trade. It will be no use for 
 the counsel conducting the case to say, “ Even in the debate which 
 took place in the House of Commons on the Report Stage, on such 
 and such a day, it was stated by the President of the Board of Trade 
 that the intention of the Government was to do so and so.” 
 Proceedings in this House of Commons do not govern proceedings 
 in the Law Courts. I appeal to my learned friend behind me and 
 to other honourable and learned gentlemen to enforce what I say, 
 that proceedings in the Law Courts are not governed by proceedings 
 in this House. The Attorney-General knows that as well as I do. 
 I do not understand what is the object of refusing to accept this 
 amendment. Everyone of the Members below the Gangway and 
 Members above the Gangway are equally clear in their desire that 
 this Bill should be explicit and easily “ understanded of the people,” 
 and, if we find that the matter is not clear without the amendment 
 of my honourable friend, then we should insert those words. I, for 
 one, see no reason whatever why they should not be inserted, and I 
 trust my honourable friend will go to a Division on the point. I do 
 not want to repeat the arguments, so far as they have been brought 
 forward by my right honourable friend, in favour of the amendment, 
 because they have not been disputed by the right honourable 
 gentleman. I do not want to take up the time of the House by 
 reiterating and reaffirming something which has been practically 
 accepted by the Government, and unless the Government see fit to 
 change their view I do hope my honourable friend will go to a 
 Division on this amendment. 
 
 Question put, “That those words be there inserted.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 142 ; Noes, 254. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Anstruther Gray, Major William 
 Archer-Shee, Major Martin 
 
 Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J. 
 
 Baird, John Lawrence 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 
 Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond. 
 Barnston, Harry 
 Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E. 
 Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Bennett- Goldney, Francis 
 Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 Bird, Alfred 
 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 Bridgeman, Clive 
 Burdett-Coutts, William 
 Burn, Colonel C. R. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cator, John 
 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 
182 
 
 Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc’r 
 Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred 
 Croft, Henry Page 
 
 Davies David (Montgomery Co. 
 Denniss, E. R. B. 
 
 Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George Denison (Clapham 
 Falle, Bertram Godfray 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead 
 
 Gastrell, Major W. Houghton 
 Gibbs, George Abraham 
 Gilmour, Captain J. 
 
 Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. 
 Goldman, Charles Sydney 
 Gordon, Rt. Hon. J. E. (Brighton 
 Goulding, Edward Alfred 
 Grant, J. A. 
 
 Greene, W. R. 
 
 Gretton, John 
 
 Guinness, Hon. R. (Essex, S.E. 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hambro, Angus Valdemar 
 Hamersley, Alfred St. George 
 Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hill, Sir Clement M. (Shrewsbury 
 Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy 
 Houston, Robert Paterson 
 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 Jessel, Captain Herbert M. 
 
 Kerr- Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Kerry, Earl of 
 Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement 
 Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lawson,Hon.H.(T.H’mts ,MileEn 
 Lee, Arthur Hamilton 
 Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey 
 Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R 
 Long, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee 
 Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbastoi 
 Lyttlelton,Rt.Hon.A.(S.Geo.Han.£ 
 
 MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine 
 Magnus, Sir Philip 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honitcf 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashb’rt 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newman, John R. P. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 
 Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton 
 Perkins, Walter F. 
 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pretyman, Ernest George 
 
183 
 
 Pryce-Jones, Col. E. 
 
 Quilter, Sir William Eley C. 
 
 Ratcliff, R. F. 
 
 Rawson, Col. Richard H. 
 
 Remnant, James Farqnharson 
 Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Royds, Edmund 
 
 Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 Stanier, Beville 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 Steel-Maitland, A. D. 
 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford 
 Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W. 
 
 Terrell, Henry (Gloucester 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Tullibardine, Marquess of 
 
 Yalentia, Viscount 
 
 Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Winterton, Earl 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 
 Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- 
 Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George 
 
 Yate, Col. C. E. 
 
 Yerburgh, Robert 
 Younger, Sir George 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes : — Mr. Amery and Sir E. Banbury. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Alden, Percy 
 
 Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 1 Armitage, Robert 
 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset 
 Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Beale, W. P. 
 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo. 
 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Bethel), Sir John Henry 
 Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Boscawen, Sir A. S. T. Griffith- 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 Brady, Patrick Joseph 
 Brocklehurst, William B. 
 
 Bryce, J. Annan 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 Burns, Rt. Hon. John 
 Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas 
 Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N. 
 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cassel, Felix 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 Clancy, John Joseph 
 Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 
184 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth 
 Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan 
 Dawes, James Arthur 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Denman, Hon. B. D. 
 
 Dickinson, W. H. 
 
 Dillon, John 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, William 
 Du Cros, Arthur Philip 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Bichard Walter 
 
 Farrell, James Patrick 
 Fenwick, Bt. Hon. Charles 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 
 Gelder, Sir William Alfred 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glanville, Harold James 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 Greig, Col. James William 
 Griffith, Ellis Jones 
 Guest, Hon. Major C.H. C. (Pembr’k 
 Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Haekett, John 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Bt. Hon. L. (Bossendale 
 Harcourt, Bobert V. (Montrose 
 Hardie, J. Keir 
 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayward, Evan 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S. 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Bt. Hon. Charles E. H 
 Hodge, John 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Holmes, Daniel Turner 
 Hope John Deans (Haddington 
 Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 Isaacs, Bt. Hon. Sir Bufus 
 
 Jardine, Sir John (Boxburgh 
 Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts., Bushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. Hamlets, 
 Stepney) 
 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 Joyce, Michael ’ 
 
 Keating, Matthew 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 Kennedy, Vincent Paul 
 King, Joseph 
 
 < 
 
 Lambert, Bt. Hon. G. (Devon, 
 
 S. Mol ton) 
 
 Lambert, Bichard (Wilts., Crickls H 
 Lansbury, George 
 Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West • 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland, 
 Cockermouth) 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 
 Lough, Bt. Hon. Thomas 
 
 Lundon, Thomas 
 
 Lyell, Chas. Henry | 
 
 Lynch, Arthur Alfred 
 
 Macdonald, J. B. (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burg 5 
 McGhee, Bichard 
 Macnamara, Bt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 McVeagh, Jeremiah 
 
185 
 
 McCallum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Keginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M‘Mickling, Major Gilbert 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Martin, J. 
 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, Michael 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Mond, Sir Alfred M. 
 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Mooney, John J. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Kt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Neilson, Francis 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Norman, Sir Henry 
 Norton, Captain Cecil W. 
 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 Ogden, Fred 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shaughnessy, P. J. 
 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan V. 
 
 Pointer, Joseph 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Einburgh, Central 
 Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 
 Radford, G. H. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 
 Reddy, Michael 
 
 Redmond, John E. (Waterford 
 
 Redmond, William (Clare 
 
 Richards, Thomas 
 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 
 Roberts, G. H. (Norwich 
 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 
 Rowlands, James 
 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. 
 Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs. Clitheroe 
 Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 
186 
 
 Thomas, Abel, Carmarthen, E. 
 Thorne, G. E. (Wolverhampton 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Wason, Et. Hon. E. (Clackmannan 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 Weigall, Captain A. G. 
 
 White, J. D. (Glasgow, Tradeston 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Whittaker, Et. Hon. Sir Thomas P 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, Et. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N 
 Wilson, W. T. Westhoughton 
 Winfrey, Eichard 
 Wood, Et. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Noes: — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Mr. BEACE rose to move the following amendment, of which 
 notice had been given, after the word “ rate ” (“ minimum rate 
 settled under this Act,”) to insert the words “ for coal hewers.” 
 
 Mr. WALTEE LONG: I 
 now adjourned.” 
 
 beg to move “ That the debate be 
 
 I do so formally in no spirit of controversy or of hostility to the 
 Bill or to the Government, but as a pure matter of business. What 
 is the position in which we find ourselves ? We have just been 
 informed a few moments ago by the right honourable gentleman 
 the President of the Board of Trade, in a statement he read to the 
 House, that the conference is now proceeding, or, at the time the 
 statement was made, that the conference was presumed to be 
 proceeding, and at that conference the question of 5s. and 2s. is 
 being discussed in the hope of coming to an arrangement. Therefore 
 the conference, we gather, cannot be proceeding at the same time 
 as we are discussing that question here with any possible advantage 
 to the 
 
 j 
 
 Mr. KEIE HAEDIE : On a point of Order. May I state that , 
 the next amendment does not raise the point, but deals with the j 
 rates to be paid to coal hewers ? 
 
 Mr. WALTEE LONG : If I may respectfully say so, that is 
 not a point of Order, but even if it were, I do not think it is material 
 what is the next amendment we are going to discuss. The whole 
 value of this Bill turns upon the form which it will ultimately take j 
 when it leaves this House. Honourable gentlemen below the 
 
187 
 
 Gangway opposite are vitally interested in its passage through this 
 House. They have made it perfectly clear that the value of the 
 I Bill to them will be largely determined by the decision at which 
 the House arrives in regard to the amendment to which I have 
 referred. We have now the advantage of the presence of the Prime 
 Minister, and I make my motion formally and, as I have said, in no 
 spirit of hostility, but in order that the Prime Minister may tell the 
 House before we proceed further what is the present position of 
 things, and what prospect we have of discussing usefully here this 
 Bill, having regard to what is proceeding in another place. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith) : I am very sorry I 
 did not hear the opening remarks of the right honourable gentleman, 
 because I have only just come from the conference, and therefore I 
 do not quite know what are the grounds on which the motion is 
 made which you, Sir, have just submitted from the Chair. I hope 
 the House will proceed with the Bill. There is no reason why they 
 should not, whatever may be the result of the negotiations and 
 conferences that have taken place. In the opinion of the Govern- 
 ment it is of the utmost urgency that the Bill should be passed into 
 law without delay. I explained on Friday last the position of the 
 Government quite plainly in regard to the amendment which we 
 are now approaching. I then said, and I now repeat, that the 
 Government cannot consent to insert in this Bill any figures. Our 
 position in regard to that is exactly the same as it was then. I will 
 not labour the matter, because I then gave the reasons for the 
 conclusion at which we had arrived, and I have not yet seen any 
 attempt to answer them. While I still think, for the reasons which 
 I then gave — that it would be inexpedient and impossible to insert 
 specific figures in this Bill — I recognise as fully as any person, and 
 indeed possibly more fully, after many days of laborious and anxious 
 consideration, the desirability of arriving, outside the Bill, at some 
 arrangement between the parties concerned in regard to this 
 particular and somewhat limited question as to the wages to be paid 
 to the day-workers, both adults and boys, underground. I think I 
 said on Friday — I am sure I did — that so far as I was able to form 
 a judgment in the matter, I did not think, taking the country as a 
 whole, that 5s. in the case of adults and 2s. in the case of boys was 
 an unreasonable amount. I am still of that opinion, but I must 
 add, in fairness to all concerned, that I think it would be far better 
 from every point of view for that question to be left to be settled 
 district by district — it cannot be settled nationally — by a perfectly 
 impartial tribunal, such as that which we propose to set up under 
 this Bill, than that it should be laid down as a cast-iron rule in the 
 language of an Act of Parliament. I think that it is in the interests 
 of the men as well as in the interests of the trade. I am betraying 
 no confidence, I think, when I say that I made the suggestion to-day 
 to both parties that we should treat this question of the minimum 
 wage for day-workers and boys as a separate question from that of 
 
188 
 
 the wage to be paid to the hewers, by which I mean a question 
 which might be settled for the country at large, with certain 
 elasticity, with regard to particular classes of men and particular 
 conditions of work, whereas the question of the hewers is essentially 
 one which must be settled, having regard to the special circum- 
 stances of each particular district. I made that suggestion, but it 
 has not found acceptance. That being so, unless an agreement — 
 which I still hope may not be beyond the range of possibility — is 
 arrived at between the parties outside the Bill, the Government will 
 ask the House to take the Bill as it stands and give its assent to the 
 provisions therein contained. I do not want to make a Second 
 Reading speech. If the right honourable gentleman had not made 
 his motion I should not have been able to have said as much as I 
 have. I do not complain in the least of the right honourable 
 gentleman’s action. The House is quite entitled to ask, and I am 
 bound to tell them, why we delayed the consideration of this Bill 
 from Friday last until to-day in a great national emergency. 
 We did so because we hoped — although those hopes have been 
 disappointed — the controversy having been so much narrowed 
 when the question of the scheduled rates of wages for hewers had 
 been practically put out of the case — that as regards this relatively 
 small matter of 5s. and 2s. some agreement might be come to 
 between the parties mutually satisfactory. We have laboured for 
 that strenuously, persistently, and I am afraid at a great trial to the 
 patience of people who are not concerned in the negotiations. It is 
 with the most profound disappointment that I have at this moment 
 to confess to the House that so far those efforts have been 
 unavailing. 
 
 With the strongest sense of responsibility that any man could ever 
 feel in the position which I hold, 1 still say to both parties that if in 
 this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour they cannot come to a 
 reasonable arrangement on a matter relatively small in its dimensions, 
 but which is capable, if it is left unsettled, of producing infinite 
 mischief and havoc to the community, they will have a very serious 
 account to render to history. The Government have done what 
 they could. We postponed legislation until the latest possible 
 moment. We spent three weeks of daily, and I was going to say 
 nightly, labour in attempts to bring the parties to an accommodation. 
 That labour was not altogether fruitlessly expended, and that time 
 was not altogether fruitlessly employed, because, as I have pointed 
 out, the area of controversy has been substantially contracted and 
 curtailed. But now we have reached a stage at which, unless 
 agreement can be come to voluntarily between the parties concerned, 
 the only course open to us is to ask the House to proceed with this 
 Bill in the form in which we have laid it before them, with a perfect 
 willingness to accept reasonable amendments in points of detail, and 
 to allow the Bill to pass at the earliest moment into law. Then, 
 when it will be part of the law of the land that in the opinion of 
 Parliament underground miners should be guaranteed a reasonable 
 
minimum wage, when it will further be part of the law of the land 
 I that perfectly fair and impartial machinery has been set up to 
 (guarantee for them the ascertainment and determination of that 
 wage — I say when the law has been placed in that condition, if the 
 ! stoppage of work, with the infinitely mischievous and damaging 
 | results which in ever-increasing volume it has entailed to all classes 
 I of innocent people in the community continues, those responsible 
 I will have a responsibility which they will find it very difficult to 
 discharge. 
 
 I do not wish now, on the other hand, to apportion responsibility 
 or to bestow praise in one quarter and blame in another. I know 
 prefectly well the difficulties with which the miners have had to 
 contend. The Government have shown ever since they undertook 
 the investigation of this problem the most earnest desire to accept 
 the principle for which the miners have been contending — namely, 
 the principle of the minimum wage. We have gone beyond pre- 
 cedent, some people say beyond principle — certainly we have gone 
 far beyond precedent — in asking Parliament, even in a temporary 
 measure, to recognise and accept it. We have further endeavoured, 
 with the utmost care and impartiality, to provide machinery by 
 which in all the various districts of the country the amount of that 
 wage shall be accurately and equitably ascertained. I am sorry 
 that on this outstanding point of 5s. and 2s. an agreement has not 
 been come to. But even if an agreement is not come to can any of 
 those of my honourable friends who sit below the Gangway who 
 represent the miners’ interests and the Labour party, doubt that, if 
 the case is as strong as they, think it is, and as I have said perfectly 
 frankly I think it is, that as a rule, subject no doubt to exceptional 
 conditions in particular cases, 5s is not an excessive wage for an 
 adult employed underground, and 2s. is not an excessive wage for a 
 boy of fourteen employed underground — can they doubt that the 
 Boards set up under this Bill will give effect to what is obviously 
 just? Can they contend, in face of the changes in the law we are 
 now making, that it is right to go on subjecting the community to 
 this ever-increasing burden of suffering and loss ? The Legislature 
 by an unexampled act has striven to purge the law of all possibility 
 of taint. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time. I 
 speak under the stress of very strong feeling. I can say for myself 
 and my colleagues we have exhausted all the powers of persuasion, 
 argument, and negotiation at our disposal, and we press this Bill as 
 affording the best possible solution in the great emergency with 
 which we are confronted. With a full sense of our own short- 
 comings, I claim that we have done our best in the public interests 
 with perfect fairness and impartiality. 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : As the right honourable gentleman would 
 have seen if he had been present when this motion was moved, the 
 sole object of my right honourable friend was to give the right 
 honourable gentleman an opportunity of making such a statement 
 

 190 
 
 as he has now made to the House ; and I am sure there is no one 
 who listened to that statment who does not feel grateful to my right 
 honourable friend for having given the opportunity of having it 
 made, and also that no one could possibly feel more strongly the real 
 responsibility which weighs upon him, or could have done his best 
 from the point of view which he thought right with more earnestness 
 and with a more sincere desire for the good of the country as a 
 whole than the Prime Minister. This is far above and beyond any 
 ordinary question of party politics. It is far beyond also any 
 question of making a good or bad settlement. The speech to which 
 we have just listened is one which, not on account of its merits as a 
 speech, but on account of the earnestness and sincerity with which 
 it expressed the real feelings of the Prime Minister, will always be 
 remembered by those who heard it. I share to the full the regret 
 expressed by the Prime Minister that the terms of an agreement 
 have not been settled outside, and that it is not possible for us now 
 either to leave the Bill alone or to proceed with other business with 
 the knowledge that this great calamity has come to an end. I am 
 sure also that no one who listened to the Prime Minister from the 'j 
 point of view which he put in regard to this minimum wage — 
 which, as I have said before, so far as desiring to see miners obtain 
 such a wage, is the feeling of every member of this House to , 
 whatever party he belongs — no one who listened to the speech can 
 doubt that under the proposals of this Bill that minimum wage will 
 be given if the conditions of the trade make it possible to give it, 
 and why anyone should think it should be given under other ! 
 conditions I for one am at a loss to understand, I say this is far 
 beyond party polities. We have thought that the Government had ' 
 not taken in their Bill the best possible method of dealing with the 1 
 matter. We did not think so, but it is the method which they have 
 adopted. The House of Commons has shown decisively that it 
 desires that the method of the Government should be tried, and I 
 can say for all of us here that no obstacle whatever will be put by , 
 us in the way of the Bill passing as rapidly as possible. 
 
 There is only one thing more that I feel it my duty to say, 
 although I am afraid it will not command such universal agreement. 
 
 I know that the Prime Minister had it in his mind ; I know that 
 both he and other members of the Government in the last few days 
 have clearly stated it ; but I think it is necessary now that it should 
 be plainly before the country. The position is this. The Govern- 
 ment have gone to unprecedented lengths in their efforts to meet 
 the grievances of the miners. They are going to put those efforts 
 into a Bill which will have the authority of Parliament behind it. 
 When they have done that, I do not say that it will end this crisis. 
 
 I trust that it will. I trust that the men will go back under the j 
 conditions which the Government have laid down in their Bill, j 
 But if they do not, what then ? What is the position ? The 
 Government surely have a right then to say : “We have tried to j 
 meet those grievances, we have shown the way in which they ought 
 
191 
 
 bo be met in the Bill which is now the law of the land : the members 
 bf the Miners’ Federation are not merely members of that federation, 
 ,they are citizens of this country, they are under its Government, 
 and whatever may be their view we rely upon their obeying the law 
 [las the law is now established. We say this further : that unless 
 society is to fall to pieces the whole resources of this country will be 
 (used to protect from molestation any man, in any part of the 
 jcountry, who desires to obey the law.” 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : The right honourable gentle- 
 man the leader of the Opposition very accurately gauged the feeling 
 of the House when he made the observation before launching into 
 the latter part of his speech, that he did not think it would receive 
 the same approval as the previous part of his speech had done. The 
 miners of this country are a law-abiding people. They will consider 
 with that in mind any legislation in the shape of advice or mandate 
 which this House may give them. I hope the right honourable 
 gentleman in respect to another Bill which has been promised will 
 give precisely the same advice to his own followers. There is 
 another section of the country that has prided itself, at any rate so 
 far as its words are concerned, a little more frequently, and a little 
 more flamboyantly, regarding its loyalty than have the members of 
 the Miners’ Federation. I hope when the time comes, they will take 
 the good examlpe set, and that the right honourable gentleman will 
 repeat to them that part of his speech when and if the occasion 
 arises. I regret that it was necessary for me to make these observations, 
 but under the circumstances I am perfectly certain that the House 
 expected nothing less from me. 
 
 I heard, I am sure in common with every member of this House 
 with regret, the statement made by the Prime Minister. When I 
 made the somewhat desperate attempt on Friday to keep the door 
 open by suggesting, as I did, that the schedule relating to the 
 hewers might be laid on one side and the 5s. and the 2s. taken up 
 separately, I did hope, that even at the last hour, some arrangement 
 might be come to outside this House between the owners and the 
 men. I have not had the same intimate relationship with both sides 
 as the Prime Minister has had, but I can assure him that every 
 member sitting here shares with him his feelings of regret and 
 disappointment that he has had to make the statement that he has 
 now made. With reference to the schedule, with reference to the 
 5s. and the 2s., that has to be the subject of an amendment about to 
 be moved, and I do not propose therefore to say anything on that. 
 I would like, however, to say this : in this House we can look at 
 things perhaps with a detachment of mind and with an impartiality 
 of passion which is impossible as regards the great masses of men 
 who have been engaged in a very desperate struggle. 
 
 I only wish honourable members of this House could put them- 
 selves in the position of the men who are at the present moment on 
 
192 
 
 strike. It is very difficult to do so ; it is very easy for us — we 
 believe it when we state it — to say to these men that these courts of 
 arbitration are going to be absolutely impartial. It is very easy for 
 us to profess ourselves, and to persuade ourselves, that when the 
 courts meet that justice, even-handed justice, is to be done. But 
 honourable members must remember that these men have got 
 experience. Honourable members must remember that this contest 
 was not entered upon in a light-hearted way. For long, weary 
 weeks and months these men, through their representatives, have 
 done their very best to settle this question without a strike, and, 
 when a strike was declared, to settle it without a Bill. We have 
 got to do something more than merely express the opinion, which 
 we ourselves believe, in order to convince these men that their 
 cause is safe in the hands of the courts. Moreover, are we quite sure 
 that the owners ought not to have the same sort of reflection cast 
 upon them as has been cast upon the men ? After all, the owners have 
 got a responsibility in this matter — a very grave responsibility. 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER: I did not seek to apportion the 
 blame or the responsibility. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : It is perfectly true that the . 
 right honourable gentleman in turning to us did, I think, make a 
 special appeal to us. (An Hon. Member : “ No.”) Well, I under- 
 stood so. I should be very pleased if I am mistaken 
 
 The PRIME MINISTER: After the Act is passed. 
 
 Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD : After the Act is passed ; but 
 that depends upon the terms of the Act itself. I want to say 
 nothing, and I want to do nothing, which will make peace either 
 difficult or impossible : but this House must remember that it has 
 to deal with men who are out on strike for a specific purpose. < 
 Unless we can give them some sort of guarantee which they under- j 
 stand that that purpose is to a reasonable extent to be achieved, this j 
 House cannot expect that legislation like this is going to do what 
 honourable members would like it to do. That is a reasonable > 
 position. Whether the House understands it or not, I am afraid 
 that that is the experience that this legislation is going to meet. 
 In making these remarks I should like to say that the feeling which 
 we have got here, the feeling of peace, of a profound desire to bring 
 both sides together to come to a settlement without legislation, has 
 been, so far as we are concerned, thwarted at every turn by the 
 attitude of the owners themselves. They have not budged one inch 
 from the position taken before legislation was introduced. They 
 cannot possibly resist the appeal which we make to them here and 
 now before the last hour has struck, if they are going to go even- 
 handed before the public after this Bill has been passed ! They 
 cannot possibly resist our appeal to them to-day, even before the 
 third reading of this Bill is given, to meet the men and to agree to j 
 
 j 
 
 h 
 
193 
 
 something which is substantial, and which enable the leaders of the 
 men to accept the legislation, and go and tell their followers that 
 the Bill should be accepted loyally and whole-heartedly, and put 
 immediately into operation. That is the duty, that is the function, 
 that is the responsibility of the owners now, and if they fail to meet 
 it, then they must certainly not only share, but share most largely, 
 the responsibility for any deadlock that may come in consequence. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I should certainly not have risen 
 had it not been for the last words of the honourable gentleman the 
 Member for Leicester. Before alluding to them, as I am addressing 
 the House, I should like to confirm entirely what has fallen from 
 my right honourable friend below me as to the manner in which the 
 Prime Minister has conducted these negotiations. Owners certainly 
 who have had the advantage of being present at these deliberations 
 realise fully how hard he has struggled, and appreciate entirely the 
 pathetic appeal that has been just now made to us. But I would 
 not have it go out from this House that the owners have not 
 equally endeavoured to find some settlement of this dispute, not on 
 account of themselves, not for their own sake, but on account of the 
 suffering which the country is undergoing in consequence of this 
 dispute. We at all events, in my opinion, if I may speak for the 
 coal owners, have a perfectly clear conscience in connection with 
 what has been going on for the last few weeks. The honourable 
 gentleman the Member for Leicester just now tried to throw back 
 the burden of responsibility upon ourselves. How can he say what 
 he did when in the initial stages, before the strike had commenced, 
 the owners — by far the largest majority of them, at all events — 
 agreed to the proposals put forward for consideration by His 
 Majesty’s Government? They agreed to them both in principle 
 and in detail. 
 
 When the honourable gentleman the Member for Leicester 
 says we have not budged it is because we have not budged from the 
 opinion of the Government themselves as to the way that this 
 matter should be settled. Can those whom he was speaking to 
 say the same thing ? I do not want to recriminate — this is not the 
 moment for so doing — I do not desire to raise in any sense — as I 
 could do — any issue at this moment as to whether one side may 
 have been wiser than the other. All I do desire to say, now that 
 the matter has been raised so roughly by the honourable member, is 
 that, at all events, we feel that we have done our best to promote a 
 settlement ; we did it by accepting that which we intensely disliked 
 for the sake and advantage of the country, and we thought we did 
 wisest by following the advice of those who as the Executive of this 
 country had a right, at all events, to put forward a scheme, whether 
 we agreed with it or not. We thought it was our duty as far as 
 possible to fall in with that scheme. If we have not budged it is 
 because we have stood beside the Government. It is unfair to say 
 
 M 
 
194 
 
 that the responsibility should be put upon us, and to say that we | 
 have done nothing in connection with peace. 
 
 Mr. LONG : After the speech of the Prime Minister, for which 
 I desire to thank him, I would ask leave to withdraw my motion. j 
 
 Motion, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word ( 
 “ rate ” (“ the minimum rate settled under this Act ”), to insert the ] 
 words “for coal hewers.” 
 
 \ 
 
 I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks upon this amend- ! 
 ment which I have put down on the paper. We desire in this 
 amendment to make the law read as it ought to read if it is to give 
 that protection to the hewer that the Government say they desire 
 to do. 
 
 Mr. EDMUND HARVEY : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : As I understand the amendment of my 
 honourable friend, it would really be consequential upon another 
 amendment of his lower down on the paper with reference to the 
 question of 5s. a day for adults and 2s. a day for boys. It would 
 certainly come in better after that amendment. If, therefore, the 
 honourable member accepts that suggestion, it could be discussed 
 later on if the occasion arose. At present I must refuse to accept 
 the words. 
 
 M. BRACE : May I then, Mr. Speaker, accept the suggestion 
 of the right honourable gentleman, and move my second amend- 
 ment, which is in — 
 
 Sub-section (1), after the word “workman” (“the minimum 
 rate settled under this Act and applicable to that workman”), to 
 insert the words “ and the 5s. per day for adults and 2s. per day for 
 boys, for those engaged at fixed wages.” 
 
 The decision which the House comes to upon this amendment 
 will certainly have a determining influence upon the first amend- 
 ments. May I be allowed to say that I heard the Prime v Minister’s 
 speech with a great deal of sympathy and a great deal of regret. 
 The miners’ representatives have felt that the work done by the 
 Prime Minister entitles him to the publie testimony that they are 
 under very great obligations to him and his colleagues for what he 
 and they have done. But we feel more than ordinary regret at the 
 position taken up by the right honourable gentleman in connection 
 with the proposal of 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys. That is one of 
 the questions that the House, in our opinion, ought really to accept. 
 It ought to accept it from the standpoint of expediency. I note that 
 
195 
 
 honourable and right honourable gentlemen opposite were rather 
 disposed to question the language of my honourable friend the 
 Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) when he was 
 speaking of the leaders being able to go to their men. If this House 
 Its under the impression that miners can always be persuaded to do 
 | what the leaders want them to do they show that they have little 
 experience of the working of miners’ organisations. What we feel 
 1 is that the miners ought to have reasonable ground for the advice 
 . we give them, so that they may resume work without delay. What 
 the men will do it is impossible for any member of this House to 
 say at this juncture. We have a conference later on to-day in which 
 we shall have the whole position put before us, and then we shall 
 have to decide our attitude. But I would like to say the miners 
 are as anxious to go to work, as the nation is they should go to work, 
 but if they are to go to work they must be assured that the substantial 
 grievance on account of which they stopped work shall be rectified, 
 or that the settlement carries with it an assurance that it shall be 
 rectified, and that is why we believe that this 5s. for adults and 2s. 
 for boys that we have continually pressed upon the Government 
 ought to be accepted. 
 
 It is more than passing strange that if in these two figures we 
 are now face to face with an economic problem, that a large number 
 of the colliery owners pay this money now and not, be it noted, the 
 owners of the wealthy collieries making substantial profits and 
 dividends, but the owners of the inferior colliery property ; it is 
 those who pay the 5s. and the 2s.. and therefore it cannot be an 
 economic problem. I hope the House will act as arbiter between 
 the colliery owners and the workmen upon this matter. I should 
 have thought this would have been an uncontroversial question, and 
 that the colliery owners would be willing to accept this 5s. for adults 
 and 2s. for boys. After all the men in this category are in an entirely 
 different position to the other classes of workmen included in the 
 other schedules. These men are entitled to 5s. not for economic 
 reasons, but for humanitarian reasons. I have said it before, and I 
 should like to say it again, because I believe it is a profound truth 
 that the great wealth of the nation is not its gold and silver, but its 
 men and women, and if they are most precious possessions of our 
 national life, is not the nation under an obligation to most jealously 
 guard it in this instance by including in this Bill 5s. for adults ? 
 These men are engaged not in producing coal, but in hauling it and 
 making it possible to have it hauled. 
 
 Before the Eight Hours Act came into operation they got more 
 wages than this because they were allowed to work overtime. When 
 the Eight Hours Act came into operation they were not allowed to 
 work overtime, and I rejoice -that the day had come when men were 
 able to earn wages at reasonable shift work. If the proposition is 
 [ made to me that because of the Eight Hours Act collieries are not 
 able to pay the same wages to this class of labour as before, let me 
 tell the House that since the Eight Hours Act came into force the 
 
196 
 
 output was increased last year by 7,500,000 tons of coal, and thj 
 output last year was 4,000,000 tons more than in any record year i{ 
 mining experience in this country. If these men be part and parcel 
 of the productive machinery in increasing that output of coal, surell 
 it is not unreasonable that they should be given more wages to-daf 
 than they used to receive, and that they should be given wag( 
 to-day plus the overtime which they received formerly. That 
 our case. It is founded upon a great principle, because we belief 
 these men ought not to be asked to work underground for less than 
 
 5s. per shift, and it is because of that we ask the Government not to 
 send us to the arbitration tribunals upon this question. Let them 
 make it clear that this 5s. shall be the bedrock of the wages these t 
 men receive. I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for hi» 
 declaration, that in his judgment, upon the case presented to hin® 
 there is no answer to the case of 5s. for adults. I ask the Prim® 
 Minister and his Government to put into legal language the opinion® 
 expressed from the Front Bench. It is because we think the case; 
 is unanswerable, and because we think the Government and the J 
 House of Commons ought to give this right to the men, that I beg 
 to move my amendment. 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : The honourable member who 
 moved the amendment has done so in a persuasive manner 
 
 Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM : On a point of order, Mr® 
 Speaker. I understand the noble lord is opposing the amendment® 
 Should it not have a seconder ? fl 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER : The amendment was proposed and seconde® 
 before. The honourable member in making his second speech spok® 
 by leave of the House. ® 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : The honourable gentleman whc® 
 moved the amendment has been so persuasive that I am afraid if ® 
 did not know the question and had not studied it I should have beer® 
 almost inclined to agree with him. But just let us consider the 
 position in which we are at the present moment. The whole 
 difference between the owners and the men has been narrowed down 
 to one point — as to whether or not the figures 5s. and 2s. should be 
 inserted in the Bill. From the speech of the honourable gentleman 
 I think we may look at the matter in this respect, that he and his 
 people have gained a victory. They established the principle they 
 wished to see established — that is, a minimum wage in the coal 
 trade. We withstood the establishment of a minimum wage prin- 
 ciple for various reasons, but we have consented to it, and that 
 being so, I should say the blame now rests upon the labour people 
 for the deadlock which has occurred at the present moment. That 
 is how the situation stands as I view it just now. The insertion in the 
 Bill of the figures 5s. and 2s. would mean the establishment of a 
 specific wage principle which has never been included in any Bill sc 
 
197 
 
 ; ar as I am aware. I cannot understand why the Labour party are 
 50 anxious to have these specific figures inserted in the Bill. Do 
 hev not trust the District Boards which are to be set up by the 
 iction of this Bill ? Is it that they desire them to be placed m the 
 Bill because they are certain that the Districts Boards will not act 
 fairly to the men because in this Bill, which we reluctantly assent- 
 bo, we are willing to let our case come before the District Boards 
 ind to abide by the decisions of these Boards ? I want to ask 
 honourable gentlemen opposite what is the reason they desire to see 
 the specific figures 5s. for men and 2s. for boys inserted in this Bill. 
 The honourable gentleman who moved this amendment m a very 
 eloquent manner appealed to the House to say. Is it not reasonable 
 that men who work underground should receive the 5s. and boys 
 2s. ? I entirely agree with him, but I cannot see, if these figures 
 are inserted, what is to prevent those who earn larger sums at the 
 present moment coming forward and asking for an increase in 
 proportion. 
 
 An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why should not they 
 have it ? 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGfH : I think the honourable member 
 will agree with me that the question of economics does come 
 into this. We have been told that because the work of the mining 
 industry is one accompanied by danger that the wages of the miners 
 underground should be high. I entirely agree, and I should like, 
 not only to see the wages of the miners increased, but I should like 
 to see the wages in all parts of the country increased. But these 
 things depend upon economic conditions. We live under certain 
 social and economic systems. There are gentlemen in this House 
 who say it is a very bad system, and they desire to see the foundations 
 upon which it stands removed and broken up, and one of the means 
 by which they wish to achieve that object is by the establishment of 
 a minimum wage. It places in their hands almost insuperable 
 power, but under the condition under which we live at the present 
 moment the wages paid to miners are wages that have relations to 
 the profits made in the trade; and if you continue to increase these 
 wages beyond an economic standard it means that mines at present 
 in process of working will go out of working ; and it means that 
 those men who are at present employed in such mines will be thrown 
 into the ranks of the unemployed. 
 
 If that situation arises it must be obvious to everyone that the 
 output of coal will be of a very dimishing character. All those 
 engaged in the coal trade at the present moment will be able to 
 demand a minimum wage of a far higher character than that which 
 prevails at present, with corresponding detriment to the people of 
 this country. This is a matter we should consider on its merits. I 
 do not think there is a single individual in the House or in the 
 country who does not wish to see the highest possible wage paid, in 
 
198 
 
 relation to the economic position, to the miners. There is nd 
 question here of denying the miners of their rightful wages, 
 know honourable gentlemen opposite think the coal owner is a 
 individual who tries to extract all the profit he can,- but even if th 
 owner does try to make a profit, is it denied that the business of th 
 men is to obtain the highest wages they can. 
 
 Mr. POINTER : Honourable gentlemen opposite contend tha* 
 ii respective of anything else they want to see the miner get gooi 
 wages, but I do not believe it, because high profits stand in the wav 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Honourable gentlemen opposit 
 attribute certain motives to us, but the whole of the circumstance 
 point in the opposite direction. The point I desire to make is tha 
 if you establish a minimum wage, a great many of the mines of th 
 country will go out of the process of working, the price of coal wu 
 be raised, and a great many of those employed in mining operation 
 before this strike will be driven into the ranks of the unemploye 
 With regard to what has been said about legislative interference, i 
 always is a matter of the greatest surprise to me that honourabl 
 gentlemen opposite are always calling upon the State to come in an 
 interfere with the organisation of very complicated machinery. I d 
 not speak for the coal trade as a whole, and I can only speak for th 
 North of England. I am sure my remarks will be endorsed b 
 many honourable members opposite when I say that the relation! 
 between the employers and the miners in the North of England ar 
 of the most satisfactory character. We have always conducted ou 
 negotiations through Joint Boards to the satisfaction of all th 
 parties concerned, and it is a mystery to me whv honourabl 
 members representing Labour are continually asking the Govern 
 ment to interfere with such highly complicated machinery 
 remember this in the case of the Eight Hours Act. We can trace 
 great deal of the disturbance up to the present moment to b 
 interference which the Government thought fit to bring about unde 
 the Act to which I have alluded. It is quite possible for us under 
 the machinery which exists in the north to manage our own affairs, 
 and it is always a matter of the greatest regret that the Government 
 should be called upon to come in and disturb the relations which 
 have hitherto existed. It is for that reason that I shall oppose this- 
 amendment. I maintain that in the concessions that have been 
 made the honourable member has gained the point he wished to 
 make, for he has got his minimum wage for better or for worse. I 
 sincerely hope that this amendment by which the honourable 
 member desires to place specified figures in the Bill will be defeated 
 by this House. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I fully recognise the importance of this question,! 
 but after what has been said on this matter by the Prime Minister] 
 and other members of the Government, honourable Members wil 
 not expect me to go into the full merits of the case. I can only! 
 
199 
 
 express the view which has fallen from the Prime Minister, namely, 
 hat the Government, after giving this matter the fullest possible 
 consideration, and sympathising with the object of the amendment, 
 >ame to the conclusion that it would not he right or expedient to 
 3 ut the actual figures of 5s. and 2s. in the Bill now before the 
 House. The noble lord who has just sat down said that the coal 
 trade could manage its own affairs much better than they could be 
 managed by Government intervention. I would like to remind the 
 noble lord that as regards this Bill both the owners and those repre- 
 senting the men in this House have expressed that same view, and 
 have regretted that it has become necessary to introduce a Bill at 
 all to deal with this matter. The only justification for this Bill is 
 the emergency which has arisen and the extremity m which the 
 country is placed. 
 
 Speaking on behalf of the Board of Trade in regard to disputes 
 between capital and labour, I say it that it is infinitely better from 
 every point of view when they can be discussed and settled locally 
 between the parties interested rather than by the intervention of the 
 Government or the Board of Trade. This, however, is an exceptional 
 case, and the House has endorsed the action of the Government in 
 interfering in this matter. The questions in dispute have been 
 narrowed down to this point of 5s. and 2s. for the day men and the 
 boys. Having been through the whole of these conferences, I can 
 only reiterate, what I am sure is felt equally deeply by all members 
 of this House, regret that these negotiations up to now, at all events, 
 have failed to bring about an agreement in regard to this question 
 of 5s and 2s. My honourable friend who moved this amendment 
 wishes to put these figures in the Bill. I think the House recognises 
 that in his usual persuasive way the honourable member has made 
 good his argument and has made out a strong case for his statement 
 that taking the country generally the day men and the boys do not 
 receive a minimum wage of 5s. and 2s. The Prime Minister 
 expressed general concurrence in that view, but he qualified it by 
 saying that the minimum wage must be subject to some local 
 adjustment. X should like to say that we have had in discussing 
 this and other matters the statement of the owners on the one hand 
 I as to the number of boys and the men who would be affected by 
 j this, and they have told us that it would mean a material addition 
 I to their wages bill, and would involve wading through a great 
 number of details in various parts of the country. On the other 
 hand, in regard to these figures, the miners representatives have 
 expressed opinions, tendered evidence, and made assertions contra- 
 dicting the owners’ statements in regard to all these matters. 
 
 All this has brought it still more forcibly home to our minds 
 | that with regard to these particular figures the only fair and just 
 i way would be not to have them decided by this House, because 
 | honourable members can have no real knowledge of the question, 
 but to have them decided by these joint committees. I admit that 
 
200 
 
 they are m a somewhat different category to the schedules There 
 are something like twenty-one districts in which probably different 
 figures will be fixed, but all the same I do not think' that it is 
 possible at the present moment with the knowledge before us to 
 treat this matter nationally without taking into account certain local 
 conditions and circumstances. It is because we think that those 
 circumstances and conditions can only be properly thrashed out by 
 the lepiesentatives of both sides under an impartial chairman that 
 we have declined to put these figures into an Act of Parliament I 
 lully endorse what the Prime Minister has said in regard to this 
 matter. Taking the country as a whole, I do not believe that these I 
 two figures go beyond the merits of the case, but the stronger that 
 is, and the stronger the case made out by my honourable friend the 
 more we ought to favour meeting this difficulty through the judg- 
 ment of the joint committees. I deeply regret having to deal with 
 is amendment. No doubt there are obvious advantages from 
 avmg iese figures inserted in the Bill, but after what the Prime 
 Minister has said on more than one occasion I am afraid I must ask 
 tne .House to resist this amendment. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : I wish at the outset to thank the Prime 
 Minister for the long and tedious services he has rendered during 
 this dispute I quite believe he has strained every nerve, used the 
 best ol his influence, has been animated with the highest motives in 
 trying to bring about a satisfactory settlement. I wish to deal with 
 the question upon whom the blame is to be put, because there is 
 blame, and that blame ought to be placed on the right shoulders I 
 will take my own county of Derbyshire first, and then I will come to 
 the federated area and deal with those whom I think are responsible 
 or tins unrest, for the strike, for all the suffering it has entailed, 
 and for this calamity. Before the strike notices were handed in we 
 had a meeting in my county with the coal owners at Chesterfield 
 lam ready to give chapter and verse for all my statements, because 
 this is too serious a matter to play with. We had 6s. 6d. offered in 
 my own county as a minimum wage by the chairman of the Coal- 
 owners Astociation for the county of Derbyshire. With regard to 
 the boys, for nine years the scale of 2s. per day at fourteen years of 
 
 of Derbyshire 11 ° peratl ° n and paid hon °urably by the coal owners 
 
 Now I come to the federated area, where for ten long days a 
 committee, consisting of five on each side— and I happened to be 
 one representing the men— waded through ail the technicalities and 
 complexities of the minimum wage. It is well known to those who 
 were there that the Government proposals as regards safeguards am. 
 other things are based upon the findings of the federated areas. 
 We had an offer pratically of a minimum wage. The federated 
 area comprises Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Warwick- 
 shire. Leicestershire, North Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, North 
 
 Wales, and Lancashire. I say that if this question had been left to 
 
201 
 
 u + +n opttle von would never have been troubled with this 
 
 5Ts„S‘ ;r» 
 
 j not us We have never appealed to the Government to come 
 in I have always said the time would come when the Government 
 would have tointervene in the interests of the State, but the miners 
 leader shave never approached the Government to intervene m this 
 strike When we were invited to meet the Government of course 
 it was our duty to consent to meet them and to discuss this gre 
 riun which was working such havoc in the nation. According 
 to the latest figures we have got there are m these generous times, 
 when people are talking about miners getting exceptionally high 
 w ae es % 000 men in this country who go down the pit and risk 
 Teir fives to produce the commodity which the nation now knows 
 it cannot do without, and get less than 5s. per day. 
 
 Mr NEWTON : Can the honourable gentleman give us the 
 figures for the federated area as opposed to Scotland and South 
 
 Wales ? 
 
 Mr W E. HAEVEY : I can tell the honourable member that 
 25 per cent, of these are in Durham. Let me carry this a little 
 further Do honourable members know that the average working 
 week of miners in the United Kingdom is only 4} days, and in order 
 to be able to work for 4^ days a man must not have .a lay '* ifiness^ 
 If he has a day’s illness, then he works less. If he is well all the 
 vear he only makes 4| days, and 41 days at 5s. per day is 22s. 6d. 
 per week. I venture to say there are some honourable members m 
 in this House who spend as much as that on a dinner, and, if there 
 were a Commission to investigate that, it would be proved so. 
 the same men are sticking out and saying these men shall not 
 have 5s a day for themselves, their wives, and families, men who 
 undertake all this risk to produce this commodity which is so 
 essential. I was going to say something very s d a “ ov ide 
 but I think a nation that cannot afford to do that and to provide 
 men with the necessities of life and the requirements ot their 
 families ought to starve sometimes to learn the value of the men 
 X> are dokig this work. The time has come when you will have 
 no rest in this country until this matter is settled. I am not going 
 to utter any threats at all. Everybody who knows me knows I am 
 a man of peace, and that I have been labouring for peace. There is 
 not a coal owner who will not give me credit or ® j®» 
 
 about a settlement, but there comes a time when peace cannot be 
 had at any price, and bread and cheese for the men who woi is 
 more important to me than peace when that peace is to be paid lor 
 
202 
 
 at too high a price. A more reasonable claim than we are making, 
 5s. for adult men and 2s. for boys, was never made in the history of 
 this House. I am told, and told by the President of the Board of 
 Trade, to hope for something. I am to hope the Joint Boards will 
 give this : in other words, I am to trust to the results of these Joint 
 Boards. 
 
 I have said in Trade Union Congresses and in International 
 Congresses that there are things on which I could not afford to' 
 arbitrate, and I could not afford to arbitrate on the question whether 
 a man shall live or not, or on the question whether he shall have 
 sufficient to keep body and soul together or not. There ought to be 
 no question about this 5s. and 2s. ; it ought to be given without any 
 resistance whatever to a class of workmen who are doing good work 
 in the interests of the nation. I am afraid my appeal will be in 
 vain, but I shall have made it not only as a man who has not 
 disturbed the elements or tried to create a division, and I make it 
 knowing what may await me to-morrow and the next day when I| 
 meet thousands of these men, because I shall go and meet them — I! 
 when I have to meet the great crowd outside and declare this House 1 
 has refused to put in the Bill 5s. for a man and his wife and family < 
 and 2s. for a boy of fourteen years of age, I shall have to tell this j 
 story to the men who are doing this work. I do not know what the : 
 result will be. I cannot tell. It will be told then without any 
 incitement on my part ; it will be a plain fact I shall have to report j 
 to them in their multitudes. If you do not give us this, it will be > 
 for us to go and meet the miners again. I hope the time will never j 
 come when I cannot go and meet the men at any time and any- 1 
 where. I am prepared to go to these men and tell them the whole ; 
 truth, and nothing but the truth, and I will tell them who is 1 
 responsible for this. I will tell them why we have been driven to ! 
 the floor of this House for legislation. I had hoped we should never i 
 have to come here for legislation of this kind. It is nauseous to me. 
 As an old trade union leader negotiating, as I have done, for thirty 
 years, bringing about settlements, and having good relations with 
 the owners in the county in which I reside, I say it is nauseous to 
 me to have this legislation ; but there are owners and owners, and 
 there are managers and managers. There are men who have 
 humanity in them, and there are others who are as cold as ice, and 
 without whom the world would be no worse. 
 
 Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM : The House has listened to a 
 strong appeal from my honourable friend, and as an owner of 
 collieries in the districts in which he exercises his influence, I can 
 only say no man has made more for peace in Derbyshire or in the 
 federated area as a whole than my honourable friend. The 
 honourable member stated there were coal owners and coal owners. 
 
 I hope the Blouse will allow me to dissociate myself altogether from 
 the industry in the remarks I am going to make. It would, I think, 
 be true to say that the overwhelming majority of the coalowners in 
 
203 
 
 l this country have treated their men fairly and well. I do not think 
 | any trade union leader can contradict the statement that as a body 
 the coal owners have treated their men fairly well, but there are a 
 minority of owners who are the cause of the present strike. In 
 j many districts men have been unable to earn a minimum wage, and 
 they have had no consideration. I know, not of one, but of scores 
 i and hundreds of cases where men have done a whole week's work 
 and have gone home with less than 5s. in their pockets. It is true 
 that under this Bill these men are now secured some minimum, but 
 t even this 2s. and 5s. minimum is really illusory, because, as the Bill 
 } is based, it differentiates, and it may be the minimum prices fixed 
 for hewers would not be 2s. 6d. per day. There is nothing in the 
 Bill, so far as I can see, which would prevent a minimum wage being 
 fixed in a mine which economically ought not to be worked at 2s. 6d. 
 a day. If there was an exceptional mine which ought not to be 
 it is quite clear that under the Bill the minimum would not even be 
 5s. If would not be 3s., because even if the Government accept the 
 amendment I suggested on the Committee stage to provide that the 
 minimum shall not be lower than the average rate prevailing in the 
 district, it would not secure the man the minimum wage of 5s. The 
 Government, having gone three-fourths of the way, destroying all 
 economic principles, at the last stage seem to be blown, and do not 
 seem to have the courage to take the last fence. 
 
 The late Mr. Toynbee in that remarkable book, “ History of the 
 Industrial Bevolution of the Eighteenth Century ” clearly showed 
 that all economic theories that had been advanced both in Parliament 
 and outside against men having a minimum wage had been founded on 
 false premises, and that invariably the men had been right, and all 
 the schools of economic theories had been wrong. The noble lord 
 (Viscount Castlereagh) said that in Durham and in other counties 
 certain mines would, if a minimum wage was granted, have to close, 
 or be rendered unprofitable. What are the laws which govern 
 prices ? I believe if the coal owners understood the laws which 
 govern prices we should not have this strike to-day. It is the cost 
 of production which primarily determines prices in conjunction with 
 supply and demand. Secondly, if the cost of production is increased, 
 whether the demand increases or decreases, so inevitably will the 
 price rise. For example, if you decrease the cost of the manufacture 
 of hats ten times the price of hats will fall ten times, sooner or later, 
 because it is the cost of production which ultimately, in conjunction 
 with supply and demand, determines all prices. What would be 
 the cost entailed by this 5s. and 2s. ? In many cases it would 
 
 increase the cost of coal nothing. I grant that in the North of 
 
 England and in the West Biding of Yorkshire, the operation of 
 
 the 5s. might in some very few mines be a hardship, and it would, 
 
 so far as Durham and Northumberland are concerned, undoubtedly 
 cause some small increase of cost, but the coal trade is a highly 
 protected trade. It is an industry in which so far as the home 
 market goes, there is no competition except that which the owners 
 
204 
 
 themselves create, and, so far as the export trade goes, when the 
 coal tax was put on by the party opposite. I was the only member 
 to get up and say that tax would be paid by the foreigner and would 
 not be paid by the producer in this country. I said in this House 
 in 1903 and 1904 that, so far as the companies with 'which I am 
 associated are at all events concerned, in the main the tax had 
 been paid by the foreign consumer and not by the home producer. 
 It did not reduce the exports. They were at a very high figure at 
 that time. The total then was 44,000,000 tons. To-day it is 
 
 62.000. 000. During that period there has been an increase of nearly 
 
 20.000. 000. The House must remember that since then something 
 like 40,000 men have come into the industry. You have a million 
 of men engaged in it, and what proportion of them are given less 
 than 5s. a day? I was surprised when my honourable friend the 
 Member for North-East Derby said 100,000 men were getting less 
 than 5s. per day. I think that must have applied to Durham, 
 Northumberland, and Scotland. I can say this — that only about 
 five per cent, of the men in a colliery with which I am associated in 
 South Wales are receiving less than 5s. a day. I understand it is 
 said that if Mr. D. A. Thomas, whom the House must not regard 
 as an extreme man, had not joined the Coal Owners’ Associa- 
 tion, we should have had no strike in South Wales at all. The 
 fact is it is the South Wales coalowners who haVe forced this 
 on, because they wanted a fight and were not satisfied until they 
 could get one. All this has arisen out of the Cambrian strike. Mr. 
 Thomas wanted at that time to refer the whole question to 
 arbitration, but the coalowners would not allow him to do so. In 
 fact, South Wales owners have built up a stone- wall attitude on this 
 question ; they have declared they intend to fight it out, and that is 
 the spirit in which the negotiations have been carried on. 
 
 Many coalowners, especially in the federated area, have done 
 everything they could to bring about a settlement. But there are 
 certain men in certain districts who have set out deliberately to 
 fight, because they think they are going to smash the trade unions. 
 The Government, I fancy, are somewhat touched by the same fever. 
 They have got an idea, or, at any rate, some of their supporters have 
 the idea, that if this strike continues the men are going to be beaten, 
 and will go back to work. The men are not defeated ; they are not 
 going back to work, and when honourable members think that they 
 are going to get a finish of this dispute by men breaking away from 
 their fellows, they are very wrong. Furthermore, I can assure them 
 that if such a victory ever were gained, it would be at the expense 
 of the Liberal party, which would cease to exist. The country is 
 now plunged into terrible happenings. There are starving women 
 and children in the different districts, while the parties to the dispute 
 are showing themselves irreconcilable. There are owners, on the 
 one hand, who desire to fight the question to its ultimate issue, who 
 say, “ The fight must come, and the sooner the better.” There are 
 those also who think that the smash of the trade unions will bring 
 
205 
 
 about industrial peace for another ten years. But the men who 
 think that by ruining trade unions they are going to get industrial 
 peace are entirely mistaken, for upon the foundation of such a ruin 
 you will have even stronger trade unions erected. This is a great 
 question of principle. We have here an industry of a peculiar 
 character, which is enabled to inflict great hardship on the 
 community. Parliament has brought us here to discuss this 
 question. The men have not asked the House to legislate, but the 
 Government have produced this Bill in order to give the men bread 
 and water, because, after all, that is all they will get out of the Bill. 
 There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the minimum wage being 
 fixed at 3s., and, therefore, there is a necessity for fixing a bottom 
 price. 
 
 Speaking with all responsibility, I say that this Bill is an 
 impossible one to settle this dispute. Men and starving women and 
 children are to-day looking forward to this House to bring about a 
 settlement. I wish to say no words that may prolong the dispute, 
 but, so far as I can afford it, I shall support these men, no matter 
 how long the strike lasts. At the same time the responsibility on 
 the Government is very grave in not accepting the schedule. I told 
 them time after time, before they introduced this legislation, that 
 the coal owners were united to resist all demands, and that, what- 
 ever the result, Parliament would have to legislate. Members of 
 the Government laughed at me. They said, “ We will settle it at a 
 round-table conference.” I replied, “ You do not know these men ; 
 I do know them. These irreconcilables are out to fight, and have 
 no intention, even if the conference goes on for days — they have not 
 the slightest intention of granting 5s. or 3s., on anything at all ; 
 they mean to fight it out to the bitter end.” I shall vote against 
 this Bill, because I am sure it is not going to bring about industrial 
 peace. I shall vote against it also with the certain knowledge that 
 it can be no settlement in this great industry of the relations between 
 capital and labour. When I heard the Prime Minister hesitating to 
 take the last step I thought to myself the last step is not yet taken. 
 There is one further step open to him. He and his Government 
 have only to say that this 5s. and 2s. is a reasonable thing to put 
 into the Bill, and if they do that they will not depart one iota from 
 the principle they have already accepted. It has been accepted in 
 regard to other industries. Of course, this is not a sweated industry, 
 but it is an exceptional industry, in which men have to risk their 
 lives. (An Honourable Member : “ No, no.” The honourable 
 member says “ No.” Would he go down into a mine and labour 
 in those dangerous surroundings for 5s. a day, or even T5 a day ? 
 
 Mr. HARRY LAWSON : Nobody said “ No.” 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I thought the honourable member did. 
 
206 
 
 Mr. HARRY LAWSON : No. (Honourable members With- 
 draw.”) 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I certainly will withdraw. I understood 
 the honourable member to dissent. I have not the slightest wish to 
 misinterpret his attitude. I repeat that although this is not a 
 sweated industry, it is still an industry of so arduous a character 
 that the people engaged in it ought to have special remuneration. 
 Objection may be taken to interference with the wages of adult 
 workers. For many years past this House has not interferred with 
 the wages of adult workers, on the ground that they are able to 
 take care of themselves. But now it has been forced, owing to the 
 circumstances of the times, to take up a different attitude, and the 
 Prime Minister has consequently departed entirely from economic 
 law in taking the course he has done. But this Bill will not produce 
 a settlement. On the contrary, the terrible suffering of the majority 
 of our countrymen and women will continue, and for the result of 
 all this appalling misery the responsibility lies on the Government, 
 because they should have told the coal owners that, if they refuse to 
 accept the reasonable schedule of 5s. and 2s., the mines would be 
 nationalised without any humbug about it. 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY : The honourable member who has 
 just spoken expressed a good deal of admiration for the Member for , 
 North-East Derbyshire, but it must be within the recollection of t 
 honourable members that during the debates on the Coal Mines ' 
 Regulation Bill those two honourable gentlemen were daily attacking 
 one another and were doing so in a most bitter fashion. The 
 honourable member also said the Government and the coal owners 
 had gone three-fourths of the way to meet the miners. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I did not say so. 1 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY : I think I am in the recollection of , 
 honourable members. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : I said the Government, but not the 
 owners. 
 
 Sir CLIFFORD CORY : The honourable member said the 
 Government had gone three-quarters of the way to meet the 
 demands of the miners. In that case it does not seem very 
 unreasonable to expect the miners to go one-quarter of the way to 
 meet the Government. There was another very interesting remark 
 by the honourable Member for Mansfield. He said that the export 
 coal tax was borne by the foreigner. All I can reply is that a depu- 
 tation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer representative of 
 every district in the country, composed of men of all political parties, 
 and of employers as well as of miners, and that deputation unani- 
 mously declared that the burden fell on the producer. Furthermore, 
 
207 
 
 i there is no doubt it gave an opportunity to the foreigner to get into 
 our markets, and many markets were lost to us owing to that coal 
 j duty. This occurred during the period when the trade of the world 
 was increasing enormously, and the effect was not so severely felt 
 as it would have been in bad times. Again, the honourable member 
 said that this fight would not have occurred had it not been for the 
 action of Mr. D. A. Thomas, who was a member of this House for 
 many years, and who we very much regret is not here now in order 
 to defend himself against the unfair statement of the honourable 
 member. It is quite unfair to suggest that the action of the South 
 Wales owners is due to the attitude of Mr. 1). A. Thomas. He has 
 said, I believe, that the 5s. and the 2s. would affect his collieries less 
 than any others, but, as a matter of fact, we know that in the South 
 Wales Coalowners’ Association there are many members who 
 solemnly affirm that if the 5s. and 2s. were passed it would mean 
 absolute ruin to them. They feel it is going to hit them hardly, and 
 you cannot therefore expect them to say that they will agree to it. 
 They might be expected to say, “ We do not care about our poorer 
 brethren ; we must look after ourselves.” 
 
 Sir A. MABKHAM : What I said was that a dispute took place 
 at a certain pit, and that Mr. B. A. Thomas wanted to refer the 
 whole question to arbitration, but the owners on the Conciliation 
 Board would not allow him to do so. 
 
 Sir C. COBY : I think the honourable member said that it was 
 entirely owing to the action of Mr. D. A. Thomas that the coalowners 
 took the action they did. I have only this morning received a letter 
 from a gentleman imploring me to try to get him into the Bristol, 
 Somerset, or Forest of Dean districts, because if he were taken into 
 the South Wales district it would mean absolute ruin to him. He 
 seems to have small quarries in the West of Glamorganshire, and 
 he says : — 
 
 “ Not one of these concerns has paid a dividend for many years, 
 while about T50,000 has been lost during the last ten years 
 in carrying- them on.” 
 
 Can you be surprised that that man should strongly oppose 
 any proposal for 5s. and 2s., which he knows would cause him a 
 much graver loss ? Coalowners very often carry on their mines for 
 years notwithstanding the fact that they may be incurring a loss, in 
 the hope that things may improve later, and that they will be able 
 to turn what was a loss into a profit. Here is a man asking to be 
 put into a district where lower wages are to be paid so as to get a 
 lesser minimum that in the richer districts. The honourable 
 Member for Mansfield (Sir Arthur Markham) said it was the desire 
 of the Government, and the desire of the House, and, indeed of 
 all members on these benches, to break the trade unions. Speaking 
 for myself, and I believe for all those he mentioned, I say that he is 
 entirely incorrect. Who is it that has forced this question upon the 
 
208 
 
 country ? It is not the good old trade union representatives ; it ig| 
 the extreme section of the trade unions, the Socialists, and reallyj 
 the Government are fighting their battle, as against trade unions, ini 
 trying to force this question upon the country. The honourable* 
 baronet (Sir Arthur Markham) told us that many collieries paid very] 
 low wages. He led the House to think that in the coal trad( 
 generally low wages were paid. A little later he told us that the 
 coal trade was not a sweated industry. He spoke with two vof 
 on that question. The honourable Member for South Glamorgan! 
 (Mr. Brace) said it was the unprofitable collieries and the collieries 
 that are now losing money, that pay high wages. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I said the inferior collieries. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : The honourable member said that the collierie 
 which made the big profits are paying lower wages. Does not that 1 
 rather prove that the trade cannot stand the 5s. and 2s. ? He saidj 
 it was the poor collieries who are paying it, and I suppose they 
 cannot make any profits as a result. 
 
 1 
 
 Mr. BRACE : May I correct my honourable friend ? What II 
 did attempt to say, and what I think I must have said, was that? 
 these inferior collieries, producing an inferior quality of coal, wereJ 
 paying 5s., and not the richest collieries. The honourable baronet! 
 will not allow us to know what his profits, are, so we cannot say| 
 anything about them. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : According to the honourable member it is the 
 wealthy collieries that are paying the lower wages, and those paying? 
 little or no profits are paying the higher wages. I submit that that 
 proves that the trade cannot afford it. The honourable Member for 
 North-East Derbyshire (Mr. W. E. Harvey) said there were 100,000 
 men in the country that were paid less than 5s. I know that in 
 every district I have information from that there is a large number 
 of men now receiving under 5s., and a large number of boys, and 
 that in many cases if the 5s. were given it would mean an increase 
 in cost of from lOd. to Is. a ton. That would mean a loss on these 
 collieries. It is not only the men who are receiving less than 5s. 
 per day who would get the increase, but there would have to be a 
 relative increase in all classes. You may have a man getting 3s. Gd. 
 plus a percentage. If you raise him to 5s., another man, who is 
 now getting 4s., would also expect to receive the 5s. I know that if 
 you raise one class all the classes above that class expect to be 
 raised proportionately. It would be impossible to resist the claims 
 of those other classes to be raised proportionately to the labourers 
 who receive the increase up to 5s. Then you have the surface-men, 
 the men who are at the top of the pit, doing identically the same 
 work as the men at the bottom of the pit, and getting the same 
 wages. Directly you raise the wages of the men at the bottom of 
 the pit the men on the surface will say they must have their wages 
 
209 
 
 raised. These men would rather be underground, at the bottom, 
 where the temperature is equable and where they keep away from 
 the frost and rain, and where they consider it to be much more 
 ! comfortable. If you raise the wages of the men underneath you 
 will certainly have to raise the wages of the men on the surface 
 ; doing the same work. 
 
 It is not so small a question as honourable members are 
 disposed to think. It means an enormous increase in cost. No 
 doubt everybody would desire to give these classes the minimum 
 of 5s. and 2s. if the trade could stand it, but it is the belief of the 
 1 trade, after serious consideration, that it could not stand it. You 
 have to consider also the iron and steel trade, which will be greatly 
 affected by this increase. It will increase the cost of coal by Is., 
 the cost of iron by 2s., and the cost of steel by 4s. You will put the 
 iron manufacturers at a disadvantge in competition with foreign 
 manufacturers. The honourable Member for North-East Derby- 
 shire said that the whole of this trouble had been brought about by 
 the Scotch and South Wales owners. I think that is a very unfair 
 statement to make. It is only fair and just that I should try to 
 put the case of the South Wales owners, as there is nobody 
 else in the House to do so. There are many honourable members 
 here who can put the men’s point of view ably and eloquently, and 
 therefore it is only fair that I should try to put the case of the 
 owners in reply. The miners have said they will not accept the Bill 
 after it is passed if the 5s. and 2s. are not in it. (Honourable 
 Members : “ No.”) The honourable Member for Leicester (Mr. 
 Ramsay Macdonald) said so just now, and the Prime Minister 
 seemed to infer it. If they are going to accept it I am sure that 
 the Prime Minister and the Government will be very glad to hear 
 it. (An Honourable Member : “ They have not said that either.”) 
 The Scotch and Welsh owners have never said that. What they 
 said is that they are absolutely opposed to the principle of the 
 minimum wage, and that it is unsound to give a man a minimum 
 wage without a guarantee as to what work he will do. They do not 
 consider that any satisfactory guarantee can be given. In the first 
 place, they absolutely decline to accept the principle, as they con- 
 sider it would be ruinous to their trade ; and, secondly, they say 
 they have agreements in force which were entered into after long 
 negotiations with the men, after a very long process of investigation 
 and consideration, and after the men had balloted upon them and 
 their own representives had signed them, upon the recommendation 
 of the Miners’ Federation, and even the Board of Trade sent down 
 their representatives — after all this had been gone into, the men 
 tore the agreements up. 
 
 The South Wales owners consider that this is hitting at the 
 sanctity of agreements, and if agreements are torn up in this way 
 they could never rely upon any agreements being carried out. 
 Therefore they say that on principle they cannot accept the proposal 
 
 N 
 
210 
 
 of the Government, unless it is imposed upon them by legislation. 
 They say they will not voluntarily accept the Bill. That is very 
 different from the position of the miners, who said they would not 
 accept it unless the 5s. and the 2s. were put in when it became law. 
 The Scotch and Welsh owners have never said that. The position 
 of the Scotch owners is stronger than the Welsh case, because their 
 agreement was signed by the President of the Board of Trade and 
 Sir George Askwith, and had a clause in it providing that if the 
 Joint Board could not agree the Chairman was to have the absolute 
 power to decide the question. They have got a District Board with] 
 an independent chairman, who, instead of having a casting vote, has 
 an absolute power of decision. The Scotch and Welsh owners take^ 
 the attitude that they will not accept the Bill unless it is imposed 
 upon them by Parliament. 
 
 
 Sir C. COPY : I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. The only 
 reason I referred to the matter was that several honourable members 
 have referred to this very point upon this amendment, and have 
 accused the Scotch and Welsh owners of being the cause of the Billj 
 being brought in at all. I thought the House would feel it was onl 
 fair to the Scotch and South Wales owners to reply to that. Th 
 Prime Minister said the Government are convinced that the 5s. an 
 the 2s. are just, but they absolutely decline to put it in their Bill. It] 
 seems to me a very great pity that the Prime Minister should have 
 prejudged the case. What is the good of sending it to a District 
 Board with what really amounts to a direction to the Independent 
 Chairman of the Board ? If he is going to leave it to the Board it 
 is a pity that he made any such statement as that. The honourable 
 member (Mr. Brace) said the reason why this question of the 
 minimum was forced on the country was the Eight Hours Act had 
 prevented the men from earning so much money as they did 
 previously. Those of us who opposed the Act said that would be 
 the case, and that it would increase the expenses of the owner and 
 increase the cost to the consumer, which it has done. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER : The honourable gentleman is covering a great 
 deal of ground which has been crossed and recrossed over and over 
 again, and which does not seem to be relevant to this amendment. 
 Perhaps the honourable member will confine himself to this 
 amendment. 
 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDS : The South Wales representatives in this 
 House are very much concerned as to who really are right among 
 the South Wales coalowners. They speak with so many voices. 
 The House has listened to the honourable baronet (Sir C. Cory) 
 against the 5s. and 2s. Will they bear with me while I read what 
 was said to a representative of the Times yesterday by Mr. D. A. 
 Thomas ? He could not understand why the Government, having 
 swallowed the principle of the State regulation of wages, should now 
 
211 
 
 toggle at the details of the price. Who among the colliery owners 
 Is telling the truth, and who really is representing the general body of 
 lhe owners ? On the question as to how far this affects the economic 
 [onditions of the collieries in South Wales, Mr Thomas said that in 
 Ught important collieries in which he was associated with the manage- 
 lent the number of men paid less than 5s. did not exceed five per 
 }ent. of the number employed underground. I am astonished. I regret 
 |o have to say, after meeting the South Wales coal owners for very 
 lany years, that they should have their general reputation so badly 
 >esmirched in this dispute. The whole responsibility has been put 
 ipon them by some speakers. I do not know whether I should go 
 ls far as that, but that a large measure of responsibility ought to be 
 land is rightly placed upon the shoulders of the rich colliery owners 
 [in South Wales I think is correct. The honourable baronet says he 
 Las had a letter from some unnamed person. The difficulty is that 
 ihe owners refuse to put their cards upon the table, as they always 
 lo in industrial matters. Now that the question of the living of the 
 workmen of this country is being raised in this form and being dealt 
 [with by the Government, I would suggest that it is about time — and 
 regret that it is not included in the Bill — that we should have some 
 teans of securing what the legal fraternity call “ disclosure,” and 
 ;hat we should not have these hypothetical, fictitious things put 
 >efore us all the time. I do not know how far the Bill will help us 
 that way. Let us get the actual state of things which obtains at 
 lhe collieries. If there is no power of disclosure to be given us the 
 Independent Chairmen in all the districts will attach very little 
 iportance to evidence that only disclosures can really give regarding 
 [the true state of affairs. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : The letter the honourable member referred to 
 r as written privately, but I can give the name. It was Mr. Jones, 
 of Mount, Llanelly. 
 
 Mr. T. RICHARDS : I know exactly the condition of things 
 which prevails at all the South Wales collieries without exception. 
 jl'This is the actual state of affairs in the particular districts that 
 1/ the honourable baronet referred to. There are eighty collieries 
 in the Western districts of our Federation, and in eigbty-four per 
 cent, of these collieries the 5s. a day and above is at present in force. 
 More than that, this eighty-four per cent, they pay for night work six 
 turns for working five, so they actually pay at the rate 6s. and not 5s. 
 What are these collieries ? We are not saying whether they are 
 rich or poor in the sense that the honourable baronet meant, 
 but they produce an inferior class of coal as compared with 
 
 I the coal in the collieries owned by the honourable baronet 
 and all the honourable gentlemen who sit behind him from South 
 Wales, and they get anything from Is. to 5s. and higher, less 
 price in the market than does the best Welsh steam coal. The 
 collieries working the poorer seams of coal pay this 5s. rate and 
 above, but none of the collieries owned by the wealthy trusts and 
 
212 
 
 combines, which makes their five, ten, fifteen, and twenty n e >- cent 
 dividends every year, pay at this rate of 5s. There are twenty-eieh 
 firms who do not pay this 5s. rate, who for a period of about sixteei 
 years, have paid an average dividend of ten per cent, and a grea 
 many of them had had the whole of their capital returned Thei’ 
 present assets are valued at about £8,000,000 more than theii 
 original capital, and these are the people who are not paying the 5^ 
 I am generally considered, even by the coalowners, as being £ 
 reasonable man but I think their case is so utterly absurd that the^ 
 ought to be ashamed to defend it in the House for a moment. 1 
 am not contending that economic questions do not come into it ir 
 some other districts with which I am not so well acquainted, but, as 
 far as Wales is concerned, I reiterate that if the men who can best 
 
 Government^ d ° ^ ^ ° Ught t0 be made t0 pay by the 
 
 We really have not sought this state of things. Most of u 
 have tried for a great many years to prevent it. We have seen i 
 coming for the last two or three years, and we have contended 
 against it with all the strength of our nature. The honourable 
 baronet talks about the sanctity of agreements. We endeavoured 
 to fax up an agreement with these wealthy coalowners, we did our 
 best to wrest from them by peaceable means all that we could, and 
 after months of negotiating and contending we got all that we felt 
 could be got. Then I and several other leaders had to sit down and. 
 considered what we were to do. The men had to accept this 
 agreement or the alternative, and the alternative meant a strike 
 We advised our workmen, rather than come out on strike and? 
 contend against the owners in this coalfields by ourselves, to accept* 
 the agreement, but we have reason to hope and believe that we have 
 made out such a case during these negotiations that agreement or 
 no agreement, the House will deal with the case of a very low-paid 
 class of men, who through no fault of their own, are unable to get 
 decent wages The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) 
 told us that the workmen were following the newer rather than the 
 older leaders. He is an authority upon old and new leaders, and the 
 various influences which operate between them, which I am not. 
 
 The new leaders did contend with the older ones that the 
 workmen should not accept this agreement. We did our best, and 
 for the moment the older leaders prevailed and the agreement was 
 accepted, but with this reservation— and let there be no mistake 
 about it when you are talking about the sanctity of that agreement- 
 that my honourable friend, speaking on our behalf, said, “ We will 
 advise the workmen to accept this agreement, but this question of 
 the lower paid men and abnormal cases must be settled, agreement 
 or no agreement.” We told them that more than once, twice or a 
 dozen times before we finally agreed to accept the agreement 
 a £ reemeri f was signed the honourable member on our] 
 behalf presented our case to the coalowners and asked them whethe 
 
213 
 
 Key would consider fc h e ® e tW ? r ^ a t us, and 
 
 eallv were a great hardship. T ^ vm ?m ust carry it out.” After 
 
 txssr* 
 
 gainst the workmen taking .what achon intending 
 
 55 Sg&wHh our 
 
 ^ - —-as a 
 
 n.ir."e §«=. w“ °v5‘y termination. Depend 
 
 ii aoythms I can do .ill a.si.t » bringing that about. 
 
 Mr MILDMAY: We on this side of the House were deeply 
 W. E Bar, bX that .v«y .jj-J™ 
 
 immmm 
 
 me mineib wm f b , - ” What I wish to point out is that 
 
 i Kff* a 
 
 patent to fix the figure of the minimum there 
 
 rreterTarioCof men' who are 
 
 question. Honourable members representing the h “l fnabTe them 
 
 Members of the House of Commons are m the same posiuo ^ F 
 
 i minimum wage will mean unemployment and misery y 
 
 colliery districts. 
 
214 
 
 of these !he“ ° Utsi 7 r Hke myself - 
 
 House have somewhat * the “ lners representatives in thi- 
 
 they have admTted^n ^ 7^“ tbey admit - a , 
 
 collieries near Bristol in ^ ^ men( ^ ment that there ar e 
 
 where the owners Snno he m the Forest of Dear! 
 
 and when they admitthat he^ 13011 7 f y th ' S mimmum of 5sfl 
 honourable memberTaid the’ ^ ^ be - vanations - Anothef 
 
 me very much like this Thn s USt ^ elasticity. Well, it looks to^ 
 
 for window-dressing purposes ' nt ° the BiI1 
 
 wage, what is the L ^nf oair lfc -,. ls not . rea % to be a minimum 
 it would seem to me in thk “ g “ ? “ um wage? Really, 
 of the miners in this House °° nne ° fclon that the representatives 
 with the miners I think the me DOt *77 SUre of tbe ' r position 
 impression, f^he expressed s^m ^ ° f u he ame ^“ent gave that 
 influence the miners® decision T T, aS ^ whether he could 
 sneaking nlainKr + eci ? lorL ^ would seem that they recoil from 
 
 y.t p„. p i'“» ly ?s e „r»T.'ht a ""“s f' 1 ” 
 
 to discuss- the poss,bil t r or t ) P e eSS that PuT*' 1 have oo wish 
 Honourable members wouM impossibility of paying 5s j 
 
 know about the matter 9” /a to say, “What do you 
 
 hear ”) 777“ . ( An Honourable Member: “Hear 
 
 members of the Houseof pim Nei ther I nor nine-tenths of the 
 us to fix a minimum wage ArThnn bav 1 , tlle kn ° wled g e to enable 
 stated that a representatfve f f, ho ? ourabl ® memb er on Friday last 
 reading the tap^s each mem b ““ erS f Um S within the precincts 
 
 » H l?z “'!?■ 
 
 m«ss t'aTrr? > ‘hbk i. a bl' 
 
 to a right sense of dutv d7 , 1 sure we should be falsb 
 
 matter, and did we consent to raTafi^T* t0 - be JU<3geS in this 
 Bill Will fiw, • u ^ enc to put a fixed minimum wage in thp 
 
 of the mem her s^^ the gP rese ^ ta ' tlves den y that the great majority 
 affairs ? If they admit if 7 /77 aksolutel y notb ing of mining 
 whether they as pr7tic 1 “ - ad “ lt must ’ 1 ask them lankly 
 
 and if von 4e 7 1 “ e ?> would expect a body so ignorant 
 
 any’eL^nce as^o ^heth 011 ^ 6 ’ without examination, and withoul 
 
 »£ 'tit ™ b "‘ t‘h,I™ d0 T h". 0 ,‘ 
 
 sentatives will not lend ^emselLs^ 111 ^ the re P re “ 
 
 ut lena tnemselves to misrepresentation in this 
 
215 
 
 for leadership. lhe tear o y House. Here the fear oi 
 
 for many a wrong and rotten vo from recording the vote 
 
 misrepresentation ought not to pr ^7 e men have blinded them- 
 
 we believe to be right. Honourable j gentlemen ^ ^ is more , 
 
 its fX Housed 
 
 that is at issue? Kightly or wrongiy, „ vmDat hv for they are 
 
 dockyards are the most deservi g J P C o ns fcituents as to 
 
 constantly under the harrassing pressure of then m & 
 
 Government scale of wages. nee y P honourable members 
 Bill, we shall all in future be in the Xe only the 
 
 sse vztfite 
 
 already to keep political discussion at the tim ^ mgerted in this 
 that the higher interests will ^^f^^^hat will be ! It may 
 
 r'.'r.2”1r min'd tom [h, P~b»£« 
 
 sarky- “ i - 
 
 San when I record my vote against this amendment. 
 
 Mv tcctTR HAEDIE • The honourable Member opposite has 
 
 13 ?*! tb. S„“ “1 
 
 economic conditions of 1 * d 2s for boys. But that is not the 
 minimum wage of 5s. for men and Zs^ tor d y called 
 
 ^mrnmrnm 
 
216 
 
 standard of living. We can discuss that in the abstract, as I said i 
 once before when another amendment was being considered. The 
 miners’ standpoint is this. If their services are worth employing at 
 all, they are worth 5s. a day. In 1893, when the great strike took I 
 place in the Midland coalfields, that was the question at issue. The 
 point then was this : Must wages follow prices or, up to a certain j 
 minimum, shall we make wages determine prices ? and the men 
 won in their contention that wages should not be dragged down by 
 competition in the market below a certain point. That principle 
 was established. Now they are carrying that one stage further, and 
 they say that the principle must be applied to all men. The 1 
 argument mainly used against the insertion of figures in the Bill is 
 that the House will thereby be establishing a precedent. That 
 argument has been used on both sides. Why should not the House 
 establish a precedent? What does the House exist for? Not, 
 surely, to wander blindfolded like a mill horse. When the Irish 
 land question became acute, what did the Prime Minister of the day 
 do ? He banished the then political economy to Saturn. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL : It was not successful. || 
 
 Mr. KEIB HARDIE : I am coming to that. He banished the 
 then political economy to Saturn and saved the farmers from being , 
 exterminated by rack-renting. The fixing of a maximum rent for 
 the Irish farmer was the identical principle we are now discussing . 
 in connection with the fixing of a minimum wage for the collier. 
 The noble lord says the experiment was not successful. This is not j 
 going to end the matter. Make no mistake about that. The 
 temporary expedient we are called upon to adopt will not bring the 
 matter to an end. The end will only come in the same way as \ 
 the end came in Ireland. That was secured by the abolition of 
 landlordism, and in order to restore peace among the working classes 
 we have to abolish capitalism. But for the moment what we are 
 asking the House to determine is that 5s. a day for men and 2s. a 
 day for boys should be the fixed minimum for all persons who are 
 called upon to go underground. It is said that this sets a precedent. 
 
 Is it a bad precedent ? Efforts have been made this afternoon to j 
 cast the responsibility for this dispute upon the owners and upon 
 the workers. In my judgment, the real blame rests with the 
 Government in having gone so far without going the one step 
 further necessary to ensure an end of this dispute. We have fixed 
 a minimum working day for the mines. Why not fix a minimum 
 wage for the mines ? The maximum working day was fixed by this 
 House. By the same process of reasoning the House can do the 
 same now with regard to the minimum wage. The Prime Minister I 
 gave us the reasons on Friday why the figures were not in the Bill, , 
 and the cheers of the railway directors and shareholders and manu- 
 facturers on both sides of the House explained why these figures 
 did not go into the Bill. It is not because any danger is apprehended 
 
 i 
 
217 
 
 in the coal trade— the Prime Minister said that the miners had made 
 out their case. The figures do not go in lest they spread to other 
 trades and industries. We cannot get a 5s. minimum established 
 in one trade without other trades coming in and claiming. The 
 real obstacle in the way of this amendment is not that the coal trade 
 cannot bear it. What they say is that it establishes a dangerous 
 precedent by setting a standard of wages by which the workers of 
 the country would know whether or not they were being paid an 
 adequate minimum for their labour. The second reason why we are 
 pressing this amendment on the House is to get the dispute settled. 
 The real object of introducing this Bill was to settle this dispute. 
 
 I am not in a position to speak with authority at this moment of 
 what miners may do if these two figures do not go in, but I think 
 that the chances are a hundred to one that the Bill without the 
 figures will leave the situation exactly where it is, and that work will 
 not be resumed until the figures have been fixed. The House sees 
 what that means. 
 
 Mr. ROWNTREE: Is the honourable gentleman sure that if 
 the figures were fixed work would be resumed ? 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : My opinion is that if the two figures 
 were inserted in the Bill the leaders would then say to the men 
 “The principle of the minimum wage being established, and the 
 basis rate of the minimum wage fixed, you may safely resume work, 
 leaving it to the District Board to fix all the other rates above the 
 minimum.” And from what I know of the men, especially in Wales, 
 I have not a shadow of doubt but that they will accept that advice. 
 Therefore what we are discussing now is whether or not this dispute 
 is to be immediately terminated or is to be allowed to drag on until 
 the men — this is the point — by their own strength do what Parlia- 
 ment has refused to do. Talk about Syndicalism. What is the 
 House doing by refusing to put these figures in but playing into the 
 . hands of the Syndicalists ? What the Syndicalist says to the 
 1 workman is — “ Parliament is no good to you ; it never does anything 
 i \ for you until you force it, and you might as well do for yourselves 
 without wasting time over Parliament,” and the refusal to put the 
 figures in the Bill will be a confirmation of that. It has been said 
 that the leaders are divided. They are not divided. There was a 
 division of opinion at the beginning, in the very early days, as to the 
 wisdom of this movement being pursued at the present moment, 
 but from the time the decision was come to that there should be 
 this national stoppage there has been no division of opinion what- 
 ever among any section of the miners. (An honourable Member : 
 “What about Lanark?”) I am speaking of the leaders. The 
 most extreme Syndicalists and the most sedate of the older men 
 | are standing shoulder to shoulder, and will stand shoulder to 
 j shoulder, until work is resumed. In answer to the remark that has 
 I been made, a few hundreds of men have resumed work, but ever 
 
218 
 
 since I have known it, some forty-two years ago, the district which 
 is referred to has always been a blackleg district. There are 
 probably some few collieries in outlying districts where work might 
 be resumed, but the great centres which really count are fixed and | 
 immovable in their determination to get their wages fixed before 
 they go back to work. 
 
 But my point is that the agents of the men are united 
 Syndicalists and old-time trade unionists, standing together to have 
 these figures in the Bill. Let the Government leave the matter 
 to the free decision of the House. Why should they make this 
 a Government question ? Let us have what the House of Commons 
 thinks about it. The Government at the beginning erected a barrier 
 in the way of a settlement, and now come here and complain 
 because they cannot find their way round the barrier which they 
 themselves put up. Let them say to the House quite frankly, “ If 
 in your opinion the two figures should go into the Bill, much as we 
 are against it, we will accept it, and thereby terminate the dispute.” ; 
 But to make this a party question and rely upon the support of the : 
 Front Bench to enable them to carry their opposition is to do a 
 thing which Liberalism will one day regret. Disguise the fact as 
 we may, and use what arguments you may, those who are on strike • 
 will say that the House of Commons has refused to put the 5s. into 
 the Bill, that because of that refusal the strike will go on, and that 
 all the suffering and misery which it causes are to continue to be 
 endured. I beg honourable gentlemen, therefore, to consider this as 
 the most serious matter which the House has now got to decide in 
 connection with the Bill. By putting the figures in I am almost 
 certain you will bring about an immediate settlement of the strike. ' 
 By refusing to put figures in you are prolonging the strike, and the { 
 real responsibility for that will be on neither the men nor owners, 1 
 but upon the Government, which, having power to settle the matter, 
 has not used that power effectively. 
 
 Mr. H. D. McLAREN : I rise to support those honourable 
 members who are asking the Government to reconsider their 
 decision. It is with great reluctance that I find myself compelled ' 
 to take up this attitude, especially as I yield to no one in my 1 
 admiration of the way in which the Government have endeavoured i 
 to settle this very serious question. I have listened very carefully j! 
 indeed to all the arguments against this amendment, both in 
 Committee Stage and to-day, and they have left me quite 
 unconvinced. The Government’s attitude in this matter amounts to / 
 a statement that it would be undesirable on general grounds to have 
 figures relating to wages put in a Bill of this character. When 
 once this House accepts the principle of a Minimum Wage Bill it 
 appears to me it cannot escape from the consequences of fixing wages 
 by this Bill. Whether we will leave the details of the wages to be 
 settled by joint conferences, over which an independent chairman 
 presides, or whether we leave the wages to be settled by the regulation 1 
 
219 
 
 of some Government Department, or whether the House itself puts 
 the figures themselves into the schedule of this Bill, does not appear 
 to me 8 to matter as far as the principle of the thing ^ concerned^ 
 But it is argued that the House is not a body competent to judge 
 uDon such a figure. I fully admit that that argument was right in 
 reference to the very complicated schedule of hewers rates, which 
 was advanced in the 7 first instance by the Miners’ Federation but 
 which now I see they have definitely withdrawn, because those 
 hewers’ rates were not only minimum rates of relatlv , e 'j 
 amount compared with 5s. and 2s„ but they were indissolubly 
 bound up with guarantees against slackness and diminution in 
 production But we have here the rates of 5s. and 2s not for 
 piece-workers, not a rate which it is urged may be taken advantage 
 o by the men if they are so inclined-and I do not believe they 
 would be-but we have a rate for day-workers, the amount of work 
 borne by whom does not and did not in any way influence the 
 amount at which you fix the minimum. You have not either m tl £? 
 connection to consider whether 5s. and 2s. is a reasonable ra 
 regarding all the circumstances of the work. You have rather 
 consider whether 5s. and 2s. is a living rate, when you realise how 
 high rents are in mining districts, and how many men only work a 
 certain number of day! in a week. Therefore I am strongly of 
 opinion that in the case of the 5s. and the 2s., though not m 
 case of the schedule, this House is competent to judge whether 
 those amounts should be given to the miners and the boys, i say 
 it is not only competent to judge, but that it should judge, and I 
 urge upon those members who have doubt upon the subject to sin 
 that doubt because of the great importance of putting the amend- 
 ment in the Bill, if we want to settle the strike. We have gone a 
 very long way in agreeing to the principle of this Bill. We have 
 gone a very long way without attaining our goal, and I believe we 
 have only to take one step further-the Prime Minister m his 
 statement himself said that this amendment was a relatively sma 1 
 matter-to settle the strike. I would urge upon the Government, 
 as suggested by the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil (M . 
 Keir Hardie) to leave this House uncontrolled m its discretions. 
 
 Mr LOUGH : So many appeals have been addressed to us who 
 sit on this side of the House by my honourable friends who sit 
 below the Gangway to accept without hesitation this amendment, 
 that I think a few words might be listened to, coming from those 
 who are in no way connected with the coal mining industry. We 
 have heard the miners’ representatives, and those ^^FesentiPgmme 
 owners, and for a moment the question might be left to ^ the House 
 of Commons in order to consider the difficulties of the delicate 
 question which is raised’ by this amendment. I venture to intrude 
 in the debate because the position which certainly I take with 
 regard to it, and many of us perhaps here— though I am not entitled 
 to speak for anyone-has not been at all fairly represented by my 
 honourable friend the member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwa 
 
 I 
 
220 
 
 (Sir C. Cory). He put the case upon this standpoint. He said, 
 “ The industry will not stand it ; the coalowners cannot pay such 
 prices,” and he quoted certain figures. That does not appeal to me 
 at all ; I remain as cold to arguments of that kind as to the 
 arguments put forward by honourable gentlemen below the Gangway. 
 The point I wish to press upon the House is that it should look at 
 the matter as it was dealt with a few moments ago by the honourable 
 Member for Devon on the other side of the House, who asked us to 
 consider closely what the question is. My honourable friends below 
 the Gangway constantly, though I must say unintentionally, put 
 before the House a wrong issue. They say, “ Do men who risk 
 their lives in these mines not deserve a minimum wage ? ” We 
 say that they have got it ; the Government has given them that 
 minimum wage ; it is a great thing to put into a Bill. It is one of 
 the most extraordinary experiments ever submitted to this House. 
 One of the most far-reaching revolutions has been carried by the 
 Prime Minister after a struggle in which he has won the admiration, 
 not only of his own supporters, but the admiration of gentlemen 
 who sit in all parts of this House. The men have got their 
 minimum wage ; it is embodied in the Bill ; but, then, they say to 
 us, “Are not 5s. and 2s. reasonable bases?” We cannot tell; they 
 are low, and they may be much too low. Not one of us here desires 
 to urge a single word against either 5s. or 2s., and, when we see 
 some difficulty in putting those figures into the Bill, it is not because 
 we are afraid of what will be settled, but it is simply because we 
 recognise the immense difficulty of this House proceeding to the 
 further step of settling the same issue. 
 
 What stimulated me to rise was that I wished to mention the 
 very precedent to which mention was made by the honourable 
 Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He alluded to the precedent, but he 
 did not work it out. Will the House forgive me for one moment if 
 I recall that immense, that far-reaching precedent ? I appeal to my 
 honourable friends here, who are interested in another question of 
 the same kind, but not nearly so vast, to accept the decision which 
 the House gave in that day, having regard to the great and splendid 
 results that arose from it. The precedent to which the honourable 
 Member for Merthyr alluded was the great experiment of 1881 in 
 establishing the Irish Land Courts. The honourable Member from 
 Merthyr said that Mr. Gladstone, on that occasion, at once flung 
 away every economic principle. All I can say is, in spite of what 
 the noble lord interjected, that if Mr. Gladstone flung away 
 economic principles, he was fully justified by the results that have 
 arisen in Ireland. What was done ? Land Courts were established 
 to settle most difficult questions, exactly as is now proposed in regard 
 to questions affecting my honourable friends below the Gangway 
 to-day. The Irish members fought the Bill on every line in order 
 to get something definite put into it on behalf of the tenants. They 
 asked for ten per cent, or twenty per cent, to be taken off the rents, 
 but Mr. Gladstone and the Government absolutely refused, and they 
 
221 
 
 said that it would do great injury to the tenants whom they were 
 hoping to benefit, and it would spoil the whole Bill if Parliament 
 went a step beyond creating the courts. Mr. Parnell, and I believe 
 many of the Irish members, were imprisoned a few months 
 afterwards, but eventually Mr. Parnell announced his decision to 
 put some trial cases before the courts in order to see what results 
 would arise, and whether they would justify the experiment 
 
 Mr. DILLON : We did not get half the Court to represent us. 
 
 Mr. LOUGH: What were those courts? The tenants were 
 not represented at all ; they were courts that it was thought would 
 be hostile to every interest of the tenant. But those courts were 
 bound to listen to the evidence ; they were bound to hear the cases. 
 I will go one step further — in his whole argument in favour of 
 the Bill, Mr. Gladstone never used the words that the courts 
 would reduce the rents. Irish members were fighting for 
 a reduction, but Mr. Gladstone never used the word “ reduction,” 
 and what he said was that the courts would fix a fair 
 rent, and he left that duty to the courts. What happened? 
 How has that experiment been justified by the results? It is one 
 of the most splendid in our history. The moment the courts began 
 to settle the rents they saw they had to deal with a tragedy ; they 
 saw that the tenants had a magnificent case ; they saw that tenants 
 were living in misery and under intolerable conditions — worse than 
 any in which the miners have to live. What did the courts do ? 
 They rose to the occasion. They cut down rents first by twenty per 
 cent., again by twenty per cent., and a third time by twenty per 
 cent., until they cut the rents down by half. Honourable members: 
 “Hear, hear.” I am right in what I say. My honourable friends 
 think that I have made an Irish bull, but it is not so. There is a 
 great deal of sense generally in what are described as Irish bulls. 
 What I said was that on three separate occasions the rents had been 
 cut down by something like twenty per cent, on the first occasion, 
 twenty per cent, on the second, and twenty per cent, on the third, 
 thus reducing the rent by one-half. I am informed that the 
 reduction was exactly fifty-one per cent. Does not that case appeal 
 strongly to my honourable friends here. I urge upon them to trust 
 the courts. One of my honourable friends spoke to me on this 
 subjects, and I stated that I acted in no unfriendliness, and that 
 since I have been in this House I had always been on the side of 
 the strikers. 
 
 I have been waiting to hear one word said by any honourable 
 member against the courts. I have not heard a word, and they 
 would not accept the courts if they thought they would not do what 
 was fair. I say that honourable members below the Gangway 
 should have some sense of responsibility, for a heavy burden of 
 responsibility rest upon them if they persist in their refusal. They 
 have got everything they came out to obtain, and they have got it 
 
222 
 
 in a shape that will be far better for them than if they put stiff and 
 iron figures into the Bill. What would be the effect of putting 
 figures into the Bill ? The effect would be a tendency to lower 
 wages. It would not help the miners at all ; it would rather injure 
 them. The honourable Member for Merthyr put this question : 
 
 “ Are the colliers to be asked to go down the mines for less than 
 5s. ? ” No ; but I would put it in a different way. I would say, 
 supposing colliers desire to do it, in some cases for a short time, 
 under particular circumstances, for 4s. fid. a day — are they to be 
 prevented from doing that ? I say that the matter would be settled 
 far more equitably, and with far more regard to local conditions, if 
 the courts are allowed to do the work. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HAKVEY : If this would be against the miners, 
 why are the coal owners opposing it? 
 
 Mr. LOUGH: The answer to that question is simple. Coal 
 owners, or anybody else, must observe economic laws : but they are 
 always accused of doing it in their own interests. We ought not to 
 act in this way. The honourable gentleman who interrupted me is 
 animated, as are those associated with him, by what they know of 
 the sufferings among the miners and their dependents, and he asks 
 us to believe him ; and I put to him that the best way is to believe 
 that every coal owner approaches this question in the spirit of 
 public duty, and that he is not animated by selfishness. Even if he 
 is, I submit that it would be better to believe that he is not, because 
 it would take the discussion on to a higher plane and add to the 
 dignity of our debates. We do not need these constant charges . 
 against one class or the other. It should be believed that the coal J 
 owner is not actuated by selfish motives in what he is doing any 
 more than the miners in what they are doing. We should fling all 
 this suspicion aside, and look at the principle of the question. 
 
 With great respect I submit that if we agree to that principle 
 it will be seen that the Government have done everything they can 
 to settle this very grave question. They have gone further than 
 could have been expected. Honourable members below the 
 Gangway have succeeded in gaining the minimum wage in the midst 
 of economic difficulties. I appeal to my honourable friends below the 
 Gangway not to prolong this bitter strike. They may think they 
 have a right to do so in their own interests, but some cases arise 
 where the injury is grievous to others, and this is one of those cases. 
 
 I understand that every week we are accustomed to send out of 
 this country 1,250,000 tons of coal in 1,200 ships of 10,000 tons each. 
 The people of other nations are accustomed to expect this supply 
 from us. It is a cruel and bitter thing to suddenly cut off that 
 supply. I hear that thousands of men in Spain are starving 
 because of this coal strike. I would appeal to my honourable 
 friends, having gone three-fourths or seven-eighths of the way, to 
 
223 
 
 go the other eighth, and accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is 
 offered. 
 
 Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY : It is with some trepidation that 
 any member who is neither a miner nor a coalowner ventures to 
 trespass in this Debate, but at the same time it is also true that the 
 present crisis is a matter which concerns, not only the coalowners 
 and coal miners, but the public at large. I quite agree with the 
 honourable Member for the Totnes Division of Devon (Mr. 
 Mildmay) that we ought to rid our minds, so far as that is possible, 
 of those fears of the continuation of the strike which might lead us 
 to adopt uneconomic remedies in this matter. I think he was 
 perfectly justified in reminding us that we ought not to be ready to 
 sacrifice any principle merely because our fears would lead us to 
 desire to get the men back to work at the earliest possible moment. 
 While I agree with him so far, and while he put, from his point of 
 view, a very excellent and feasible case, may I point out that he did 
 not put all the considerations which I think the House ought to 
 take into consideration in this question. Surely the starting point 
 in this connection should be this : We are dealing not with an 
 industry which need descend to low wages, but rather we are 
 dealing with a great and prosperous industry. We are not only 
 dealing w’ith one of the greatest and most prosperous industries in 
 this country, but we are dealing with an industry which produces 
 the cheapest coal in Europe. Although the miners’ wages in this 
 country, it must be admitted, are higher than in Germany, yet our 
 coal is so superior to the coal in Germay that it is being produced 
 at a cheaper rate at the pit’s mouth than in Germany. Those are 
 very important considerations, because they do remind us that we 
 are not dealing with a struggling industry, but with one which is 
 great and prosperous, and which, if there is any industry in the 
 country which is able to afford it, can afford to remunerate those 
 who work in it properly. 
 
 The Prime Minister delivered a speech on Friday which very 
 much impressed the House, as his speeches always do, and which I 
 think carried conviction to the minds of the majority of those who 
 listened to him. Deferring to that speech to-day the Prime 
 Minister said that the points that he then made with reference to 
 the inclusion of the 5s. and the 2s. in this Bill had not been met. I 
 ask leave, very briefly indeed, to deal with those points. The first 
 of them, which was repeated by the right honourable gentleman 
 who has just spoken, and to whose speech we listened to with so 
 much interest, was that when you fix a minimum wage you really 
 do not always raise wages, because there is the danger that your 
 minimum may become the maximum. We gave very great attention 
 to this point when the Trade Boards Act was passed a few years 
 ago. I, as a member of the Select Committee which made the 
 Report which led to the passing of that Act, devoted very great 
 attention to the matter. I found that when v^e looked at the 
 
224 
 
 experience of Victoria, where the wages board were in operation, 
 that it was not true that the minimum wage became the maximum 
 wage, and we found that the trades which had wages boards made 
 not only a larger advance of wages than those which had not wages 
 boards, but also that there was no evidence whatever that the 
 minimum in those trades became the maximum. I think, therefore, 
 that with some confidence we can come to the same conclusion in 
 this connection, and that we need not apprehend such a result. But 
 if it is true that the minimum tends to become the maximum, then 
 my honourable friends below the Gangway are quite responsible in 
 this matter and are quite willing to take the responsibility of that 
 particular danger. 
 
 In that speech the Prime Minister also said, and this really goes 
 to the root of the matter, that the considerations involved were so 
 complex and so various in the different districts that we in this 
 House are not competent to decide what should be the minimum 
 wage. But, as a matter of fact, what is it we claim to be decided 
 in this matter? Those of us who press this consideration on the , 
 House, or many of us at least, believe that it is just and competent 
 in this matter for the House not to decide what is the proper wage 
 in this connection, but to decide that at least the wage fixed upon 
 by these Boards shall not fall below a certain standard, which we 
 believe to be very near the minimum standard of subsistence. It is in 
 that that we attempt to justifiy our arguments. On an average these 
 men do not work more than five days, and some put it at four and 
 a-half days. An honourable member says there are horsekeepers, but 
 when we are dealing with the general case it is not logical or wise 
 to indulge in particular references to exceptional cases. I am 
 dealing with the general case, and I say that the day labourers do 
 not work on the average above five days per week. I put it at that 
 in order not to exaggerate, and thus arrive at an average earning of 
 25s. per week. As was pointed out by one of my honourable 
 friends, that is a figure which is very near to the minimum standard 
 of subsistence which was worked out by Mr. Rowntree with so 
 much care in another connection. I submit that we are competent 
 to decide that. 
 
 I should be the first to agree that we are not competent, upon 
 the evidence before us, to decide the justice of the miners’ schedule, 
 but I do not admit that we are not competent to receive evidence 
 in this House. I, for one, believe that a better course than that 
 which is being adopted, in view of the urgency of the case and of 
 its extraordinary value to the country, would have been to set up 
 Select Committees, which would have quite as easily received and 
 judged the evidence with regard to the miners’ schedules as the 
 Boards it is proposed to set up. If that had been done we might 
 have arrived at a conclusion long before this date. As to the day 
 rate, I claim that we are competent to decide that question, and 
 quite as competent as any local board can be, I say, further, if this 
 
225 
 
 House gave its consent to the naming of that minimum rate then 
 other rates would adjust themselves in relation to it and other parts 
 of the industry, and we should thereby decide, at least in relation to 
 one of the greatest industries of the country, what in the year 1912 
 we considered to be a fair standard of remuneration. I pass to 
 another point which has been raised by several of the objectors in 
 this matter. They have pointed out that there are some mines 
 which, if the minimum wage is enforced, will be shut down, and 
 that a certain number of men will be flung out of employment. In 
 that connection I think I can demonstrate to the House that in the 
 mining industry at least that argument does not hold good. In the 
 last five years in this country the number of men and boys 
 employed in the mining industry has increased by 189,000, which is 
 an average of nearly 40,000 per year. Can it be said of an industry 
 which is adding 40,000 per year to its employes that there is any 
 danger when a small number of men — and they would be small at 
 the largest estimate — would be thrown out of employment, and can 
 it be said that some exceptional means could not be devised with the 
 aid of the machinery which the Government could provide, or have 
 indeed already provided, by which those men could be inducted into 
 those parts which are calling for a larger number of men. I think 
 we may claim that that point, at least, in opposition to this 
 particular proposal falls to the ground. 
 
 The next point is the question of Parliamentary pressure. 
 Here I am aware I am addressing myself to a point which has very 
 great weight with many of my honourable friends. They fear if we 
 once put a rate of wages into an Act of Parliament that Parliamentary 
 elections will turn on wages, and that such pressure would be 
 brought to bear on members that, as one honourable member 
 epigrammatically put it, each member will become a dockyard 
 member. I am well aware that that argument has great force with 
 honourable members. In the first place that evil, however great it 
 is, is certainly not as great an evil as that with which we are 
 confronted at the present time ; secondly, I do suggest very gravely 
 to the House that we have reached a period, not merely in the 
 development of this country but in the development of the world, 
 where if we do not address ourselves directly to these questions of 
 wages and attempt to deal with them in Parliament, that we shall 
 drive the working classes to believe that Parliament is useless to 
 them, and they will adopt other methods to gain their ends. That 
 is the doctrine of Syndicalism and nothing else. The doctrine of 
 Syndicalism is this, that your Parliaments are useless and your Labour 
 Members are useless. I am claiming for Parliament functions which 
 may be useful, and it is in the absence of those functions which makes 
 Parliament useless or comparatively so at the present time. The 
 doctrines of Syndicalism preach that Parliament is useless to 
 working men 
 
 Mr. SPEAKEK : The honourable member is anticipating to- 
 morrow evening’s Debate. 
 
 o 
 
226 
 
 Mr. MONEY : I at once bow to your ruling, but this argument 
 has been used in this connection in this Debate ; but, in view of 
 your ruling, I content myself with saying generally if we reject the 
 idea of fixing wages by Parliament then we do help on those theorists 
 who hold that Parliament is useless on that account. I submit I am 
 entitled, at any rate, to use that argument. With regard to the 
 economic facts as to the minimum wage, I desire to place a few 
 considerations before the House. The first observation I make is 
 this, that it cannot justly be held that wages has any economic 
 peculiarity to distinguish it from Parliamentary interference in the 
 shape of labour laws, factory legislation, workmen’s compensation, 
 or the Insurance Act which we have just passed into law and which 
 other nations have also passed into law. All those legislative Acts, 
 including the regulation of boys’, girls’, and women’s wages, throw 
 extra cost upon the employers, and if anybody cares, as I have done 
 to-day, to refresh their memories with regard to what has been 
 said in this House in the past in reference to Parliamentary inter- 
 ferences, they will find that at each step it has been said either that 
 the industry would be ruined or that a certain number of workers \ 
 would be thrown out of employment. Here is “ Hansard ” for 1842, 
 when the late Lord Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, was getting 
 through this House the Mines and Collieries Bill, which took the \ 
 women from down below and prevented children under nine years 
 of age from working in the mines. This is what was said by a 
 colliery proprietor : — 
 
 “ If the Bill passed in that shape, hundreds of children would 
 be thrown out of employment and hundreds of families 
 would be driven into the workhouse.” 
 
 So it has been at each successive step in the interference which this 
 House has — properly, as I think — made with the conditions of 
 industry. 
 
 What is the real effect of those interferences? What has 
 happened when interfering in the management, either to compel 
 efficiency or to regulate the hours of women and children or even of 
 men, or to interfere with wages? Experience has shown that those 
 interferences, instead of leading to a diminished output and higher 
 prices, have led to increased output, increased efficiency and lower 
 prices. That has been the experience of all industries. Those who 
 are acquainted with our coal mines, and I have sought to make 
 myself acquainted with them on every possible occasion, must 
 confess that too often we witness in connection with them a 
 very large degree of inefficiency. Whether we go below or examine 
 the surface workings we find an extraordinary amount of inadequate, 
 out-of-date, and inefficient plant. I submit that the tendency to 
 pay higher wages in the coal mining industry will cure that, as 
 it has cured it in the cotton industry and in other industries 
 that might be named. We shall get a higher degree of efficiency, 
 
 
227 
 
 not only on the part of the workmen, but also on the part of the 
 employers and in the plant that they employ. Therefore I do not think 
 we need be apprehensive that in its ultimate result the insertion in this 
 Bill of the figures, which I admit would have a tendency to raise those 
 grades of employment which are above the daily labourer, would either 
 cause a smaller output of British coal or increase its price. At the 
 beginning of my remarks I gave evidence to show that we have the 
 cheapest coal in Europe. I do not want to make it dearer, but even 
 if it were a question of making it a few pence per ton dearer, I 
 think there is hardly a member of this House who will not agree 
 that the men engaged in this peculiarly dangerous and peculiarly 
 honourable employment should have a fair return for their labour. 
 It is for these reasons that some of us on this side, if my honourable 
 friends decide to go to a division, will gladly vote with them, and I 
 am very glad to have had this opportunity to explain the reasons 
 why I at least shall do so. 
 
 Mr. CHAS. BATHURST : We have heard many interesting 
 speeches this afternoon from those who are interested in the mining 
 industry in the wealthy mining districts of the country. We have 
 also heard many speeches from the producers’ point of view, but very 
 few indeed from the consumers’ point of view. I live in the Forest 
 of Dean ; I represent a purely agricultural constituency, and I 
 should like to put very shortly before the House the position of the 
 poor coalfields and the poor consumers. What is the question we 
 are debating ? It is the question whether these figures shall be 
 fixed by the House, or whether they shall be fixed by a tribunal 
 presided over by an independent arbitrator, which will take into 
 account the conditions prevailing in every district where mining 
 takes places. The Government admit, and the Prime Minister 
 himself this afternoon admitted, that certain districts are so situated 
 as to require totally different treatment from the bulk of the coal- 
 fields of the country. One of these coalfields is the Forest of Dean, 
 another is the Bristol coalfield, and a third is the Somerset coalfield. 
 We have heard nothing whatever this afternoon of the effect of these 
 figures upon those three coalfields. I can assure the House that, as 
 regards the Forest of Dean, if these figures are insisted upon, they will 
 have the effect of closing a very large number, if not the whole of the 
 collieries in that coalfield. The Labour party have themselves 
 admitted that, as regards the Schedule for treated upon a different 
 basis. They have admitted that, as regards the schedule for hewers, 
 Bristol shall rest content with a minimum wage of 4s. lid. That 
 is to say, for a skilled expert worker they are content as regards 
 Bristol with a wage of 4s. lid. ; and yet in this amendment they 
 are going to say that an unskilled worker in that same coalfield 
 shall have a penny more. That is, the unskilled worker shall in 
 fact have a minimum wage that is higher than the minimum wage 
 which they ^desire for the skilled worker in that coalfield. Much 
 the same applies to the Forest of Dean, 
 
228 
 
 The honourable Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) has 
 asked whether a colliery shall offer less wages or a collier shall work 
 for less. The answer I give is that it is all very well to say that a 
 collier shall not work for less than this amount, but you have to 
 admit at the same time that a large proportion of the mining 
 industry will cease to exist. Do the Labour party desire to see 
 that result ? Do they desire to see collieries closed in the West of j 
 England ? Do they desire to see the Forest of Dean as a coalfield 
 come to an end ? If they do, it will have two results. I think I 
 may say that this amendment, if carried, will have two results. In 
 the first place, the wealthy colliery magnates whom we have heard 
 speak on the other side of the House, some of whom have shown 
 sympathy with this amendment, will become richer men than they 
 are to-day. There is not the smallest doubt that the effect of this 
 Bill, and of the machinery set up by it, will be to increase the cost 
 of coal to the consumer. In other words, it will be to put a larger 
 amount of money into the pockets of those who are fortunate 
 enough to be interested as so-called capitalists in the coal of these 
 rich coalfields. But what is going to be the effect on those ; 
 other districts to which I have referred ? The effect will be that 
 local industries will be put at a disadvantage as compared with 
 the same industries in other parts of the country. Another : 
 effect will undoubtedly be that the consumers, whether as 
 factories or as individuals, will have to pay more for what is a raw 
 material of practically every industry. It is all very well for the 
 honourable Member for Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money) to tell 
 us, as an economist, as we all admit him to be, that this is an 
 industry that can afford to take this uneconomic step. In other 
 words, it is an industry which is not going to suffer. Why ? Because 
 there is no serious competition with this particular industry. But 
 there is most serious and increasingly serious competition with 
 practically every industry of which coal is a raw material, and which, 
 
 I fear, will have to pay more for coal as the result of this Bill, and 
 as the result of such an amendment as this being incorporated 
 in it. 
 
 The whole question is one of competition. There is practically 
 no competition to-day as regards English, Welsh, or Scotch coal ; 
 but there is very serious competition as regards these other 
 industries. How are you going to deal with that matter ? Indeed, 
 the Labour Party have said that this is only the beginning of a 
 process which must be extended to other industries. I quite admit 
 that in fairness we cannot stop here. The colliery industry does 
 not possess those marked distinctions differentiating it from other 
 industries which would justify the colliery industry alone receiving 
 these benefits. Other workers will demand them, and other workers 
 will deserve them. What is going to happen in those industries in 
 which the workers will have to be paid more in the face of 
 competition, and more will have to be paid for the coal upon which 
 the industries depend ? Surely, whatever we may say about the 
 
229 
 
 I 
 
 minimum wage principle, it is wholly impossible to have a statutory 
 minimum wage in a Free Trade country. You cannot give it. The 
 result must be that the bulk of the industries of the country will 
 suffer in competition with foreign-made goods. What is the position 
 i of the lowest-paid labour in this country ? What will be the 
 position of the agricultural labourer under such an amendment as 
 this if carried ? The agricultural labourers, at any rate in the South 
 of England, are not receiving much more than half that which is 
 
 I being demanded as the bed-rock wage for the colliers in order to 
 stave off a condition of destitution. But all the time they are 
 consumers of coal, as a necessary of their existence. How can 
 
 I you fairly impose such an amendment as this, how can you 
 crystallise the minimum wage in an Act of Parliament, unless 
 you are going to deal fairly with every other class of the com- 
 munity, who may be very much worse paid than the colliers, 
 but who are consumers of this article, which is bound to 
 
 I go up in price as the result of such statutory measures as are 
 now proposed ? We are told that there is a stronger case for 
 leaving out of the Bill the hewers’ schedule than there is for leaving 
 out the 5s. and the 2s. now T suggested. As one who is interested in 
 a coal mine, I believe that the exact opposite is the case. As 
 regards the hewers, it is perfectly easy, if you choose — but I think 
 it would be a mistake to do so — to lay down what his schedule of 
 wages shall be, to deal with him fairly according to the work he 
 does, because you can see his product and his output, and he is paid 
 according to his output. But in the case of these men to whom the 
 5s. applies, we do not know what is the work they are doing. They 
 have no output to show upon which we can guage the value of their 
 work. Therefore we have not the safeguards, and their is nothing 
 you can incorporate in the Bill that will provide safeguards, as 
 regards the day men, who are not paid in any sense upon the output 
 for which they are responsible. For these reasons, and because I 
 believe we are entering now upon a most dangerous, uneconomic 
 trend, I shall certainly oppose this amendment, and I believe that all 
 concerned in the Forest of Dean, either as owners or workers, will 
 support me in so doing, 
 
 Mr. DAVID MASON : The honourable member opposite (Mr. 
 C. Bathurst) seems to think that this proposal will have an unduly 
 adverse effect upon the industry. Let me put this to the honourable 
 member : Suppose that as the result of this Bill and of this amend- 
 ment — which I shall have pleasure in supporting — there is a rise 
 in the price of coal, and that that rise adversely affects other 
 industries which are dependent upon a cheap coal supply. Does it 
 not strike the honourable member that, when the landlords who own 
 these mines and charge royalties and rents for them, find that there 
 is a less demand for the coal, as the result of the adverse affect of the 
 higher prices on other industries, it will be reasonable to appeal to 
 those landlords and wealthy owners immediately to reduce their 
 royalties and rents ? 
 
230 
 
 Mr. C. BATHUEST : May I remind the honourable member 
 that the collieries and the coalfield to which I referred belongs to 
 the Crown, and that the lowest royalties in the country are being 
 charged in that coalfield ? It will be impossible, under this proposed 
 schedule, to maintain the industry in that district. 
 
 Mr. D. MASON : That may be so as regards that particular 
 coalfield, but I thought the honourable member was basing his 
 argument on the general case, and I think I am right in saying 
 that was the sense in which he was understood by honourable 
 members. It is evident that this great industry, which produces a 
 gross profit of something like £15,000,000 per annum, and pays 
 something like £6,000,000 to royalty owners, can afford this. Surely 
 it is a fundamental principle, it is the premise on which all members 
 will agree, and it is a principle which this amendment is designed 
 to meet, that the labourer is worthy of his hire ; that the miner 
 should have a reasonable, living minimum wage. Let us get at 
 what is the actual position. Certain speeches and references have 
 been made to the number of men effected by this amendment. If 
 I am credibly informed, there is something like 1,000,000 engaged 
 in the coal mining industry of this country; If we take 200,000 
 surface men, that leaves 800,030. I understand a fourth of these 
 men, namely, 200,000, would be affected by this amendment. I 
 think I am right in stating that only one in ten would come under 
 this amendment. That leaves the number of men really affected 
 at something like 20,000 or 30,000. Are we, the members of the 
 House of Commons, to wreck this settlement for the sake of 20,000 
 or 30,000 men ? I submit that we are capable of going into this 
 question. If we were capable of going into the interests of the 
 many people affected by the Insurance Act, if we were capable of 
 fixing the remuneration of the doctors after a great deal of discussion, 
 are we not capable of fixing a minimum wage for miners ? I 
 submit that we are capable, and that we ought to be capable. 
 
 The right honourable gentleman the Member for Islington, in 
 his very eloquent speech, referred to some of the actions which were 
 taken by that great man Mr. Gladstone. I yield to no man in my 
 admiration for that great statesman, and for the party with which 
 he was connected in those times, but I think that my right honour- 
 able friend will agree with me that we live in different times. Mr. 
 Gladstone was a great individualist. He was closely associated with 
 the Manchester School. We have advanced since those days. 
 Whether we agree or not, we all at the present age have to recognise 
 that the State does come into closer touch with the interests of the 
 community. We have to take things as they are, and not as they 
 were in the time of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 Mr. LOUGH : My point was that Mr. Gladstone succeeded in 
 what he tried to do. I am afraid my honourable friend will not 
 succeed in this. 
 
231 
 
 Mr. D. MASON : I naturally assumed that anything Mr. 
 Gladstone was associated with would be a success, but I do not 
 think that because thirty, forty, or fifty years ago things could not 
 be shaped in a particular legislative form, that that means we 
 shall fail in our legislation at the present time. We have to recognise 
 that things are as they are. The real crux of the question is : How 
 are we as a responsible House of Commons to put an end to the 
 unrest that exists throughout the whole of the United Kingdom ? 
 Surely the first action is to try to carry out a real settlement. That 
 is a responsibility directly thrown upon this House, and first upon 
 the Government. The Government, under the aegis and under the 
 leadership of the Prime Minister, whose speech the whole House 
 justly paid a high tribute to, argue — the right honourable gentleman 
 argues — that he and his colleagues had used all their efforts to 
 embody this amendment in the settlement between owners and the 
 men. That is to admit the justice of the argument of honourable 
 members below the Gangway. That is to admit that the principle 
 is a sound one, and that we are not asking for an economic fallacy. 
 
 A great deal has been said this afternoon about political 
 economy. I have been engaged in finance, I have been a political 
 student for something like fifty-five years in the City of London, 
 and I respectfully submit that there is no real fundamental principle 
 violated in this Bill. After all, we can start with a premise that the 
 miner is entitled to a living, reasonable wage. Other interests can 
 adjust themselves to it. I have endeavoured to show that in political 
 economy even of coal mining there is an ample margin for the 
 miners to get a living wage, and for a profit to be made by, I 
 believe, not only the coal owners, but even the landlords. I would 
 try to press upon the Government the advisability at this eleventh 
 hour, of recognising that there is no pride in their giving way to 
 what is really the wish of the whole of this House. I would like 
 this question to be thrown upon the whole House. After all, 
 it is not a Government question. It is not a party question. 
 We are all surely animated by the desire to do what we 
 belive to be right in the interests of the general community. 
 We have heard admirable speeches from coal owners and from the 
 representatives of the miners. I for my part represent, as do many 
 other members, a section of the general community. The interests 
 of the general community surely are that we should have peace and 
 rest, that we should have contentment amongst this great section of 
 the miners, and generally throughout the country. If we attain to 
 that peace and quiet, it will help the money market, it will give 
 stability to trade and industry, and generally it will do an enormous 
 amount to stimulate and improve trade. Therefore I submit that 
 in asking the Government to again reconsider their decision, and to 
 once more look at the gravity of a refusal to accept this amendment 
 — it is not an extreme amendment, for as has well been pointed out 
 by many members a wage of 25s. a week is a bare subsistence wage, 
 and simply enough for mere existence — I think we do well. We 
 
232 
 
 therefore again appeal, for the House of Commons should be gauged 
 by what it does for the great mass of the people of this country. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : The honourable gentleman 
 the Member for Coventry, who has just sat down, said that we have 
 travelled far from Mr. Gladstone’s position. I do not know indeed 
 what Mr. Gladstone would have said to a proposal such as this 
 contained in the amendment, or what he would have said even to 
 the Bill. But I think I have a considerable idea of what Mr. 
 Gladstone would have done if he had had a Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, who made a point of introducing into the body politics 
 the beneficent microbe of Socialism ! I do not want to anticipate 
 the debate on the Third Reading in any way. But I want to say 
 that what honourable members have said with regard to this 
 measure — and I have heard most of the debate — divides itself into 
 three sets of arguments. There is what one might call the economic 
 argument, which says that the industries can well afford to pay 
 this minimum wage. There is the political argument which says : — 
 “ You have gone so far, why not go a little further ? ” There is the 
 practical argument put forward by the honourable gentleman the 
 Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who says : “ If you do not pay this, you 
 will not settle the strike.” With regard to the first argument, let me 
 say in reference to what was said earlier in the afternoon upon the 
 position which the Scottish owners, amongst others, have occupied 
 in this matter. They have been accused of not having budged at all. 
 They have been accused of being unwilling to take a step towards a 
 settlement of this dispute. I think the House should recognise that 
 the Scottish owners have been treated in this matter, I think, 
 unusually hard. The House should realise that the owners were in 
 a position of having with their men an existing agreement, signed, 
 not only by the representatives of the men in Scotland, but by the 
 representatives of the Miners’ Federation, and counter-signed by 
 the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers at the Board 
 of Trade. The only allusion which I have heard in all these Debates 
 to this matter is that possibly this question of the minimum wage 
 was not included in that agreement. My answer to that is simply 
 this : that the question was specifically anticipated by a Sub-section 
 in that Agreement of 1909, providing for this very contingency. The 
 words are in Clause 4, and read : — 
 
 9 
 
 “ Any difference regarding the interpretation of this Agreement, 
 any difference regarding the terms of reference under 
 Clause 2 thereto ” 
 
 Which is the main operative Clause — 
 
 “shall be referred to the decision of a neutral chairman, 
 mutually appointed by the parties, or, failing agreement, by 
 the Speaker of the House of Commons.” 
 
233 
 
 Therefore, I say, that the only suggestion which has been made 
 against this agreement falls to the ground. I think the House 
 therefore should realise that in the case of Scottish owners, at all 
 events, there were special circumstances. I think the House should 
 realise that, so far as they have acted under Parliamentary pressure 
 and as far as they are prepared to yield to Parliamentary pressure, 
 the Scottish owners have, and are going to do, a very great deal. 
 A word or two about the economic argument. It is said that the 
 industry can well afford to bear the extra charge. I do not think 
 I would not be overstating it if I say that over twenty-five per cent, 
 of colliery undertakings in Scotland were run at a loss last year. 
 But, after all, that is not the real question. If you believe that it is 
 really economically possible to give an all-round charge on these 
 figures, well then, why not be prepared to leave your case to the 
 decision of the Boards under the Act ? That is a point which we have 
 never had an answer to. There is only one possible answer to it, and 
 that is to say that you do not trust the Board. No one has said that. 
 That is the only answer. I agree with the right honourable gentleman 
 opposite, who spoke a few moments ago, who said that if you are 
 going to take up that point of view you must impugn the boards and 
 say they are untrustworthy ; that they will be biassed, prejudiced, 
 and you will not get fair dealing from them. You do not say that. 
 That argument therefore falls to the ground. 
 
 What about the political argument, which says you have gone 
 so far, why no go a little further? I do not think it is a little way. 
 But in any case we are not going to get finality, and that is the only 
 ground on which a measure of this kind really could be advocated 
 in fhis House. The honourable gentleman the Member for 
 Northampton referred to this point of view. He is a great exponent 
 of Free Trade theorists. He is one of those gentlemen who are 
 never tired of charging against the fiscal question, in which I believe, 
 that it will lead to lobbying. He says that one of its greatest evils 
 will be that it will lead to lobbying on behalf of certain interests in 
 the House of Commons. The lobbying under any conceivable 
 system of Protection would be nothing to the lobbying which will 
 take place if you once put a minimum rate of wages into a Bill. 
 Everybody knows that what I suggest is true. Everyone knows 
 that in every election which took place in a mining district there 
 would be this question. You would have pressure put upon the 
 candidates to try and spring the figure. I do not believe there is a 
 man in this House who is listening to me who could resist that pressure. 
 There is the third argument, which is perhaps the most forcible 
 argument, that of the honourable gentleman the Member for Merthyr 
 Tydvil, that if you do not do this, you will not have a settlement. 
 That is a very grave responsibility for any member or set of members 
 in this House to assume, because, after all, what are honourable 
 gentlemen doing ? Are they going to tell this House now that the 
 object which they had in view when they set out upon this strike 
 was an object which was not yet achieved ? 
 
234 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : What I was pointing out was that if 1 
 this amendment was carried the leaders of the men would go to 
 them and ask them unitedly to accept the Bill, and that there would 
 be a good chance then of the Bill being accepted as a settlement and 
 of the miners resuming work. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : Yes, but I want to press the 
 honourable gentleman on this point. I want to know is he prepared i 
 to say that unless these figures are put into the Bill he will go to 
 the men and tell them not to accept this Bill ? 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : It is not a matter of what we tell them 
 then. They will not accept the Bill. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : The honourable gentleman 
 said that unless these figures were put into the Bill it will not be 
 accepted. I ask him, at the initiation of this strike, was it the fact 
 that the men set out to gain a wage of 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys? 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : Yes. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : I say no, and here is my reason? • 
 
 I have here one of the actual ballot papers issued to the miners — 
 one of the papers upon which the strike took place. And here is 
 what the ballot paper has to say. Has it anything to say about 5s. 
 or 2s., or about any fixed rates ? Not a word. It is headed : — 
 
 i 
 
 “ Miners Federation of Great Britain vote upon the minimum 
 wage.” 
 
 And here is the question that is put : — 
 
 “ Are you in favour of giving notice to establish ? ” 
 
 To establish what ? — 
 
 “ To establish the principle of an individual minimum wage for 
 every man and boy working underground in every district 
 in Great Britain.” 
 
 I say this Bill gives you the principle of the individual minimum 
 wage for every man and boy working underground in every district 
 in Great Britain, and the responsibility which you assume, if you 
 say you asked for more than that and that you are not willing to 
 accept the Bill unless it does give you more than that, as you say 
 by this amendment, is a responsibility that history will make it very 
 hard for you to bear. 
 
 Mr. ROWNTREE : I very seldom address the House, and I 
 hesitate very much this afternoon to trespass upon its time. I have 
 
235 
 
 no miners in my constituency and I have no detailed knowledge of 
 the coal industry, but I have, at any rate, an interest in commerce, 
 and I think that while probably what I am going to say may not 
 meet with the approval of all commercial men in this House, 
 yet at any rate we have a right to speak at this time. I want to 
 give the reasons which prompt me to vote to-night for the 
 amendment that has been moved from the Labour Benches. If this 
 Bill to establish a minimum wage had been brought in under 
 ordinary circumstances I should not have voted for this amendment. 
 I believe the view put forward by the Prime Minister that there is a 
 danger, if you absolutely fix a minimum wage to-day of its becoming 
 a maximum, is a perfectly sound economic argument, and in ordinary 
 circumstances I should have said we ought to have time to consider 
 that question. I believe his argument with regard to the pressure 
 in certain constituencies was also a perfectly sound argument, and if 
 this had been an ordinary Bill, brought forward at an ordinary time, 
 I should have said we should want more time to consider that 
 question. All I observe in regard to that now is that when we have 
 to go to our constituencies we shall have to very carefully consider 
 the problem as it arises on this question. 
 
 But this Bill is not brought forward at an ordinary time. It 
 would not have been brought forward in its present form if it had 
 not been for the one specific purpose of settling the strike. And the 
 reason that I am going to vote for this amendment, which I do not 
 like, is because I believe that by the insertion of this amendment 
 into the Bill that you will settle the strike. I admit that we cannot 
 speak with certainty. The other day members of the Labour 
 Party were pressed to give a definite undertaking that if these 
 words were inserted in the Bill they would advise the men at once 
 to go back to w T ork. They said they were not in a position to do 
 so. I ventured to interrupt the honourable Member for Merthyr 
 Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) when he was speaking upon this point this 
 afternoon as to whether, if this amendment was accepted, the strike 
 would be declared off. This is what he said, and I ask the House to 
 note the words, though I think he said he could not speak with 
 absolute certainty or bind everybody. But he said : 
 
 “ Put these figures into the Bill, and there is a certain settle- 
 ment of the strike. Leave these figures out of the Bill 
 and the strike continues.” 
 
 I am not going to say that that is a reasonable attitude for the 
 miners to take up, but after all one has to admit that they have 
 given way considerably in their demands, and although I do not 
 think that this demand is altogether a reasonable demand, we have 
 to remember that this House is in the position of a negociator, 
 and that what we are called upon to do to-night is to do our 
 best to settle the strike. I think that this House takes great 
 responsibility, if we can get a definite statement from the 
 
236 
 
 Labour party that if the amendment is accepted the strike will be 
 settled, in resisting this amendment. If we accept the amendment 
 what do we do? We only ask the colliery owners to give to the 
 day workers a subsistence wage, a wage which members on both 
 sides of the House have equally said is not too large. It seems to 
 me that difficult as are the points raised against this amendment, 
 and difficult as the position would be, and I fully grant it, that we 
 should find ourselves afterwards in, yet the argument in favour of 
 accepting the amendment if it would settle the strike is far greater. 
 What happens if the strike goes on for a week or two weeks longer ? 
 We know that commerce will be crippled far more in the next 
 fortnight than in the past fortnight. Some of us may speak with a 
 certain degree of partiality, because there must be many members 
 on both sides of the House who are doing their best to keep their 
 factories going at the present time, very likely under great diffi- s 
 culties, yet who know that unless this strike is settled quickly they 
 will have to close down in a few days. We know also perfectly 
 well that although the misery has been great in the past fortnight 
 or three weeks, yet now, when the stocks of coal are actually ! 
 depleted, that misery and starvation in the future is going to be on 
 an increased scale. It is these reasons that influence me in saying 
 that it is better to vote for this amendment for a subsistence wage 
 for day workers than to reject it and to have the strike continued 
 and the danger which has been forecasted on both sides of the 
 House of having practically to dragoon the men back to work. 
 
 What do we do by accepting this amendment? We only 
 establish a standard which honourable members on both sides of j 
 the House think a just standard, which honourable members on 
 both sides of the House think would be established, and which I 
 think would be established, under the operations of the Joint 
 Boards — a standard which is a standard of subsistence. If this 
 amendment were carried, I think we should have to ask the miners’ 
 representatives to agree to the suggestion that I think was made by 
 the leader of the Labour party on Friday, that this amendment 
 should come under the operation of the elastic clause, Sub-section 
 (4) of Clause 2. I speak with some experience, having tried in the 
 last few years, in connection with the factory in which I am 
 interested, to establish a minimum wage. You cannot establish a 
 minimum wage all at once without certain exceptions being 
 necessary, and I believe if this amendment were acceded to and 
 came into operation under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 you would be 
 able to make these exceptions in the same way that the Joint Boards 
 would make them if the amendment was not carried. I believe, in 
 order to save this country from three or four weeks of commercial 
 paralysis whilst we are dragooning the men back to work, it is far 
 better to accept the amendment of my honourable friends in the 
 Labour Party, and, remembering the words of my honourable friend 
 the Member for Merthyr, that if we did the strike would be settled, 
 it is far better to do that and far safer for the country than to 
 
237 
 
 contemplate going on for many weeks more with this devastating 
 and awful strike. 
 
 Sir ALBERT SPICER : The statement which has been made 
 from the Labour Benches that if this amendment is not carried the 
 strike will not be put an end to imposes a very serious responsibility 
 upon those of us who are as full of sympathy with the miners as 
 they are, but who are anxious to do what will be to the best 
 permanent interests of that industry, and other industries. I fully 
 admit that at the present moment it is far easier upon this side of 
 the House to get cheers by a declaration to vote for the amendment 
 than one to vote with the Government. I honestly confess that 
 were I entirely influenced by the speeches we have heard from those 
 representing the mine owners I should be far more inclined to vote 
 for the amendment. They have argued as if they were defending 
 a minimum selling price. All the way through those representing 
 the owners seem to have had a sort of idea that when the cost of 
 production is raised they are unable to get an increased price. All 
 of us in this House, whether we are simply consumers or 
 manufacturers, know that a very different state of things exists. I 
 think the mine owners have made far too much of the uneconomic 
 mines. We all know there are such mines, and we know that in 
 certain districts it would be better to accept a rather lower wage 
 than have to move from the district. After all these cases are the 
 exception and not the rule. We business men do not run on 
 uneconomic concerns continuously, and it is no use arguing as if a 
 large number of the mines were being worked on uneconomic 
 principles. 
 
 . Why do I support the Government in the action they have 
 taken? We are not dealing with a new principle in this Bill. It 
 has been assumed far too much in this debate that we are dealing 
 with a new principle. We dealt with a new principle in the Trade 
 Boards Act. In that measure we dealt with four industries which 
 were looked upon as sweated industries, and if ever a minimum 
 wage would have been justified for this House to have filled in the 
 Bill it would have been in connection with industries of that 
 description. That Act has got to work. Daily I come into direct 
 contact with one of those trades, and I am glad to find that the 
 District Boards have got to work and the minimum wage has been 
 raised very considerably, and from all I hear from the best class of 
 employers, it is working well. Now if this House declined, as it 
 rightly did, to put a minimum wage in that Bill, surely there is far 
 less reason for putting it into this Bill. In that case you referred 
 the matter to the District Boards, and it is that principle, and no 
 new principle, which is adopted in the Bill we are now considering. 
 My honourable friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir 
 Kardie) threw out a sort of insinuation that those of us who are 
 opposing this amendment are doing it because we fear that this 
 principle of a minimum wage will be applied to other industries, 
 
 
238 
 
 Personally I do not fear the application of the principle of a 
 minimum wage subject to District Boards in any industry in the 
 country. I have had some experience in connection with arbitra- 
 tions associated with the London Labour Conciliation Boards which 
 has been at work for twenty-two years and which has not an 
 Independent Chairman, but that Board has had no dispute referred 
 to it upon which we have not obtained a unanimous award, and I 
 am thankful to say that not a single award has been broken by the 
 various parties : therefore I say, that I am not afraid of this 
 minimum wage principle subject to District Boards in any industry 
 in which it is tried. 
 
 I maintain that in voting against this amendment I am serving 
 the best interests of the Labour Party. Let me say that I do not 
 believe if we back up the Government and oppose this amendment 
 we shall be delaying the settlement of the strike if honourable 
 gentlemen below the Gangway will take their courage in their 
 hands and tell the miners all through the country “ This is what 
 you asked for before you entered upon the strike, and if you will 
 put your case before the various District Boards you will get 
 justice done.” I believe this is a case of honourable members below 
 the Gangway showing the moral courage of putting the real issue j 
 before the miners, and if they do that the miners will follow them. 
 
 I give them credit for their influence with the miners, and if they 
 do that then the miners will see the justice of the position taken up 
 and they will see that it is fully in accordance with what they them- 
 selves asked for before the strike. If a large number of honourable 
 members sitting on this side of the House support this amendment, 
 what is the responsibility we are taking upon ourselves? We believe \ 
 the Government have done their best in this matter, and by 
 supporting the amendment we weaken their hands and influence, j 
 we let it go to the country that we are not in earnest, and that we do 
 not trust the settlement that they have proposed. Therefore, with 
 every confidence, not on the ground of sentiment, but on the ground 
 of judgment, I believe I shall be doing right in the interests of the 
 miners and labour by voting against this amendment. 
 
 Mr. KELLAWAY : I do not find myself in a position this 
 afternoon to support the attitude recommended by the leader of the 
 party to which I belong, and for that reason I think it necessary 
 that I should not give a final vote without explaining the reasons 
 that have led me to that conclusion. Although I have no miners in 
 my constituency, I have works which have already been closed. I 
 have other works on short time, and if this strike continues for 
 another week it is certain that half the men in my constituency will 
 be unemployed. As this Bill was brought in with the object, of 
 ending the strike, I want the Government to take the only action 
 which can make the Bill effective for that purpose. There has been 
 no opposition to this proposal to put in the 5s. and the 2s. on the 
 merits of that proposal. Every argument urged against it has 
 
 
239 
 
 not been directed to the merits of the proposal itself, but 
 rather to the evil consequences which honourable members 
 anticipate might flow from it. I hope we shall not hesitate to 
 do the right thing because we fear the evil consequences which 
 might follow. We have to decide to-night, and the country will 
 so understand our decision as to whether we think 5s. for men 
 who go down into the mines is too large a wage. (Honourable 
 Members : “ No.”) I sympathise with those who feel indignant 
 that such an interpretation should be placed on their vote, but go 
 down to-morrow to a million miners and tell them how this vote 
 was taken without any attempt to interpret motives, how can the 
 men take any other view than that the House of Commons has 
 deliberately refused to put into this Bill intended to settle the strike 
 figures which will show that the minimum amount they should be 
 paid ought to be 5s. a day ? 
 
 . 
 
 What is your objection ? It has been said by speakers on both 
 sides, “ If you have so much faith in the righteousness of the 
 proposal to pay 5s. a day, why not trust it to the Boards ? ” There 
 is a certain amount of plausibility in that argument. The miner 
 has not had the training of the average member of this House, and 
 he is a man who can only measure a minimum wage by the practical* 
 effect that you give to it. The average miner is going to say, 
 
 “ The minimum wage means nothing to me, and I want to know 
 exactly what it means,” and to ask him to accept the elaborate 
 machinery in this Bill without a definite guarantee of a figure is 
 asking him to fill his belly with the east wind. I believe we are 
 taking to-night one of the gravest decisions that has ever been taken 
 in the interests of the party of progress. It will be a serious thing 
 for this country, and for all the great causes which we hold dear 
 upon this side, if it can be said to-morrow that the miners of this 
 country have been defeated by a combination of Tories and official 
 Liberals. Consider the gravity of the action that was taken by our 
 leaders when they led us into a position in which further negotiations 
 became absolutely impossible. I cannot understand how honourable 
 members here to-day who, one after the other, stood up and said, 
 
 “ We think that 5s. is not too much,” do not take a further step and 
 put that 5s. into the Bill. Every argument which is valid against 
 this amendment is valid against the Bill itself, and the revolutionary 
 step was taken when the Government had the courage to bring in a 
 Bill conceding the principle of the minimum wage. 
 
 You say 5s. is not too much ; then why not put it into the 
 Bill? (Honourable Members : “ Divide, divide.”) There has been 
 no answer to that, and there can only be one answer to that argu- 
 ment. We are told that if this is done other industries will ask for 
 a minimum wage. If you can show me another industry which 
 kills 4,000 men in three years, and which wounds 450,000 men in 
 three years, then I shall be prepared to do for that industry what I 
 am prepared to take the responsibility, so far as I am concerned, of 
 
240 
 
 doing for the miners. It is a serious responsibility that we take, as 
 Liberals and members of the House of Commons, if we deny to 
 this great body of men, whose love of order has been so magnificently 
 demonstrated during the past few weeks, and who day after day take 
 the risks that a miner takes, what is a fair subsistence wage. You 
 say we have not sufficient knowledge to decide a point like this. 
 What, then, is the value of the statement made by the speakers 
 here that they think 5s. is not too much? If you had knowledge 
 enough to form that opinion, why have you not sufficient knowledge 
 to induce you to put it in the Bill ? I hope the leaders of the party 
 will not put on the party Whips to-night and make this a question 
 of party loyalty, but whether they do so or not, I hope there are 
 enough men on the Liberal side to make it impossible to be said in 
 the future that the Liberal party as a whole voted against what I 
 regard as the just claims of a magnificent body of men. 
 
 Mr. WATSON RUTHERFOBD : I wish to explain why I am 
 voting for the' amendment. I am in favour of the amendment for 
 the reason that I was not convinced by the arguments of the 
 Government to vote for the principle of the Bill, and I was not 
 „ convinced sufficiently to vote against the Bill on the Second Reading 
 by the arguments of the Opposition, because the Opposition put 
 forward no alternative of any kind or description to meet a grave 
 public emergency. This Bill has passed the Second Reading, and 
 the principle that there is to be a minimum wage having been 
 affirmed, are we to leave the question at large as to what that 
 mimimum wage is to be ? Are we to leave it for weeks of argument 
 in every colliery district in the kingdom, or are we to adopt the 
 suggestion of putting what really is a very minimum wage into this 
 Bill, and be done with it? That would obviously prevent a 
 tremendous loss of time and a great deal of feeling. After all, what 
 are the figures suggested ? Five shillings per day for able-bodied men 
 and 2s. a day for boys — for people who have to descend into 
 the pits and do that particular kind of work. I have come to the 
 conclusion that, if we are to have a minimum wage at all, which 
 I think it a very regrettable proceeding, then the Bill of the 
 Government and the attitude they are taking up is perfectly futile. 
 The only way to make that Bill do any good at the present moment 
 is to adopt the very simple suggestion that has been made and put 
 in the 5s. and the 2s. I appeal to all those men who believe that at 
 a juncture like this it would do no harm to fix wages which are 
 obviously minimum amounts. If that is asked as a condition of a 
 final settlement, then I say why not avoid the necessity of weeks’ 
 delay, with men possibly standing out in various districts of the 
 kingdom waiting to see at what the minimum is to be fixed. All 
 these difficulties have to be faced, and therefore I am in favour of 
 the amendment. 
 
 Question put, “ That those words be there inserted.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 83; Noes, 326. 
 
241 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 Alden, Percy 
 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Bowerman, Charles W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Burt, Kt. Hon. Thomas 
 
 Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, Ellis William (Eifion 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 
 Fenwick, Bt. Hon. Charles 
 
 Gelder, Sir William Alfred 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Glanville, Harold James 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 
 Hall, F. (Yorks., Normanton 
 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 
 Hayward, Evan 
 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hodge, John 
 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 
 Horne, C. Silvester 
 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 King, J. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade 
 
 Lansbury, George 
 
 Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Martin, Joseph 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Mond, Sir Alfred M. 
 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pointer, Joseph 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Richards, Thomas 
 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 
 Rowlands, James 
 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Snowden, Philip 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 
 Wardle, G. J. 
 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 
 F 
 
242 
 
 Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen Winfrey, Richard 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes : — Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. J. Parker. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Addison, Dr. Christopher 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. 
 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Anstruther-Gray, Major William 
 Archer-Shee, Major Martin 
 Armitage, Robert 
 Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry 
 Astor, Waldorf 
 
 Bagot, Lieut. -Col. J. 
 
 Baird, John Lawrence 
 Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. 
 Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N. 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. 
 (Winchester) 
 
 Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset 
 Barnston, Harry 
 
 Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N. 
 Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. 
 Barton, William 
 
 Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E. 
 Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Beale, W. P. 
 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George 
 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 
 Bentham, George Jackson 
 
 Beresford, Lord Charles 
 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 
 Bird, A. 
 
 Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith^ 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 Boy ton, James 
 Bridgeman, William Clive 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, John E. L. 
 
 Buckmaster, Stanley 0. 
 Burdett-Coutts, W. 
 
 Burn, Colonel C. R. 
 
 Burns, Rt. Hon. John 
 Butcher, John George 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Cameron, Robert 
 Campion, W. R. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cator, John 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood 
 Cecil, Lord H. (Oxford University 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc’r 
 Clough, William 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cooper, Richard Ashmole 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 
243 
 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. 
 Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred 
 Croft, H. P. 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Denman, Hon. B. D. 
 
 Denniss, E. B. B. 
 
 Dickinson, W. H. 
 
 Dickson, Bt. Hon. C. S. 
 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Du Cros, Arthur Philip 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Essex, Bichard Walter 
 Eyres-Monsell, B. M. 
 
 Faber, George D. (Clapham 
 Falle, Bertram Godfray 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Ferens, Bt. Hon. Thomas Bobinson 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward 
 Finlay, Bt. Hon. Sir Bobert 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead 
 France, G. A. 
 
 Gardner, Ernest 
 Gastrell, Major W. Houghton 
 George, Bt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gibbs, George Abraham 
 ‘ Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Gordon, Hon. John E. (Brighton 
 Goulding, E. A. 
 
 Greene, Walter Baymond 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 ijGreig, Colonel J. W, 
 
 Gretton, John 
 
 Grey, Bt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 
 Griffith, Ellis J. 
 
 Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. 
 (Pembroke) 
 
 Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E . 
 Guinness, Hon Bupert (Essex, S.E. 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. 
 
 (Bury S. Edmunds) 
 
 Gwynne, B. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hambro, Angus Valmedar 
 Hamersley, Alfred St. George 
 Harcourt, Bt. Hon. L. (Bossendale 
 Harcourt, Bobert V. (Montrose 
 Hardy, Bt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Col. Thomas E. 
 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hill, Sir Clement L. 
 
 Hills, John Waller 
 Hill- Wood, Samuel 
 Hoare, S. J. G. 
 
 Hobhouse, Bt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy 
 Holmes, Daniel Turner 
 Holt, Bichard Durning 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hope, J. Fitzalan (Sheffield 
 Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford 
 Horner, Andrew Long 
 Houston, Bobert Paterson 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hume-Williams, W. E. 
 
 Hunt, Bowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 
244 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East 
 Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh 
 Jessel, Captain H. M. 
 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 
 Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement 
 Knight, Captain E. A. 
 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. 
 
 Molton) 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lawson, Hon. H. Tower Hamlets, 
 Mile End) 
 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland, 
 Cockermouth) 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury 
 Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas 
 Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo. Han. 
 
 MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 Maclean, Donald 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 M'Callum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M'Laren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 M'Micking, Major Gilbert 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, S. Augustine’s 
 Magnus, Sir Philip 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor) 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Menzies, Sir Walter 
 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Montague, Hon. E. S. 
 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrison-Bell, Captain E. F. 
 (Ashburton) 
 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 Munro, Robert 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C 
 Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 Neilson, Francis 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncasj 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfiel 
 Norton, Captain Cecil W. 
 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 Ogden, Fred 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mi 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 S. 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge 
 Perkins, Walter F. 
 
 Peto, Basil Edward 
 Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Pirie, Duncan V. 
 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pollock, Ernest Murray 
 Pretyman, Ernest George 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E. 
 Priest ley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 Pryce- Jones, Colonel E, 
 

 245 
 
 Radford, G. H. 
 
 Rawson, Colonel R. H. 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Remnant, James Farquharson 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 l Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Sanders, Robert Arthur 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 Sandys, G. J. 
 
 i iSchwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. 
 
 Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Scot, Sir S., (Marylebone, W. 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 
 Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton 
 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 
 : Spear, Sir John Ward 
 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 
 Terrell, Henry (Gloucester 
 Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 Tobin, Alfred Aspinall 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan Charles Philips 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 Tullibardine, Marquess of 
 
 Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander 
 
 Yerney, Sir H. 
 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 
 Ward, Arnold S. (Herts., Watford 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradeston 
 Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N. 
 Wolmer, Viscount 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks., Ripon 
 Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 
 Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George 
 
 Yate, Colonel, C. E. 
 
 Yerburgh, Robert 
 
 Young, William (Perth, East 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out 
 the words “ or that the workman has forfeited the right to wages at 
 the minimum rate by reason of his failure to comply with the 
 conditions with respect to the regularity or efficiency of the work to 
 be performed by workmen laid down by those rules.” 
 
246 
 
 1 desire to ask the right honourable gentleman in charge of the 
 Bill what is the meaning he attaches to the word “ forfeited his 
 right.” The clause commences with the words, “ It shall be an 
 implied term of every contract ” that certain conditions shall come 
 into operation except where they are excluded from those conditions 
 under the rules. I know of no industry in which contracts change 
 so quickly as the coal mining industry, and I should be glad to know 
 for how long a man forfeits his right, and whether when he enters 
 into another contract the forfeiture that has taken place under the 
 existing contract is still to be continued. I do not know whether I 
 have made my meaning clear. In some cases you have daily 
 contracts. There are tens of thousands of miners working under 
 daily contracts. Large numbers work under weekly contracts or 
 fortnightly contracts, and, I believe, almost the whole of South 
 Wales is governed by monthly contracts, so that it may be perceived 
 that if a person has once been brought before the District Board 
 and has been proved not to have complied with the conditions of 
 labour laid down it is very necessary to find out for what length of 
 time he has forfeited his right, whether his right to a minimum 
 rate is to exist only during the duration of the contract, or whether 
 once having forfeited that right he can never regain it. That is the 
 special reason why this amendment has been put down on the ' 
 paper. We want to find out exactly where we stand. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I beg to second the amendment. One of the j 
 general objections to the principle of the individual minimum wage 
 is based on the difficulty of supervision. We have had it pointed 
 out again and again, by various members of the House, that mining 
 is not like many other industries, and that the difficulty of super- 
 vision is greater. But if the colliery official experiences great 
 difficulty in supervising, and in ascertaining whether a workman 
 has produced a fair day’s work, the workman himself has just as 
 much, difficulty in proving to the Board that he has performed a fair 
 day’s work. The difficulty of the one is as great as the difficulty of 
 the other. The difficulties of mining are such that a man may only 
 produce half the output of coal on one day that he produces on 
 another, notwithstanding the fact that he may have been working at 
 higher pressure on the day he has produced the smaller output. I 
 have had much' practical experience as a miner, and I must say I 
 think that the safeguards the coalowner has over and above the 
 safeguard provided by this Bill, are quite sufficient under the 
 circumstances. In the first place at least sixty per cent, of the men 
 are paid by results, and the more they produce the more likely are 
 they to earn a higher wage than the minimum fixed. In the seconc 
 place, we ought not to forget that the employer has always the right 
 to employ the workman. I have much pleasure, therefore, in 
 seconding the amendment of my honourable friend. 
 
 The ATTOBNE Y-GENEBAL (Sir Bufus Isaacs) : The question 
 which is raised by my honourable friend the Member for the Ince 
 
247 
 
 Division (Mr. S. Walsh) has been put very clearly by him. He 
 conveyed to me exactly what he meant, and it has been enforced 
 by the honourable Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). The 
 object of this clause is first of all to make it a statutory term of 
 every contract, without mentioning it in the contract, to say that 
 whenever a contract for employment is made for work in a mine 
 underground, it follows without anything further being said upon 
 the one side or the other that there is a right to a minimum wage. 
 That is the object of putting here, as we have done at the beginning 
 of the clause, the words : — 
 
 “ It shall be an implied term of every contract ” 
 
 My honourable friends will have noticed that it is not possible under 
 this clause to get rid of the implied term in the contract. There is this 
 statement that the workmen may have forfeited his right to wages 
 at the minimum rate, or that he may be a person excluded. I must 
 point out that is all governed by the words : 
 
 “ unless it is certified in manner provided by the district 
 rules.” 
 
 Therefore the position is this : Every man is entitled to a 
 
 minimum wage unless the further condition is satisfied, that is, 
 unless there is a certificate that he has failed to perform either 
 the one or the other of the conditions. I will assume 
 that a workman has failed to perform the conditions during 
 one week, and that consequently there would be a certificate 
 that he has forfeited his right to the minimum wage during 
 that week. That certainly only applies to that week. As soon as 
 he goes on again with his work in the next week — assuming there 
 is, by the district rules, a weekly payment — what will happen will 
 be that the next week will be judged on its own merits, and if in 
 the next week he has complied with the conditions he gets the 
 minimum wage. If he has not complied with the conditions it will 
 be certified that he has failed to comply with them, and that he has 
 lost the minimum wage. I hope that satisfies my honourable 
 friends. The only effect will be that for the period for which the 
 certificate is given he is excluded. It is not a bar so long as he is in 
 that employment. It only means that for that particular period 
 for which the certificate is given he is not to be entitled to the 
 minimum wage. Of course the district rules will have to decide 
 what the period is to be. I follow what was said by the honourable 
 Member for West Fife as to what the difficulties might be in his 
 own district. The answer to that always is that the District Board 
 is familiar with those difficulties, and that they will settle the 
 conditions and lay them down in the rules, so that no special 
 difficulty can arise with a District Board, which is governed in that 
 matter by its own rules. I think the honourable members can be 
 
 
 
248 
 
 quite satisfied with the clause as it now stands. All that will result 
 from it is that a man will get his minimum wage, unless he has 
 forfeited his right or is excluded. He can only lose it for the period 
 for which the certificate is given. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : May I ask the right honourable gentleman 
 whether the particular point to which we have referred cannot be 
 made a little clearer in Sub-section (2), because the certificate is not 
 to state for what particular period the forfeiture is to exist ? If 
 he could give us suitable words — I am quite sure he agrees with us 
 that the matter ought to be settled beyond dispute, and at present 
 it seems rather vague — say on lines ten or eleven of page 2, I think 
 on that understanding we may take it for granted that we are 
 all agreed. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I think there is no difficulty whatever 
 as to what the words are intended to mean. I have no doubt 
 whatever as to what the effect is, but I will, if my honourable friends 
 wish it, consider whether we can insert words to meet the point. 
 
 I doubt if you can make the meaning clearer. I think it is as plain 
 in the Statute as it can possibly be. 
 
 n 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I am a little afraid of it myself; but, as 
 I understand the best will be done, I ask leave to withdraw the 
 amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave 
 out the words “ or efficiency ” (“ conditions with respect to the 
 regularity or efficiency of the work ”). 
 
 I move this amendment because I can assure the House that 
 these words open out a very serious matter indeed. There are so 
 many regulations governing the work of miners, that it is the easiest 
 thing in the world to have words of a most deceptive influence. For 
 instance, we have the words “ the regularity of the work.” Take 
 the case of the systematic timbering regulations. Everybody knows 
 that it is very difficult indeed for the best intentioned miner 
 sometimes to comply with those regulations. Would it be possible, 
 if he performed that work irregularly, for him to be brought by the 
 District Board within this provision ? I think it would if pressed 
 to its logical conclusion. Then you have the words “ or the efficiency 
 of the work.” There is nothing more deceptive than the term 
 “ efficiency.” We in Lancashire have agreed upon a particular form 
 of words which do not speak of the efficiency of the work, but speak 
 of the deficiency of the man, and when it can be proved that a 
 man is deficient, we have agreed that a deficient man should not be 
 
249 
 
 entitled to the minimum that is given to the capable workman. But 
 this clause says the “ efficiency of the work.” The efficiency of the 
 work of any one person can be made a matter of comparison with 
 the work of any other person, and if these conditions are pressed to 
 their logical conclusion, I see no end to the number of people who 
 can be taken out of the provisions of this Bill. The efficiency of 
 every person’s work is nearly always a matter of invidious 
 comparison. John Thompson does not do his work so well as Bill 
 Jackson, and neither of them do the work so well as Jack Jones. 
 Wherever the word “ efficiency ” has been used, and I know it has 
 been used in many agreements, it has opened up an immense area 
 of discussion. That I want to avoid under this Bill. If we can lay 
 down certain conditions with regard to matters of fact, then we 
 keep on safe ground, but when we let in matters of opinion as to 
 the efficiency of the work, we are opening out a set of conditions 
 which I am quite sure will destroy very much the value of the Bill. 
 That is why I propose the amendment. You might insert the 
 words “ regularity of attendance at the work.” If a man puts in 
 proper regularity of attendance that is the best proof of the 
 intention of the workman, and that he is not a shirker. The 
 regularity of attendance is the best fact that you can adduce to 
 show that he is the kind of workman that the employers desire. 
 
 Mr. JOHN WABD : I beg to second the amendment. The 
 word “ efficiency ” is a word of many meanings, and it may be 
 interpreted in so many ways that it is a most dangerous expression 
 to use in a Bill of this description. One can quite understand 
 regularity and the amount of attention that a man gives to his work, 
 and on the number of days in the week on the average when there 
 is a possibility of going to work, that he is there to do his work. 
 These are qualities that one can easily understand and lay down 
 definite rules about, but the efficiency of the man or the efficiency of 
 his work is a very difficult thing indeed, and the interpretation of it 
 may mean taking away many advantages which the proposers of the 
 Bill themselves wish the workmen to secure. It takes away a great 
 deal of certainty from an otherwise fairly well-drawn clause, 
 considering the object that we have in view, and it introduces many 
 uncertainties which will be decided in different places, according to 
 the different men who have the interpretation of this word. 
 Begularity of attendance and attention to work can be decided almost 
 as a matter of mathematical certainty at every time or place, as the 
 circumstances may require, but this word is an unknown quantity. 
 It is something which cannot be fastened upon, and be generally 
 applied to all circumstances, so that a man may know when he is 
 efficient or his work is efficient or when it cannot be considered as 
 efficient, and for that reason I ask my right honourable friend to 
 consider, even if he does not wish this word to be left out, at least 
 that there should be some understanding about it, and that it cannot 
 be interpreted against the best interests of the workman and against 
 the real intention of the framers of the Bill. 
 
250 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Both my honourable friends are under some 
 misapprehension in regard to the matter. This is only an Instruction 
 to the District Committees that they are to provide safeguards for 
 the employers. It was admitted on both sides during the Conference, j 
 and as freely on the part of the men as on the part of the owners, that j 
 the owners, in admitting the principle of the minimum wage, should be 
 entitled to safeguards against malingering or slackness of work, and that 
 while the men themselves were asking for a minimum wage the owners 
 on their side are entitled to an adequate output during the time a 
 man is working. “ Regularity and efficiency ” appeared to cover 
 that, and was accepted by those representing the miners, and it is 
 not, as the honourable Member (Mr. Ward) seems to think, that we 
 are defining in this Act what is efficiency. I think my honourable 
 friends will realise that under the proposals of the federated area, ! 
 with practically one or two minor exceptions which can probably be 
 arranged, and the strike having taken place, the owners and the 
 men had practically come to an arrangement under which regularity 
 and the efficiency of the workman would have been ensured. These 
 words are only an instruction to the Joint Committees, representing 
 the men as well as the owners, and to the chairman that in drawing 
 up their rules they shall have regard not merely to the regularity of a : 
 man’s attendance but to whether that man is really putting his back 
 into his work. The word “ efficiency ” is a well-known word in Acts • 
 of Parliament, and appeared to us to cover all these matters. j 
 Reference is made in the federated area, which we have taken very 
 much as our example, to this particular question, and I do not 
 think it will be sufficient protection for the owners merely to deal 
 with regularity of work unless during that period the man also was 
 doing his best to produce a proper output. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : It was the 80 per cent, of attendance that we , 
 were pratically agreed upon. I am suggesting the insertion of the 
 word “ attendance,” so that that particular point could be met and 
 agreed upon. The word “ efficiency,” however, refers not merely to 
 output, because of course, there is a very large amount of work 
 performed which does not consist of output at all. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON ; It is quite true that there was a clause in j 
 reference to regnlarity and the 80 per cent., and there was also a j 
 clause which was agreed to in substance, though I admit not entirely. [ 
 Apart from regularity the output, that is the efficiency, could also j 
 be secured. 
 
 Mr. WATT : It seems to me, judging from what has taken place j 
 that the regularity of the workman, combined with the power of the 
 masters to dismiss a workman if his work is not efficient, is quite 
 sufficient in the Bill. The efficiency of his work is so much a 
 matter of opinion that trouble is almost certain to arise. Suppose, for 
 example, that the members of this House who are efficient were to 
 be classified. No doubt some would think that Front Bench men 
 
 
251 
 
 were efficient. Others would think that the men who filled most 
 pages of the official report were the efficient men. I think the most 
 efficient men are those, like myself, who vote steadiest for the 
 Government. That is an illustration of the difference of opinion 
 that arises as to the efficiency of work. I think these words are 
 bound to make trouble if they are left in. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move, in Bub-section (2), to leave out 
 the word “ provide ” (“ The district rules shall provide ”) and to 
 insert instead thereof the words “ lay down conditions.” 
 
 These are amendments to deal with a point raised in Committee, 
 to which the Attorney-General said he would give attention, and I 
 think they carry out the views expressed by honourable members. 
 I will read the clause as it would stand with the amendment 
 inserted. They will make it freer to decide questions as to the aged 
 workman and the infirm workman : — 
 
 “ The district rules shall lay down conditions, as respects 
 the district to which they apply, with respect to the 
 exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum 
 rate of aged and infirm workmen (including workmen 
 partially disabled by illness or accident), and shall lay 
 down conditions for safeguarding employers with 
 respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work.” 
 
 Sir EDGAR JONES : I am grateful to the Government for 
 arranging the matter. I think it is clear, now we have put it 
 definitely, that the view of the Government is practically that the 
 determination as to when a person is an aged workman or an infirm 
 workman will be in the hands of the District Committee. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Yes. 
 
 Sir E. JONES: That is agreed upon. It is not the managers 
 who may go to a Court of Law to decide whether an individual 
 workman is aged or not. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Further Amendment made : After the word “ workman ” 
 (“ aged and infirm workmen ”) insert the words (“ including 
 workmen partially disabled by illness or accident ”). 
 
 Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN : I beg to move an amend- 
 ment, of which my noble friend (Lord Robert Cecil) gave notice — 
 namely, in Sub-section (2), after the word “of” (“minimum rate 
 of aged workmen and infirm workmen ”), to insert the word “ such.” 
 
252 
 
 This amendment must be read with another, of which my 
 noble friend has given notice — after the word “ workmen ” (“ infirm 
 workmen ”), to insert the words “ as may have made application to 
 be excluded.” Of course, we all agree that workmen who are aged 
 and infirm cannot expect to have the minimum wage which is to be 
 paid to other workmen. At the same time it does seem very hard 
 that a District Board should, without any application on the part of 
 a workmen, lay down that they are aged or infirm. The result 
 might be in the case of these unfortunate men that they could not 
 get any work anywhere else. Therefore the object of the two 
 amendments is to limit that exclusion to the case of such aged or 
 infirm workmen as may have made application to be excluded. It 
 may be said that if this were put in the Bill, it would compel all 
 owners to employ such people if they did not make application. 
 That is not so. An owner may say, “ I cannot go on employing 
 you unless you make application,” and therefore it leaves it open to 
 the man to make application or, if he likes, to go and get other work, 
 without having a stigma put upon him by the Board of being aged 
 or infirm. It is very hard on a man to be labelled either aged or 
 infirm. I think this is a hard case, and I hope the Government 
 will do something to meet it. 
 
 Sir JOHN SPEAB : I cordially second the amendment, because 
 while I firmly believe that the application of a rigid minimum wage 
 would prove disastrous to the interests of the older workmen, and 
 perhaps partially disabled workmen, I think the amendment would 
 secure others against the withholding of the minimum wage, and 
 the danger would be removed. I submit that while the exemption 
 is very desirable in the interests of the older men, and in the 
 interests perhaps of some who have never had the opportunity of 
 becoming first-class workers, yet I think the requirement that they 
 should apply for this exemption does screen them from any arbitrary 
 use of the exemption itself. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : The real answer to this proposal is this, and 
 I hope it will satisfy the honourable gentlemen opposite. The clause 
 already reads as was originally intended that these rules applying 
 to infirm persons and others will be drawn up by the District Boards 
 with both sides fully represented. I think the most satisfactory 
 way of dealing with this question is to leave it to those who have 
 local knowledge, and who will be much more likely to draw up rules 
 satisfactory to all parties concerned than the House of Commons 
 would be. I ask the honourable gentlemen not to press the amend- 
 ment. The District Boards will give consideration to all the 
 circumstances, and I think it would be very unfortunate if Parlia- 
 ment were to lay down specific conditions. 
 
 Sir A. GBIFFITH-BOSCAWEN : It is difficult to see the 
 bearing of the amendment just carried on this particular point. 
 We shall trust to the local Boards to do justice to those men and 
 
253 
 
 not to leave a stigma on them. I beg leave to withdraw the 
 amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made : After the word “ workmen ” (“ infirm 
 workmen”), insert the words “(including workmen partially dis- 
 abled by illness or accident).” — (Mr. Buxton.) 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move, after the word “ conditions ” 
 (“ shall lay down conditions ”), to insert the words “ for safe-guarding 
 employers.” 
 
 Mr. JOHN WARD : I do not know why these words are being 
 inserted. The clause, as drafted, gives the power of direction for 
 certain purposes as to the regularity and efficiency of workmen. It 
 seems to me that that is quite sufficient. Why should there be a 
 definite direction to safeguard the employers without mentioning 
 the necessary safeguards for workmen at the same time? One can 
 quite understand that there might be circumstances which would 
 form an incentive for a workman to get the minimum wage without 
 doing his proper share of work, but at the same time there is 
 another view which can quite easily be taken, and that is that when 
 once the minimum wage is enforced the employer might put a 
 task on a man which would render the minimum wage not an 
 advantage to him, but a positive injury to him, his family, 
 and everybody concerned. It is the workman who will require 
 safeguards rather than the employer, and therefore a direction 
 should be given to the District Boards to safeguard the workmen in 
 these matters. We have got so accustomed to be frightened by the 
 bogey of the malingering workman, who does not exist as a matter 
 of fact, that we are used to tightening up legislation and regulations 
 of this description by putting in phrases which do no good to anyone. 
 Why should the employer be able to use the minimum wage for the 
 purpose of getting a maximum of labour beyond what human 
 endurance is incapable of performing. My experience when I was 
 a workman was that I had to work jolly hard for low wages, and it 
 was I who wanted safeguarding and not the man who employed me. 
 That is the experience practically of every sweated workman in the 
 country. A phrase like this is most unsuitable for such a Bill. 
 There are quite safeguards enough for the employer and too few 
 safeguards for the workman, so far as it extends at present. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : The words that were moved in 
 Committee on this very subject were taken verbatim from what the 
 Prime Minister laid down at the desire of the Government in their 
 own proposals, which were laid before the two parties, and the 
 Government objected to the full words that were used, “for safe- 
 guarding the employers from abuse,” and said they would rather 
 substitute the words “ for safeguarding employers.” It was generally 
 
254 
 
 understood that those words would be brought up on the Report 
 Stage, and the result is that the Government has put down this 
 amendment. I think the right honourable gentleman’s original 
 words were “safeguarding the employer.” The District Board 
 should be left free to put down safeguards, which might apply to 
 only one employer if necessary. Therefore, I think, that the 
 original words “safeguarding the employer” instead of “safeguarding 
 employers” are the best. In reference to the point raised by the 
 honourable Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), it must be 
 remembered that where the minimum wage is established this 
 amendment is absolutely necessary as a counterweight on the other 
 side, so that the minimum wage should be obtained in a legitimate 
 way. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : My honourable friend (Mr. J. Ward) is under 
 a misapprehension with regard to this matter. It is a purely 
 declaratory amendment. Apparently this sub-section deals solely 
 with the questions of safeguards for the owner. It is quite true, as 
 the honourable gentleman who has just sat down has stated, that 
 the Committee thought when they adopted the principle of the 
 minimum wage that the safeguard should be provided in the Act 
 against abuse. These safeguards are solely for the owner, and do 
 not apply in any way to the question of safeguards for the men. The 
 words are only declaratory in this sub-section under conditions which 
 both sides accepted. I hope that my honourable friend will accept 
 this explanation. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to move : 
 
 “ That the words ‘ and workmen ’ be added to the proposed 
 amendment.” 
 
 There will only be one set of District Rules and only one District 
 Board, and we are dealing with the aged and infirm workmen and 
 the partially disabled workmen. Surely it will be just as necessary 
 to safeguard the interests of those classes of men as to safeguard the 
 interests of the employers. It may be perfectly true that the 
 intention of the clause as it stands now is simply for the protection 
 of the employers, but we have brought in by a recent amendment 
 the partially disabled workmen as well, and surely it is very desirable 
 they should be safeguarded. The amendment of the right honourable 
 gentleman has brought in a class of people that the clause itself did 
 not provide for previously, and it is very necessary that they should 
 be safeguarded. The point raised by my honourable friend the 
 Member for Stoke is a very vital one, inasmuch as these will be the 
 only Rules that can be applied to a new class of workers who are now 
 introduced into this clause, and there is no class of workmen about 
 the mines so greatly in need of having their rights safeguarded as 
 the partially disabled men who will nearly always be put on a lower 
 rate of wages, 
 
255 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I will accept the suggestion of my honourable 
 friend (Mr. S. Walsh), as I confess he has put a somewhat different 
 complexion on the words to which he referred, and, as I have already 
 brought in the partially disabled and so on, it does show that these 
 words are necessary. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : If these words come in the clause would 
 then read, “ To lay down conditions for safeguarding employers and 
 workmen with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work 
 to be performed by the workmen.” How can you lay down 
 conditions safeguarding the interests of the workmen with respect to 
 the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by the 
 workmen? I submit that that would be nonsense. 
 
 Mr. KEATING : In reference to the point raised by the 
 honourable member for the City of London, as far as my knowledge 
 of this matter goes, nearly the whole of this struggle has arisen 
 through the petty tyranny of the management of the mines. I do 
 not blame one side more than the other on this question, but unless 
 these words are accepted the danger is that the spirit of tyranny 
 which animates the management of some of the mines, quite outside 
 the knowledge of the owners, is likely to penalise some of these 
 workmen under the operation of this clause. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I am rather surprised the Govern- 
 ment have accepted the amendment which has been suddenly 
 brought forward. I was out of the House when the right honour- 
 able gentleman accepted it, but after all it is an amendment 
 which introduces an entirely new question, and as I did not hear the 
 right honourable gentleman I do not know what reason he gave for 
 including this which is an entirely new point. I do not know really 
 what is meant by conditions safeguarding the workman, and if this 
 amendment to the amendment is to be accepted I confess I see no 
 object in putting in the words at all. The words proposed by the 
 amendment carrying out a distinct pledge given by the Government, 
 and the intention of the Government had nothing whatever to do 
 with the question of the workmen. It now becomes simply a pious 
 declaration for safeguarding the interests of the employer and the 
 workman. I do not think the proposal will have much effect, but 
 I must leave it to the Government to take whatever course they 
 like. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY: The honourable Member below the Gangway 
 (Mr. Keating) can hardly have read the clause. He spoke of there 
 being a considerable amount of tyranny among the managers, but 
 this had nothing whatever to do with the management. The clause 
 states that the District Boards shall provide rules with respect to 
 the district to which they apply in regard to the regularity and 
 efficiency of work, in order to safeguard the interests of the 
 employers. A more boggled and absurd clause, if this amendment 
 
256 
 
 to the amendment be accepted, I have never had the pleasure of 
 reading in an Act of Parliament, even an Act of Parliament passed 
 by the present Government. What it has got to do with manage- 
 ment I fail to see. 
 
 Mr. KEATING : The managers decide the efficiency of the 
 workmen. 
 
 Sir F. BANBUBY : No ; certainly not. The district rules are 
 made by the District Boards, and they have nothing to do with the 
 managers. The honourable member apparently does not know 
 what is in the Bill. It is the District Boards under impartial 
 chairmen who are to lay down the rules. 
 
 Mr. WATT: The honourable baronet was not in the House 
 when certain amendments were made, and the clause is not the 
 same as he read it. 
 
 Sir F. BANBUBY : One or two small amendments have been 
 put in, it is true, but that does not alter the point which I was 
 making that the rules are to be made by the District Boards, and 
 not by the managers, as the honourable member below the Gangway 
 seems to think. The right honourable gentleman the President 
 of the Board of Trade has given no reason for accepting the amend- 
 ment to the amendment, and he has accepted it apparently because 
 it was moved by an honourable member below the Gangway 
 opposite. He has given no reason at all, and I do not think he can 
 give a reason, because there is not a sensible reason which could be 
 given for accepting the addition. As far as I am personally 
 concerned, as the Bill is so bad and will do so little good, the more 
 it is nonsense the better I shall be pleased ; therefore, I shall not 
 object to the words being put in. The words of the amendment 
 were proposed to safeguard the interests of the employers, and to 
 carry out a pledge given by the Prime Minister when he introduced 
 the Bill, and when he laid down that a measure providing that there 
 shall be a minimum wage should be accompanied by safeguards in 
 the interests of the employers ; but to attempt to maintain that this 
 is carrying out the pledge of the right honourable gentleman is 
 beyond even the powers of honourable members below the Gangway 
 opposite. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I hope the President of the Board of Trade 
 will adhere to his acceptance of the amendment to the amendment. 
 I think it is absolutely necessary that the interests of the workmen 
 should be safeguarded as well as the interests of the employers. We 
 find in dealing with questions of wages that we have frequent 
 disputes with colliery officials as to the amount of working time that 
 has been put in by the workman. That is one of the difficulties in 
 dealing with the wages’ question. We find that colliery officials set 
 down a certain number of days as having been worked during the 
 
fortnight in dispute by the workman, while the workman himself 
 gives a different number of days as having been worked. Then, 
 again, difficulties take place between colliery officials and the 
 workmen as to the quality of the work done. The ideas on that 
 point of two men differ. Both may be practical men, but they have 
 different ideas as to how the work may be performed. Consequently 
 I think it is important in the workman’s interest that he should be 
 safeguarded as well as the employer. If we observe what is to follow 
 in some of the other clauses of the Bill, questions of payment and 
 such like, I think it is very essential indeed that the workman’s 
 interests should be safeguarded as well as those of the employer. 
 
 Mr. PARKE S: I hope the Government will hesitate before 
 they accept the amendment from below the Gangway opposite. It 
 appears to me that the two words in the amendment as proposed to 
 be amended are mutually destructive. I quite agree that the 
 interests of the workman ought to be safeguarded, but this is not 
 the place in which that can be effected, because the words would 
 nullify each other altogether. It may be desirable to safeguard the 
 interests of the workers in some other part of the Bill, but perhaps 
 the best course would be to leave out both words “ workman ” and 
 “employer,” rather than put in words that contradict each other. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : The Government, I think, would be well advised 
 to withdraw the word “ safeguard,” and we would withdraw the 
 word “workman.” 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG : I could not gather from the right 
 honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the 
 principle which underlies his acceptance of the amendment to the 
 amendment. In the Committee stage on this clause the question 
 of aged workmen and infirm workmen was considered, and at that 
 time the right honourable gentleman saw no necessity for introducing 
 anything except words which would fulfil the definite pledge of the 
 Prime Minister to safeguard the employer with regard to regularity 
 and efficiency of work. Now comes an honourable member below 
 the Gangway opposite with an amendment to the amendment, not 
 only in regard to aged an infirm workmen, but also partially infirm 
 workmen, thus changing the whole question of principle. The 
 definite pledge of the Prime Minister to safeguard the employer 
 with regard to regularity and efficiency of work is made to relate to 
 workmen, not only aged and infirm, but also partially infirm. I 
 cannot understand what the right honourable gentleman means. 
 Does he give that as a reason for changing the words of the amend- 
 ment ? If that is not the reason, what is the reason for the 
 amendment to the amendment ? I agree that it is entirely desirable 
 to safeguard the interest of the workman. I entirely agree that if 
 you want pious words to that effect, you may put them in some- 
 where, but why put them in here, when it is entirely and solely a 
 question of the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed 
 
 Q 
 
258 
 
 by workmen ? What safeguard does the workman want if he 
 performs his work regularly and efficiently*? In other words and 
 perhaps in another place it would be quite right to protect workmen 
 from abuse by safeguards. You are now introducing nonsense into 
 the section. If you want to pacify the people on whose good will 
 you depend, bring in a new clause, but do not derogate from the 
 absolute pledge of the Prime Minister. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : What I said in Committee was that safeguards 
 for the employer were contained in the text of the Bill, and, in a 
 rash moment, perhaps, I promised to put these words in. As was 
 pointed out by my honourable friend below the Gangway, and quite 
 justly, I think, if these words were put in it might be felt in regard 
 to various matters affecting workmen that they were not like safe- 
 guards. Therefore I accepted the additional words, but under the 
 circumstances I put it to the House that the best way is not to put 
 in these words, which would really have no effect in making the 
 safeguards for employers stronger than they are at present. I regard 
 the speech of the honourable gentleman opposite as quite un- 
 necessary. 
 
 Amendment to proposed amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 I 
 
 Amendments made : In Sub-section (2) leave out the word 
 “provide” (“ and provide with respect ”). After the word “and” 
 
 (“ and that a workman ”) insert the words “ shall provide.” Leave : 
 out the words “those conditions” (“ comply with those conditions”), 
 and insert instead thereof the words “ conditions as to regularity j 
 and efficiency of work.” — Mr. Buxton. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word f 
 “question” (“in which any question”), to insert the words “as to 
 when boys are entitled to be paid the minimum wage to which men 
 are entitled and.” 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to second the Amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This would really be met in the rules of the 
 District Committees, and I think the words are superfluous. 
 
 Amendment by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made : In Sub-section (2), after the word 
 
 “ applicable ” (“ wages is applicable ”), insert the words “ or whether 
 a workman has complied with the conditions laid down by the 
 rules.” — (Mr. Buxton). 
 
259 
 
 Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after 
 the word “of ” (date of the passing of ”), to insert the words “ the 
 commencement of work within fourteen days after.” 
 
 This Bill professes to be a means of bringing this unfortunate 
 strike, which is causing so much misery to all classes of the 
 population, to an end. The intention of this amendment is to make 
 the Bill operative to bring the strike to an end so far as it is possible 
 for any Act to do. It is quite possible, under the clause as drafted 
 now, that either the owners or the men, as the case may be, to 
 either decline to go back in the case of the men, or decline to open 
 the mines in the case of the masters, until they know, so to speak, 
 which way the cat is going to jump, or which way the Joint Board 
 is going to decide in matters relating to the minimum wage. If 
 there is really any sincerity on the part of both masters and men in 
 this matter in regard to this Bill as a means of bringing this strike 
 to an end, my words will simply have the effect of enabling them to 
 demonstrate their sincerity by making it certain that they are 
 prepared to accept this tribunal and its decisions on the footing that 
 it does bring the present differences of opinion to a close, and will 
 operate so far as is possible in causing the mines to open and the 
 miners to return to work. On the face of it, what is intended by 
 the amendmsnt is apparent. 
 
 Mr. PARKE S : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : I have not the slightest objection to the 
 amendment unless there is the possibility of it doing what I am 
 afraid it might do, and in that event 1 should object to it most 
 seriously. Is there any chance of interpreting this amendment as 
 being that the minimum wage is only to apply to those who start 
 work in the mines within fourteen days after the passing of the Bill, 
 and that all new men taken on after the fourteen days would not 
 receive the minimum wage ? If that is the intention we could not 
 under any circumstances accept the amendment. 
 
 Mr. C. BATHURST : That is certainly not my intention, and 
 if the words are so interpreted I shall not press them. The sole 
 object of the amendment is that as regards both owners and the 
 men connected with the pit this agreement shall operate only if 
 work is resumed within fourteen days after the passing of the Act. 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : In those circumstances most decidedly it could 
 not be accepted without some qualification. There may be mines 
 that it would take fourteen days to get ready, and the men, even if 
 they wanted to go to work, could not do so. Surely the honourable 
 member does not intend to exclude them, because all the employers 
 would have to do would be to keep the mine in such a condition 
 that it was impossible to work it for fourteen days, and we might 
 just as well have never had a Bill at all. I quite agree with the 
 
260 
 
 principle if proper safeguards could be introduced, but there must 
 be definite safeguards before it can be accepted. 
 
 Sir RUEUS ISAACS : I agree entirely with my honourable 
 friend. The use of these words will produce very great difficulty 
 and will not secure what the honourable member intends. It would 
 be much better that these words should be omitted and that there 
 should be inserted the words “ fourteen days after the passing of 
 this Act.” You would then have a definite time from when the 
 minimum wage was to operate. It can only operate for men who 
 are at work. But the insertion of these words would lead to all 
 kinds of possibilities of interpretation, which I hardly like to 
 contemplate, and which I am sure the House does not intend. 
 The words I have suggested would meet everybody’s view. They 
 allow a certain time for preparation. I understand they are not 
 objected to by the employers, and that they are agreed to by those who 
 represent the miners. If the honourable member will withdraw his 
 amendment and move it in the form I suggested, it will be accepted, j 
 
 Mr. C. BATHURST : I quite agree that the words I have . 
 moved are open to misconstruction and might lead to difficulty. I 
 will therefore ask leave to withdraw them, in order to move those ] 
 suggested by the Attorney-General. 
 
 Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : Could not the Attorney-General 
 accept the words which have been handed in by the honourable 
 Member for Liverpool ? 
 
 The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The amendment 
 handed in by the honourable member deals $ith the point we have « 
 just decided. 
 
 Mr. C. BATHURST : I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after 
 the word “ from ” (“ from the date of the passing of this Act ”), to 
 insert the words “ the expiration of a period of fourteen days after.” 
 
 Mr. WHELER : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BRACE : I do not want to oppose these words, because I 
 understand there has been some kind of arrangement to which I am 
 not a party. The House must not take it that I am a consenting 
 party to these words, but, after what I have been told, I do not care 
 to accept the responsibility of offering objection to them. 
 
 Mr. RIGBY SWIFT : Before the House decides to accept 
 these words I should like to be sure that we quite appreciate their 
 effect. It seems to me that they will have quite the opposite effect 
 to that desired by honourable members below the Gangway opposite, 
 
261 
 
 and quite a different result from that which I desire with regard to 
 any men to go back to work within the next fortnight. As the 
 clause stands, the minimum wage principle is made applicable from 
 the moment of the passing of the Act. It will apply to every man 
 who goes back to work to-morrow or the day after to-morrow; he 
 will get the minimum wage from the moment he goes back 
 to work, although the amount of it may not be determined for 
 two or three weeks to come. I understand that the amendment 
 is to postpone the operation of this Act for fourteen days, 
 so that there will be a period of fourteen days after the passing 
 of the Act during which anybody who goes back to work 
 will do so upon a basis different from that of the minimum 
 wage. I am sure the Government do not intend to introduce that 
 dual system. What they really mean is that anybody who goes 
 back to work after the passing of the Act shall have the benefit of 
 the Act. I believe that is what honourable members below the 
 Gangway mean. I am sure it is what I mean, and unless I am 
 convinced that my interpretation of the amendment is quite erroneous 
 I shall certainly not agree to its insertion. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : The Government seem to take the line of 
 least resistance. If the amendment is accepted it will mean that if 
 a man goes back to the mine he is not to enjoy the benefit of the 
 Act for fourteen days. That is a direct contravention of the pledge 
 given by the Prime Minister that every man who went back to work 
 after the passing of the Act would get the minimum wage. Why, 
 without any reason or argument, is it to be made not to apply for 
 fourteen days ? A definite pledge was given by the Prime Minister. 
 If this amendment goes forward I shall divide the House against it. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : There seems to be some misapprehension 
 in regard to this matter. The reason why I suggested these words 
 was for the purpose of meeting the view of both the employer and 
 the miner. We thought they would carry out what both desired. If 
 they do not desire the words, so far as the Governmeot are concerned 
 there is no necessity to press the matter. 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : If you insert them you interfere with the very 
 objects for which we are passing the Act. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : It was not the Government that moved 
 them. 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : I know that. 
 
 Mr. C. BATHURST : I am responsible for this amendment in 
 the sense that I accepted the suggestion for modification of an 
 amendment which I was prepared to move. I am bound to observe 
 that they do not quite meet the case. I do not think myself, either, 
 that the amendment is going to tend in its present form to bring the 
 
262 
 
 miners back to the pits. As that is the object for which I desired to 
 move the amendment, and as it does not appear to satisfy any section 
 of the House, I ask leave to withdraw it. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Clause 2. — (Settlement of Minimum Rate of Wages and 
 District Rules.) 
 
 (1) Minimum rates of wages and district rules for the purposes 
 of this Act shall be settled separately for each of the districts named 
 in the Schedule to this Act by a body of persons recognised by the 
 Board of Trade as the Joint District Board for that district. 
 
 Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of any agree- 
 ment entered into or custom existing before the passing of this Act 
 for the payment of wages at a minimum rate higher than that 
 settled under this Act. 
 
 (2) The Board of Trade may recognise as a Joint District Board 
 for any district any body of persons, whether existing at the time of 
 the passing of this Act or constituted for the purposes of this Act, 
 which in the opinion of the Board of Trade fairly and adequately 
 represents the workmen in coal mines in the district and the 
 employers of those workmen, and the chairman of which is an 
 independent person appointed by agreement between the persons 
 representing the workmen and employers respectively on the body, 
 or in default of agreement by the Board of Trade. 
 
 The Board of Trade may, as a condition of recognising as a 
 Joint District Board for the purposes of this Act any body the rules 
 of which do not provide for the members representing workmen and 
 the members representing employers voting as separate classes and 
 for giving the chairman a casting vote in case of difference between 
 the two classes, require that body to adopt any such rule as the 
 Board of Trade may approve for the purpose, and any rule so 
 adopted shall be deemed to be a rule governing the procedure of the 
 body for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 (3) The Joint District Board of a district shall settle general 
 minimum rates of wages and general district rules for their district 
 (in this Act referred to as general district minimum rates and general 
 district rules), and the general district minimum rates and general 
 district rules shall be the rates and rules applicable throughout the 
 whole of the district to all coal mines in the district and to all 
 workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those 
 mines, other than mines to which and workmen to whom a special 
 minimum rate or special district rules settled under the provisions 
 of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and workmen to 
 whom the Joint District Board declare that the general district 
 
263 
 
 rates and general district rules shall not be applicable pending the 
 decision of the question whether a special district rate or special 
 district rules ought to be settled in their case. 
 
 (4) The Joint District Board of any district shall, if it is 
 shown to them that any general district minimum rate or general 
 district rules are not applicable in the case of any coal mine within 
 the district or of any class of coal mines within the district, or in 
 the case of any class of workmen, owing to the special circum- 
 stances of the mine or class of mine or workmen, settle a special 
 minimum rate (either higher or lower than the general district rate) 
 or special district rules (either more or less stringent than the 
 general district rules) for that mine or class of mines or class of 
 workmen, and any such special rate or special rules shall be the 
 rate or rules applicable to that mine, class of mine, or class of 
 workmen instead of the general district minimum rate or general 
 district rules. 
 
 (5) For the purpose of settling a minimum rate of wage the 
 Joint District Board may subdivide their district, and in that case 
 each part of the district as so subdivided shall for the purpose of the 
 minimum rate, be treated as the district. 
 
 (6) For the purpose of settling district rules, any Joint District 
 Boards may agree that their districts shall be treated as one 
 district, and in that case those districts shall be treated for that 
 purpose as one combined district, with a combined District 
 Committee appointed as may be agreed between the Joint District 
 Boards concerned, and the Chairman of such one of the districts 
 forming the combination as may be agreed upon between the Joint 
 District Boards concerned, or, in default of agreement, determined 
 by the Board of Trade, shall be the Chairman of the combined 
 District Committee. 
 
 Amendments made : In Sub-section (2), leave out the word 
 “ minimum ” (“at a minimum rate”). 
 
 Leave out the word “that” (“ than that settled”) and insert 
 instead thereof the words “ the minimum rate.” 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), 
 to add the words “ and in settling any minimum rate of wages the 
 Joint District Board shall have regard, amongst other matters, to 
 the average daily rate of wages paid to the workman of the class for 
 which the minimum rate is to be settled.” 
 
 Some direction, it was considered, ought to be given, or might 
 be given, to the District Committees and to the chairmen as to the 
 basis on which they might take into account the consideration of the 
 minimum rate which they are about to make. We are asked to go 
 
264 
 
 further than that, and to say that the minimum rate of wages 
 settled under the Act ought not to be less than the existing rates of 
 wages. We did not see that we could settle or limit the operation 
 or the power of the District Committee representing both sides. 
 The House will remember that in Committee the Prime Minister 
 undertook, if it would meet the general desire, to put certain words 
 in, and the words of this amendment are practically the identical 
 words he read out to the Committee. 
 
 Mr. DUNCAN MILLAE : This amendment relates to one of 
 the most important considerations of the Bill. I should have 
 preferred the words of the amendment which stands lower down on 
 the Paper. But I hope that we may interpret the intention of the 
 amendment which has been put down by the Government to mean 
 that it is their intention to make it perfectly clear that existing 
 agreements, customs, and rates of wages in each particular district 
 are to be the governing considerations for the District Board when 
 it comes to consider the matter. I hope also it is their intention to 
 include both the miners and daywage men, as I understand was the 
 undertaking given to us on a previous occasion. I think if that is 
 made clear at the present time it will have a stronger effect in 
 inducing the men to go back to work than any other provision of 
 the Bill. I should like the honourable gentleman to explain 
 whether the proposed chairmen of the Joint Boards will be bound 
 by the same considerations in regard to this matter. In other words, 
 will they take into account when they give their casting vote the 
 existing rate of wages, the existing agreements, and customs as 
 governing considerations ? If we get a satisfactory assurance upon 
 that point, I believe, in the absence of the figures which we ask for, 
 that this amendment will go further than any other provision to 
 settle the strike. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, if this 
 amendment is accepted will it cut any further discussion out ? I 
 have an amendment further down. They both deal with the same 
 point. I think my amendment is a little more effective. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKEB : If the House decides that the Joint Board 
 should take these matters into consideration, I should say it would 
 not be open for the House to consider the second amendment. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH: Then I beg that the discussion should go on 
 on this particular point. I am quite certain that the objects 
 desired by the right honourable gentlemen will not be served by the 
 form of the amendment. The words “shall have regard” seem to 
 me to be rather vague and loose. “ Other matters ” does at least 
 make it a little better, but that the Boards “ shall have regard ” to is 
 just as intangible as the whole Bill from beginning to end. My 
 amendment a little later was to make it obligatory that the existing 
 rate of wages in the district affected must be the minimum rate. I 
 
265 
 
 think that is the intention of practically every member who has 
 spoken in this House. It is, indeed, the intention of a very large 
 number of employers in the United Kingdom. I am not giving any 
 secrets away when I say that 65 per cent, of the employers in the 
 kingdom were prepared here and now to pay the existing wages as 
 a recognised minimum, and on the understanding that peace was 
 assured to them for about two years. I certainly think that if the 
 Government are in earnest in saying that they want a reasonable 
 minimum wage ; if they are in earnest in saying that having found 
 65 per cent, of the employers willing some time ago to give this 
 thing, if it be a fact that 65 per cent, of the employers were prepared 
 to give the present rate of wages as the minimum rate as an 
 assurance of peace being granted to them for a reasonable time 
 then, I think, it is right that the employers should take their 
 courage more resolutely and carry out the amendment I have on the 
 paper, so that in no case shall the minimum rate be under that 
 already existing in the district. The mere intimation that the 
 Board “shall have regard” to it does not carry it any tangible 
 distance. The Bill is a thing of shreds and patches. I say with 
 great earnestness, as a citizen of this country, that when this Bill does 
 pass it will be the duty of every citizen to make the best of the Bill. 
 I say that openly and seriously, and I am prepared to take the 
 consequences that may follow. Our citizenship should be higher 
 than our trade union, and with me it will be, and I appeal to the 
 Government to help us to that end. An immense responsibility 
 rests upon the miners’ agents. I know it is easy to bandy words in 
 this House and to talk of the leaders running after the men and the 
 leaders being afraid. We are not afraid, but we want some condition 
 that will give us hope and that will give the men hope. My amend- 
 ment, so far as I am capable of understanding the English language, 
 will carry out the ideas intended. I am afraid the amendment of 
 the right honourable gentleman will but leave the whole thing vague 
 and insecure, and for that reason I hope the Government will not 
 insist upon their own amendment, but will accept the form of words 
 which I suggest. I do not know whether I could move my amend- 
 ment in the form on the paper, but I was thinking that perhaps it 
 would be permissible for me to move to amend the official amendment 
 in this regard, and if that were so I should move after the word “shall ” 
 in the Government amendment (“the Joint Boards shall have 
 regard”), to leave out the words “have regard amongst other 
 matters to,” and to insert instead thereof the words “ not fix a rate 
 of wages less than.” The amendment would then read : — 
 
 “ In setting any minimum rate of wages the Joint District 
 Board shall not fix a rate of wages less than the average 
 daily rate paid to the workman of the class for which the 
 minimum rate is to be settled.” 
 
 Sir COURTENAY WARNER : I beg to second the amend- 
 ment. I should like to say this is one of those points that I do not 
 
266 
 
 think affects the principle of patting a fixed sum into the Bill, while 
 it gives at the same time the satisfaction to the men of knowing 
 that they are going to have something tangible. There has been a 
 great deal said about the difficulty of getting the men back to work, 
 and that the leaders ought to recommend them to go back to work. 
 But it is difficult to get men back to work unless their leaders can give 
 them some definite assurance that they will not be in any worse position 
 than they were before. I think that could be done by an amendment 
 like this, which distinctly lays down that this Bill is intended to 
 improve their position, and that when this Bill is passed they can 
 go back to work with the assurance that their position will be no 
 worse, and that there will be a minimum rate fixed. The strike 
 will then be brought to an end much sooner than otherwise. 
 
 Mr. LAURENCE HARDY : I cannot but feel that the 
 Government will acquiesce in my appeal not at all events to accept 
 these words. Of course, if they accept these words, they are 
 simply going back on everthing they have said. It would mean not 
 only inserting the schedules which we have resisted, but it would 
 mean inserting something more than the schedules, because, at all 
 events all through the federated areas, it was practically agreed that 
 the minimum rates are less than anything like what what you say is 
 the average or normal rate. How can a minimum rate possibly be 
 an average rate ? The average rate is formed between what may be 
 the highest and the lowest rate of pay, by which means eventually 
 you arrive at an average. How can you ever have a minimum that 
 has anything to do with an average ? My objection to the 
 Government amendment is that it introduces the word “ average ” 
 into the Bill. It seems to be an absolutely false standard to give to 
 the District Boards. If they are to be advisory words it is an 
 absolutely wrong principle, because you cell their attention to 
 something that never could be a minimum wage. The average 
 wage could never be the minimum wage, and it seems to be 
 absolutely bad drafting to put such words into the Bill. So far as 
 the owners are concerned the Government have consistently, in 
 answer to our amendment, said, “ Leave these matters to the 
 District Board ; they will consider them ” ; and the undoubted 
 presumption was that that was what the Government intended to 
 do. When we moved amendments we we always met with that 
 argument. 
 
 During the discussion we have had two things promised us — 
 two declarations that would help us in coming before the District 
 Boards. One promise was the employers should be safeguarded. 
 The Government have given way to-night, and withdrawn these 
 boards. Another promise was that we should be given a certain 
 amount of time to get ready our pits before the minimum rate came 
 into operation, from the desire to hasten the application of 
 the minimum rate. That also has been withdrawn by the 
 
 Government. They have withdrawn all declarations in favour of 
 
267 
 
 the owners. I ask them to withdraw this declaration which 
 they are now inserting in favour of the men. So much on the 
 general principle, But the immediate thing, I ask the 
 Government most earnestly, is this. They have gone aside 
 from the view which the held throughout, namely, that the Act 
 ought not to lay down general directions to the Board, but that they 
 should be left to exercise their own judgment. I ask now that we 
 ought not to have the judgment prejudged by the fact that when 
 they study the Act they shall only find one direction, and that is to 
 attend to the average daily rates of wages. Because, if they do 
 that, it will influence their judgment to such an extent that we 
 shall not get the unprejudiced decisions we should all like to have. 
 I ask the right honourable gentleman how he can connect the 
 average with the minimum rate ? I am sorry he did not tell us 
 what he means by daily rate of wages paid to the workmen of the 
 class affected. I am aware of no instance, except in Durham, where 
 they have what they call a county rate that might possibly come 
 under that description. But apparently this is a daily rate of 
 wages. How did the Government get it ? It is not a wage paid to 
 hewers, because it is not a daily rate compared with the work the 
 hewer does. What, therefore, do they mean ? Do they mean the 
 particular wage that is paid in what are called abnormal places 
 when a man is taken from his work and sent to do special work for 
 the management ? If that is considered the average rate of wage 
 it is nothing of the sort, because it is very much better. That is 
 the wage they give to a good man for doing special work when they 
 draw him out of his place where he would be earning a large amount 
 on piece-work. Then they have to give him a high daily wage to 
 remunerate him. That certainly could not be called a daily rate 
 which is to be given to the arbitrators as a factor in establishing the 
 minimum wage, which would be very much lower. We have had 
 no explanation of this matter from the Government. When this 
 suggestion was thrown out by the honourable baronet the Member 
 for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) we were discussing the question of 
 the day-wage men. When it is applied to the hewers it is in my 
 opinion going back entirely upon what the Government has put 
 forward. I protest against this proposal as a breach of the agree- 
 ment which has been carried out by the owners, and if necessary I 
 should put the House to the trouble of a division. We have had no 
 explanation why the Government has gone back, and by a side-wind 
 they are endeavouring to introduce this schedule. It is on that 
 ground I oppose the amendment and the amendment of the 
 Goverment. 
 
 Mr. W. B. HARVEY : I hope the Government will accept this 
 amendment. If it is not accepted then you are going to get fresh 
 trouble and more unrest. (Honourable Members: “Oh, oh.”) 
 Well, I will give reasons for the faith that is in me, because I am 
 speaking of something I know. There are 7,000 men under one 
 company in my county, and this company has agreed to pay the 
 
268 
 
 minimum wage for normal or abnormal places. If the stalls are 
 abnormal — bad roofs, bad roads, or water in the roofs — then this 
 wage is paid ; but if the men do not earn the wage in a normal stall 
 owing to the shortness of tubs, unequal distribution, or bad manage- 
 ment, then they are paid this wage, and it applies to 7,000 men 
 under one company. Supposing the Joint Board is at liberty to 
 reduce these wages, who can keep these men at work ? Why they 
 would at once strike no matter what anybody said. If this Bill 
 passes, and their minimum is to be fixed by the Joint Board at less 
 than what they are having now, do you think the men would work ? 
 There is no man in Europe could get them to work under such 
 circumstances. I say these wages must be retained, and nobody 
 must have power to reduce them. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : That point is covered by an amendment which 
 I inserted in Committee. The point the honourable member is 
 making is, if a man is at present, by agreement or custom, receiving 
 a certain rate of wages, and if the minimum is fixed below this rate, 
 it will be brought up to the minimum. The amendment I inserted 
 in Committee will cover that altogether as long as the custom lasts. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HABYEY : Then, I understand, the existing rates 
 cannot be interfered with. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Yes. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HABVEY : If I have the assurance that the rates 
 paid now — that is, the existing rates — are not going to be interfered 
 with, that meets my point. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : As the Bill stands now, with the verbal 
 
 amendment I put in just now, it provides “ that nothing in this Act 
 shall prejudice the operation of any agreement entered into or custom 
 existing before the passing of this Act for the payment of wages at 
 a rate higher than the minimum rate settled under this Act.” I 
 think that meets what my honourable friend desires. If a man is 
 receiving 8s. a day, and afterwards the minimum rate is fixed at 7s., 
 that man will not be affected so long as the agreement exists, and 
 he will continue to receive 8s. per day. I may say that I have no 
 objection to leaving out of my amendment the words “ amongst 
 other matters.” 
 
 Mr. NOKMAN CKAIG : This is a Minimum Wage Bill, and 
 not an Average Wage Bill, and if this amendment is accepted you 
 will be producing the ridiculus result alluded to by my honourable 
 friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that you are not to have 
 a minimum wage less than the average existing wage. If you make 
 a minimum wage above your present average wage, you are 
 destroying the incentive to work, and if you are going to pay a 
 minimum average of existing wages, you are going much farther ; 
 
269 
 
 if yon are going to make two things comparable, they must bear 
 some relation. If the desire of honourable members opposite is 
 that the men shall be no worse off working under the new conditions 
 than they are now, then it is perfectly right to say, from their point 
 of view, that any future minimum shall not be less than the existing 
 minimum ; but to say the future minimum shall not be less than 
 the existing average, is not dealing with things that are comparable. 
 There is a further point. Under Clause 3 of this Bill, the minimum 
 when fixed is only capable of revision in one of two events. If 
 employers and employed both agree, then it may be revised, but if 
 the minimum is operating favourably for the unemployed, it is not 
 likely that there will be an application for a revision, and so that 
 alternative may be put aside. The only other alternative in which 
 the Board may revise the minimum is after a year and three months’ 
 notice. So, if you get altered pay conditions, it may be fair to 
 revise prices. The effect of any such amendment, even the Govern- 
 ment amendment, and still more the amendment to the amendment, 
 would be that though conditions have altered which preclude the 
 possibility, commercially speaking, of continuing wages at the 
 existing minimufh, you cannot alter that for a year and without 
 three months’ notice, to expire at the end of the year. You are 
 going to introduce a state of things which compel the owner to keep 
 his mine open and pay a wage he cannot pay because he cannot get 
 an agreement, which is the only other alternative. It is not business. 
 It is a vice to compare a future minimum with an existing average, 
 and, if you are going to keep the minimum of the future, you ought 
 to deal with that minimum in relation to the existing minimum of 
 to-day. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I am quite sure the House will welcome 
 the declaration made by my honourable friend the Member for the 
 Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) as to the spirit in which he and his 
 friends intends to work this schedule when it becomes law. 
 Everybody will appreciate the patriotic spirit in which he spoke, 
 and nothing could augur better for the future than declarations of 
 that kind. I am sorry, particularly bearing in mind the way in 
 which he has approached the discussion of this matter, that the 
 Government cannot accept the amendment to the amendment 
 which he proposed. The view which is embodied in the words on 
 the paper in the name of my right honourable friend the President 
 of the Board of Trade really carry out exactly what was argued for 
 and stated by the Prime Minister in the discussion on Friday. They 
 carry out almost I think in the ipsissima verba, what he stated. 
 Those words have this effect with regard to the average day rate of 
 wages. When dealing with the minimum wages the Joint District 
 Board must have regard to the average daily rate which is paid in 
 that district to a workman of that class. That is what is intended, 
 and that is what we thought the House had really agreed to and 
 considered the right course to take. It is certainly what the Prime 
 Minister proposed, and I do think it is the fullest extent to which 
 
270 
 
 the Government can go. It will cover the case of the day men, and 
 it will cover the case of the hewer who is engaged at day rate. It 
 will cover both those cases, and it will mean that when the Joint 
 District Board has to consider this question of fixing the minimum 
 rate it will not be bound rigidly by the average daily rate, but must 
 take into account what is the average daily rate in that district. 
 
 Sir R. FINLAY : What is meant by the “average daily rate ? ” 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I should have thought the Joint District 
 Board would have no difficulty in determining the daily rate. 
 
 Sir R. FINLAY : What is the average daily rate ? Are you to 
 take all the rates and then strike an average ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The right honourable gentleman surely 
 does not suggest the Joint District Board will not know how to 
 arrive at the average daily rate. Having regard to all the circum- 
 stances and on the facts before them, showing what is the average 
 daily rate, they have to come to a determination^ fact as to what 
 they think is the average rate paid in that district. That is the 
 point, I think. 
 
 Sir R. FINLAY : My question is a simple one. What does 
 average mean ? Does it mean that all the rates paid to the men in 
 the district shall be taken, and an average struck from them ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think if the right honourable gentle- 
 man had looked at the words which follow he would have seen the 
 answer to his question. It is the average daily rate of wages paid 
 to the workmen of the class for which the minimum rate is to be 
 settled. A particular class will be taken and surely the Joint Board 
 can settle what is the average. There is a serious difficulty in 
 applying existing rates which, in the absence of an agreement, 
 cannot be altered for a period of fifteen months. What in that case 
 the Board will have to say is, “ We think, as a result of our inquiries 
 and of the representations made to us by both sides, such and such 
 would be the average daily rate for the district.” As a matter of 
 fact the existing rate might be particularly high in a given place at 
 the time that the rate has to be fixed. I have been asked by the 
 honourable Member for North-East Lanark whether this will apply 
 to day men. That point has already been answered. Then it was 
 asked if it would apply to chairmen. It certainly would. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I, too, want to know what average rate means. 
 Suppose you have six collieries in a district on varying rates would 
 you add the rates together, or would you take the number of men 
 in each colliery, calculate their wages, and divide the total by the 
 number of men. How do you propose to get at the average ? 
 
271 
 
 Mr. PETO : I should like to know what daily rates means. 
 Does it mean the average rate of those men who are paid daily 
 wages or does it mean the average sum received by every workman, 
 whether working piece-work or day-work ? In both cases it would 
 be an average daily rate of wages. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I should have thought that the words 
 were quite plain. As I have already said the Joint District Board, 
 in fixing the minimum rate, are to have regard to what is the daily 
 rate of wage paid to the workmen of the class. When dealing with 
 a particular district, surely the Joint Board will be able, on repre- 
 sentations from both sides, to settle the average daily rate of wage 
 paid to the workman of a given class. That is all they are asked to 
 do. These words carry out what was stated in debate on Friday. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I have had no answer to my question, and I 
 ask for a reply, to which surely I am entitled. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSOM : I regret very much that the Attorney- 
 General has not seen his way clear to accept the amendment 
 proposed by the honourable Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. 
 Walsh). I can assure the Government and the House that if this 
 amendment had been accepted it would have gone a long way in 
 the direction of making the Bill acceptable to the miners. During 
 the course of the Debates on this Bill we have had member after 
 member getting up and stating that they could not accept the 
 schedules of rates put forward by the miners’ representatives 
 without examination, and that it would simply be taking those rates 
 without having an opportunity of discovering whether they were 
 fair rates or otherwise. The owners, in the course of the 
 negotiations that have gone on regarding the question, have also 
 stated that the schedule of rates attempted to fix a higher wage 
 than was actually being earned in the respective districts that the 
 schedule covered. The amendment proposed by my honourable 
 friend would obviate that difficulty, because the Joint District 
 Board would only fix the minimum after careful inquiry, and after 
 they had taken every possible means of discovering what was the 
 actual average wage being earned by the various classes of workmen 
 in their respective districts. If an individual mimimum wage was 
 fixed on that basis, I do not think that the coalowners would stand 
 to lose so much as they are attempting to make us believe that they 
 would lose. I think that it would cause the coalowner to take 
 •greater care in giving the men proper facilities for doing their day’s 
 work. That is exactly opposite to what is being done to-day. 
 During the past five or six years we have had no less than 150,000 
 extra persons dumped into the mines of the country, with the result 
 that the mining population has had short working time, and has 
 had a greater spell of the unemployment problem than ever we had 
 during any previous period in our existence. If this amendment 
 is to have the effect of causing the management to readjust 
 
272 
 
 
 their methods with a view to giving the workmen greater facilities, 
 so that the workmen would have an opportunity of giving them the 
 best day’s work they were capable of doing, I do not think the 
 colliery owners would stand to lose so much as they are trying to 
 make us believe they will do. I hope that, notwithstanding what 
 has been said by the Attorney-General, the Government will yet see 
 their way to accept the amendment. 
 
 Mr. SANDERSON : I hope the right honourable gentleman 
 will not agree to the deletion of the words “ amongst other things.” 
 
 I think it must be common knowledge to everyone that where you 
 have a reference to an arbitration, where you get one particular 
 matter specified “ amongst other things,” to which the abitrator is 
 is give attention, that is the princpal thing to which the arbitrator 
 will give attention. Therefore it is quite sufficiently introduced if 
 you have the words “ amongst other things.” If you leave out those 
 words there will be a great temptation to the District Boards to 
 consider nothing but the average daily rate of wages existing in the 
 district. I understand it is the intention of the Government that 
 the District Boards shall not only consider the average daily rate of 
 wages, but shall take into consideration all the other matters which 
 are pertinent and material. I would ask the right honourable ; 
 gentleman why not leave in the words “ amongst other things,” so 
 as to make it perfectly plain that the average daily rate of wages is i 
 not the only thing which must be considered. I will ask him to ' 
 reconsider the opinion which he expressed just now, I think some- 
 what hastily, when he said he had no objection to the deletion of 
 those words. Everyone must have recognised the sentiments which 
 the honourable Member (Mr. Walsh) expressed, but if he insists ; 
 upon his amendment, will he not really be preventing the objects which 
 he has in view, because if he succeeds in inserting in this clause the 
 words “ the District Boards shall not fix a rate of wages less than ; 
 the average daily wage,” surely he will prevent a great many of ; 
 these sections being worked at all. Let me give an instance. There 
 is a provision that if a District Board finds that a particular mine 
 or group of mines ought not to have the district rate applied, they 
 may consider the conditions applicable to the mine or group of 
 mines. If he gets a hard and fast provision in the Bill that the 
 District Boards shall not fix a rate less than the average rate in the 
 district, the District Boards will not be able to give effect to that 
 provision. 
 
 Sir ALFRED MOND : I, for one, very much regret the 
 attitude the Government has taken up in this matter. After all we 
 have not conceded, as far as the Bill is concerned, the two main 
 points which the miners have been contending for the whole of the 
 time — namely, the schedules for the hewers or the figures for the 
 day men. The object of the Bill when it was introduced was to get 
 the strike settled, and I think the amendment is much more likely 
 to be effective in that direction than the very vague language inserted 
 
273 
 
 by the right honourable gentleman. The reason why many members 
 refused to insert the figures was because they felt that one figure 
 would not do for the whole of the country. What the honourable 
 member has proposed is not to have a hard and fast figure all over 
 the country, but to take the existing rates in the districts. That is 
 a reasonable proposal, and one which the Government might very 
 well have accepted. Some reference has been made to an agreement 
 with the coal owners. I should like to know what the object of an 
 agreement with the coal owners is. The coal owners have refused 
 to come to the assistance of the Government in settling the strike. 
 If they had agreed to the 5s. and 2s. we should have finished the 
 Bill. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but they have 
 refused to settle on that question, and I do not see that we are bound 
 in any way by an agreement such as is said to exist. We are trying 
 to pass this Bill to settle the dispute, and therefore I think that an 
 alleged agreement with the coal owners — an agreement of which we 
 are not cognisant, and to which we are not in any way parties — 
 should not bind us. If such an agreement exists, we should know 
 its terms. I know from conversations I have had with most moderate 
 trade unionists in my own constituency that one of the fears the 
 men have, rightly or wrongly, is that somehow they are going to be 
 disadvantaged in the fixing of the minimum rates. That is one of 
 the reasons why we want a minimum rate indicated in the Bill. 
 I should have thought that under any Bill any reasonable Con- 
 ciliation Board would naturally have regard to the average rates. 
 There should be such directions given to the Boards as would 
 enable the men to form some idea of what the minimum rates are 
 to be. We are told that we should not hamper the Boards. I do 
 not see why we should adopt such an attitude. Nor do I see that 
 we should be paralysed by any instructions given to the bodies we 
 create. I do not see why we ought not to give instructions. It is 
 our duty to give instructions as to what are our intentions. We 
 have had speeches from honourable members who are continually 
 getting up and saying that they are in hearty sympathy with the 
 principle of the Bill, and that they are in favour of a fair day’s wage 
 for a fair day’s work, but when we come to putting anything in the 
 Bill we are told that we must not do it, and that we should leave it 
 to outside bodies. If the amendment goes to a division I will 
 support it. 
 
 Mr. SANDY S : I oppose this amendment because it has been 
 urged upon me by the representatives of the collieries in Somerset 
 that if embodied in the Bill it would have a very disastrous effect on 
 their industry. The right honourable gentleman who moved the 
 amendment said it was necessary to have some directions embodied 
 in the Bill to enable the Boards to settle the minimum rates with 
 regard to the various classes of workmen. He said that he considered 
 this average daily rate should form the basis for consideration. I 
 do not yet understand whether this is to apply to piece-workers or 
 not, and I hope the right honourable gentleman will be able to clear 
 
 R 
 
274 
 
 that up. I should like a further explanation as to how this is going 
 actually to work out. If it is going to be the governing consideration, 
 and if the Boards are going to fix a minimum wage by that governing 
 consideration, and supposing that a certain body of men are earning 
 5s., and another body of men employed at the same class of work 
 are earning 7s. — the average working out at 6s. — is the Board to 
 regard that amount as the governing consideration and to fix the 
 rate at 6s. ? Suppose that the Act has been in operation for twelve 
 months, then on three months’ notice being given the whole question 
 can be reconsidered. Meantime the average has been altered. 
 Those who were previously paid 5s. are now paid 6s., while those 
 who were paid 7s. previously are still paid 7s. Consequently the 
 new average will go up to 6s. 6d. If, therefore, that is to be the 
 governing consideration observed by the District Board, then when 
 it comes on for consideration the next time the same advance will 
 occur. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a most serious fallacy 
 in this amendment which I would like the right honourable gentleman 
 to clear up. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The previous amendment safeguarded 
 the existing rates. The District Board has no power to interfere 
 with them in fixing the minimum. What we are now considering 
 is the case of men who are paid very low wages, and what rate is to 
 be fixed for them. The Government amendment proposes that in 
 fixing these rates 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : Not the Government amendment, my 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : I take the name on the Paper. The 
 amendment of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Buxton) says 
 that regard is to be had, amongst other matters, “ to the average 
 daily rate of wages paid to the workmen of the class for which the 
 minimum rate is to be settled.” What my honourable friend the 
 Member,for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) proposes is to leave out the words 
 “ have regard,” and insert “ shall fix a rate not less than the average 
 of the wages paid to workmen of that class.” Perhaps the Govern- 
 ment think that it is a small point. We do not. “ Have regard ” 
 is undoubtedly a sort of indication to the Joint Board of what they 
 are to have in mind when fixing the rate of wages. If you say in 
 plain language, not lawyer’s language, but the language of the average 
 man, “ fix a rate not less than,” everybody understands that, and it 
 will tend to make the Bill more acceptable to the miners. With 
 regard to the point raised by the honourable member opposite (Mr. 
 Sandys) and others, you might spend a little time here discussing 
 what an average is. That does not affect this. It is a term perfectly 
 known to the trade, and perfectly familiar to employers and employed, 
 which has grown up and become part of the language of the coal 
 trade, and what appears to honourable members as difficult will 
 present no difficulty in reality when the matter comes to be considered 
 
275 
 
 by the owners and the workmen and the Joint Board. On the face 
 of it, obviously it means the average earnings per day of the class of 
 men for whom the wage is to be fixed. That is what the amendment 
 says, and, I believe, what it means, and if you are going to give the 
 Joint Board any sort of guidance at all in the matter, you could 
 not give them any safer guide than the average earnings when you 
 propose to fix the minimum. I hope, therefore, that the President 
 of the Board of Trade will accept the amendment of my honourable 
 friend, which makes clear what is now obscure, and does not alter 
 the meaning, because, obviously, if we want the District Board to 
 do what my honourable friend says it should do, the words he 
 proposes would make the matter perfectly clear. 
 
 Mr. E. JARDINE : If this amendment of the honourable 
 member, who always speaks so fairly in this House, and who has 
 the admiration of all parties in trying to soothe this fearful and 
 bitter quarrel, were accepted, the effect would be this : All will 
 admit that if two men working in the same position, one, a man of 
 superior physique, energy, and of greater skill, will earn twice as 
 much as the other man who is lazy, incompetent, and unskilful, 
 when both are working under exactly the same conditions. The 
 one will earn 10s. and the other 5s., and I think no one will dispute 
 that, who understands labour. The effect of this amendment would 
 be at once to establish that, where the average piece work price was 
 a fair price, admittedly a fair price, you take these two men, one 
 earning 5s., because he is incompetent, or for some other reason, 
 and the other earning 10s., and you add the two sums together — 
 you can add together the earnings of 200 men if you like — and you 
 immediately make an average of 7s. 6d. The amendment, if 
 accepted, therefore, would simply mean that the incompetent 
 or lazy man would have his wages raised fifty per cent., and he 
 would be getting twenty-five per cent, from the man who was 
 earning twice the money. It is a most dangerous amendment, 
 and one which I hope the Government will realise that it is 
 impossible to accept. Even the 5s. and 2s. would be preferable 
 to the Government’s acceptance of this amendment. I therefore 
 oppose it. 
 
 Mr. AINSWORTH : I would suggest that the difficulty might 
 be got over by leaving out the word “ average.” To begin with, 
 the principle of the minimum wage is ipso facto accepted. I think 
 the object of my honourable friend below the Gangway is that the 
 workman, in submitting his case to the District Board, is not to be 
 damnified by their decision. The workman is not in future to get less 
 than he is getting now, and the meaning of that would be that the 
 Board would have to consider the circumstances under which the man 
 is working, and they must also consider the circumstances of the 
 colliery in which he is working at the present moment. I think to 
 insert these words “ average daily rate of wages ” of the district 
 is an absurdity. We all know that in mines circumstances vary 
 
276 
 
 extremely, and what is a fair rate of wages in one mine is not necessarily 
 a fair rate in another. Why should we tie the hands of these Boards in 
 any way whatever ? Why should we not leave it to both parties, 
 who are properly represented before the Board, under a chairman 
 who, no doubt, will be thoroughly impartial. No point vital, either 
 to the employer or the employed, could be overlooked. How could 
 it be overlooked ? The miners would have their representatives, 
 and the employers would have their representatives, and either side 
 could call attention to any particular point. If we advise the Board 
 to have regard to one particular point, they may assume, though I 
 do not think they ought, that that particular point is the standard 
 on which they are to base their decision. It seems to me that we 
 might get the instructions to the Board framed in a clearer way than 
 in the words now proposed. I would recommend the taking out of 
 the word “ average ” and to make it clear to the Board that no 
 workman is to be damnified in any way for his present position. 
 That, I understand, is in the Bill now. If that is so, all we have 
 got to do is to get rid of the word “ average ” and avoid unnecessary 
 instructions to the Board. 
 
 Mr. JAMES MASON : I desire to draw the attention of the 
 House to the effect which the acceptance of the amendment proposed 
 by the honourable gentleman might have on Clause 3. Clause 3 
 provides for the revision of the minimum wage at the end of a year, 
 and that the revision shall be determined by the same rules as are 
 laid down for the primary fixing of the minimum wage. The 
 honourable Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) proposes that the 
 minimum wage shall be not less than average daily wage that exists 
 now. If the minimum is fixed at not less than the present average 
 it is quite obvious that from now onwards, all wages below that 
 being eliminated, that the average must necessarily become higher 
 than before. Consequently, at the end of the year, when the 
 revision takes place, the minimum fixed again must necessarily 
 go on increasing, and must be fixed at a higher rate, quite inde- 
 pendent of any justice or reason given for it. Consequently it will 
 always be in the interests of one party to claim revision to get a 
 higher average than before. 
 
 Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.) : I may refer to the 
 words of the Prime Minister on Friday, on which I believe this 
 amendment was literally drawn. I prefer the words of the 
 honourable Member for Ince, the “existing wage” being a more 
 definite carrying out of the words than the “average wage.” I think 
 the House will see, when I read the Prime Minister’s remarks, that 
 the words are open to verbal correction. The Prime Minister 
 said: — 
 
 “ Next in regard to what was said by the honourable Member 
 for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), I should not in the least 
 object to a provision being inserted in the Bill in appro- 
 
277 
 
 priate terms that in settling the minimum of the wage 
 regard should be had by the Joint District Boards to the 
 average daily rate paid for work of that class in the district. 
 I do not think that any Joint District Board which under- 
 stood its functions would fail to take this into account. I 
 think that that would be the very first thing which they 
 would take into account, and I think that everybody would 
 agree on this. How they could proceed to decide without 
 taking that into account passes my comprehension. But 
 naturally if there is any apprehension on that point, and if 
 such apprehension as there is would be allayed by the 
 insertion of specific words to that effect, I can assure my 
 honourable friend that the Government would be very 
 happy to accept an amendment of that kind.” — (Official 
 Report, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270.) 
 
 I think that that answers the criticism with regard to the Govern- 
 ment amendment which we are now considering. If the words 
 “ average daily wage ” are open, as I believe they are, to much of 
 the criticism which has been passed upon them, I would suggest 
 the substitution of the words “ existing rates of wages in the 
 district.” That would faithfully and fully carry out the Prime 
 Minister’s pledge of Friday last. 
 
 Mr. AMERY : If the amendment proposed by the honourable 
 Member for Ince were accepted it would be distinctly against the 
 interest of the mine owners to employ any men at a wage above the 
 average, because by so doing they would be raising the average 
 wage for a large number of men, and therefore the very effect of the 
 amendment would be to lower the maximum down to the average. 
 The whole object of the minimum wage, whatever meaning is given 
 to the words “ have regard to,” is that it should be substantially 
 below the average wage, so as to give an inducement to people to do 
 efficient work, and it should be above the abnormally low wage 
 which is created by abnormal places or deficiencies in the mine. 
 The whole object of this Bill, I understood, was to enable men to 
 earn a tolerable wage even in difficult, abnormal, unfair circum- 
 stances. But if you once make the wage of the worst workman as 
 good as the average between the bad and the best workmen, you 
 destroy every incentive to efficiency and every inducement to an 
 owner to employ good men and pay them a good wage. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES : It is neeessary to be quite clear as to 
 what the amendment of the honourable Member for Ince is. My 
 colleague suggested that the words were “ a rate not less than the 
 average daily rate,” but another member has suggested that the 
 word “ existing ” is used without the word “ average.” That would 
 be fatal. As far as South Wales is concerned, the whole controversy 
 has arisen over abnormal places. If you are going to take as the 
 minimum the “ existing ” wage, you may have a minimum of 
 Is. 4d. 
 
278 
 
 Mr. WALSH : The average daily wage. 
 
 Mr. E. JONES : Then the honourable member does not 
 propose to insert the word “ existing.” He wishes to provide only 
 that it shall not be less than the average daily rate. I cannot see 
 why there is all this objection on the part of owners to the 
 amendment, and I certainly cannot understand why the Government 
 are not accepting it. The Prime Minister’s words mean that, if 
 they mean anything at all. An honourable member says that it is 
 putting in the schedule. It is nothing of the kind. Take the 
 position in South Wales as it would work out if you agreed to the form 
 suggested by the honourable Member for Ince. First, assume that 
 you have a colliery now paying a minimum rate. Under a clause 
 already in the Bill that colliery will come out ; it stands apart. 
 Suppose the mimimum for the future is 7s. 6d., and you have a 
 colliery now paying 8s., that colliery will continue to pay 8s. 
 Divide the collieries that remain into two classes — the few that pay 
 good rates of wages and the many in South Wales which, 
 according to the owners, are doing badly and pay low wages. Let 
 us see how we can work it out for the coalowners as well as for the 
 miners if you ask the Board to fix it at not less than the average 
 daily rate. Take a good colliery with good seams and good roads, ; 
 where the bulk of the men are earning good normal wages that 
 must necessarily be much above the average. It will not affect 
 those collieries one bit. Take those collieries that are paying rather ' 
 badly — if we believe the owners — what is going to be the position 
 there ? I really cannot see that here this is going to be of very 
 much value to the miners. The whole position, so far as South 
 Wales is concerned, is this : Here you have a number of stalls in a 
 colliery where a number of men earn normal wages, and a large 
 number of men in abnormal places earning ridiculously low wages. 
 Obviously, if you are going to put these ridiculously low wages that 
 have been in existence for the last twelve months in South Wales 
 and which have created the whole of this controversy and forced 
 this strike upon the country, to strike the average, it must 
 necessarily be a very low one, considerably lower, I think, than the 
 schedule of the Federation. 
 
 Therefore I want to press upon the Government that if they 
 will work out the effect of this section by section they will find that 
 there is not much in it for the miners in figures. I cannot see at 
 all upon what ground the coalowners are raising any objection to it. 
 There is no serious objection that can be raised on the ground of 
 the classes of the workmen. Take the daywage men. The 
 coalowners now pay the daywage men an average — or more than an 
 average, 4s. lid., 5s., or 4s. 6d. If, then, the coalowners’ contention 
 is right, they need have no fear of a minimum fixed above the 
 average. I hope the Government may see their way to accept the 
 amendment for other reasons. There is not much in it financially 
 

 279 
 
 for the miners, but there is very much in it so far as a settlement 
 of this strike is concerned. We have not been able to accept the 
 figures urged by the men. This thing is substantial — very 
 substantial, as I think it will be in sentiment, in the effect and 
 power that it will have to-morrow upon the minds of these 
 thousands of men. It is mainly upon those grounds that the 
 honourable gentleman the Member for Ince made the speech that 
 has earned for him many compliments. I do appeal to the 
 Government at this last moment to reconsider, and not to stand 
 upon little questions of detail and forms of words when there is 
 this great controversy that we want to get settled. I appeal again 
 in the hope that the form of words may be accepted by the 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. GIBBS: I do not like this word “average.” If the 
 average is going to be the minimum, it will mean ruination to some 
 of the mines in this country. In Somerset and Bristol, if the 
 average were made the minimum, it would mean an enormous 
 increase in the cost — so great that many mines would have to be 
 closed up. The Board of Trade, when they went into this matter, 
 found that an increase in the working cost of the Bristol mines 
 would mean that they would have to be closed altogether. 
 
 Question put, “ That the words ‘ have regard ’ stand part of the 
 proposed amendment.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 271 ; Noes, 101. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. 
 Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. 
 Armitage, R. 
 
 Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J. 
 
 Baird, J. L. 
 
 Baker, H. T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. 
 Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N. 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset 
 Barlow, Montague (Salford, South 
 Barnston, Harry 
 Barran, Sir J. (Hawick 
 Barran, Rowland Hirst 
 Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. 
 Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E. 
 Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Benn, I. H. (Greenwich 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo. 
 Bennett- Goldney, Francis 
 
280 
 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Boscawen, Sir A. S. T. Griffith- 
 Boyton, James 
 Bridgeman, William Clive 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, J. F. L. 
 
 Burn, Colonel C. R. 
 
 Burns, Rt. Hon. John 
 Butcher, John George 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 
 Campion, W. R. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 
 Clough, William 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cooper, Richard Ashmole 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Denman, Hon. R. D. 
 
 Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Du Cros, Arthur Philip 
 Duke, Henry Edward 
 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George D. (Clapham 
 Falconer, J. 
 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinsoi 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward 
 Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Gardner, Ernest 
 Gastrell, Major W. Houghton 
 George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd 
 Gibbs, G. A. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. 
 Goldman, C. S. 
 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Grant, J. A. 
 
 Greene, Walter Raymond 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Griffith, Ellis J. 
 
 Guest, Hon. Major C.H. C. (PembrT 
 Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E. 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. 
 Edmunds) 
 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 i 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hamersley, Alfred St. George 
 Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale 
 Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harris, Henry Percy 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berks., 
 Abingdon) 
 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S. 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Col. T. E. 
 
 Hills, John Waller 
 Hill-Wood, Samuel 
 
281 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Holt, Richard Burning 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Horner, Andrew Long 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E. 
 Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 
 Kerr- Smiley, Peter Ken- 
 King, J. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, 
 
 S. Molton) 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland, 
 Cockermouth) 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 , Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Lloyd, George Ambrose 
 Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury 
 Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birin., Edgbaston 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 McCallum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M‘Laren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 M‘Mickling, Major Gilbert 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine’s 
 Magnus, Sir Philip 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt.E.F. (AshbTt’n 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 Ogden, Fred 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 O’Shee, James John 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pearce, William (Limehouse 
 Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Perkins, Walter Frank 
 Peto, Basil Edward 
 Pirie, Duncan V. 
 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pollock, Ernest Murray 
 Price, C. E. (Einburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. 
 
 Ratcliff, R. F. 
 
 Rawson, Col. Richard H. 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 Remnant, James Farquharson 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 
282 
 
 Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Roe, Sir Thomas 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool, 
 
 W. Derby) 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood 
 Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. 
 
 Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 
 Thomas, Abel, Carmarthen, E. 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 Thynne, Lord Alexander 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 
 Verney, Sir Harry 
 
 Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford 
 Waring, Walter 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, Major G. D. (Lancs., 
 Southport) 
 
 White, J. D. (Glasgow, Tradeston 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Williamson, Sir A. 
 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Winterton, Earl 
 Wolmer, Viscount 
 Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon 
 Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas. 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 Yate, Colonel C. E. 
 
 Young, William (Perth, East 
 
 I 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes: — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Alden, Percy 
 
 Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Barnes, G. N. 
 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Bethell, Sir John Henry 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N. 
 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Dawes, James Arthur 
 De Forest, Baron 
 
283 
 
 Dickinson, W. H. Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Morrell, Philip 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid. Neilson, Francis 
 
 Elverston, Sir Harold Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster 
 
 Fenwick, Bt. Hon. Charles 
 France, G. A. 
 
 Gelder, Sir William Alfred 
 Gill, Alfred Henry 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Hardie, J. Keir 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hodge, John 
 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 
 Hope John Deans (Haddington 
 
 Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich 
 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts., Bushcliffe 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 
 Lambert, Bichard (Wilts., Cricklade 
 Lansbury, George 
 
 Macdonald, J. B. (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Mond, Sir Alfred M. 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Baffan, Peter Wilson 
 Bichards, Thomas 
 Bichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Bowlands, James 
 Bowntree, Arnold 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Snowden, P. 
 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Badcliffe 
 Thomas, James Henry 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 
 Wadsworth, J. 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, Bt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. G. Boberts and Mr. Pointer. 
 
284 
 
 Sir A. MAEKHAM : I beg to move in the proposed amendment 
 to leave out the words “ amongst other matters.” 
 
 I understand the Government are prepared to favourably 
 consider this amendment. It goes rather further than the pledge 
 given by the Prime Minister last Friday, and, therefore, as it would 
 clearly, in the ordinary course, restrict the Joint District Board to 
 the average daily rate of wages, I beg to move. 
 
 Mr. LAUBENCE HAEDY : I hope the Government will not 
 yield to this amendment. The Government have all through the 
 two Debates in Committee and on Eeport said they will not give 
 directions to the Joint District Boards, but will leave them to decide 
 for themselves. If they take out these words, they do leave one 
 simple direction in the Bill. As long as these words are in the Bill, 
 they will consider this with other matters. If you take them out it 
 shows a desire to limit their consideration to the one question of the 
 average wage which we do not think desirable. The Government 
 have yielded a good deal this evening, and I hope they will not yield 
 any more. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I propose to agree to leave out these words 
 which, in my opinion, are not of very great importance, as they 
 neither greatly restrict nor greatly add to the directions to the 
 District Boards or chairmen. The amendment was made in 
 accordance with instructions given by the Prime Minister in response 
 to the appeal of the honourable Member for Mansfield, on Friday. 
 But attention was drawn to the fact that these added words might 
 possibly limit what he desired, namely : that this question of the 
 average daily rate should be a matter to which the attention of the 
 District Board and the chairman should be especially called : it was 
 suggested that the addition of the words might weaken that purpose, 
 and under the circumstances, in accordance with the undertaking 
 my right honourable friend gave to the House he desires that these 
 words should be excised. Personally, I think the amendment 
 without the words will be more effective for the purpose the Prime 
 Minister had in view. 
 
 Mr. BONAE LAW : A more laboured excuse for accepting an 
 amendment was never offered before. The Prime Minister made it 
 perfectly plain in his statement on Friday that in agreeing to accept 
 the suggestion made by the honourable Member for Mansfield he 
 was only agreeing to something which he said the District 
 Committees would do without any direction. In carrying out that 
 idea it was specially put in that the District Committees were to 
 consider amongst other matters the average rate. The words 
 “ amongst other matters ” were deliberately put in for the express 
 purpose of limiting the Committee in the decision it was to come to, 
 and by taking them out, what the Government are now doing, is 
 
285 
 
 deliberately lessening the powers of the Committee, while they have 
 themselves explained over and over again that the whole principle 
 of this Bill is that matters can only be dealt with by the Committee, 
 and that no definite instructions of any kind should be given by the 
 House of Commons. I think the concession the right honourable 
 gentleman has just made is a very inadvisable one. If the matter 
 is pressed to a Division, I should vote against leaving out these 
 words, but I hope my honourable friends will not think it necessary 
 to take up much time in discussing a matter so plain that everyone 
 can understand it. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : On Friday last I asked the Prime Minister a 
 question to which he gave me a courteous reply. I asked the right 
 honourable gentleman whether any instructions would be drawn up 
 for the guidance of chairmen as far as securing the safeguards 
 which the Government were anxious to apply for one party to this 
 dispute. The reply of the right honourable gentleman was that it 
 would be most improper that any instructions should be given to 
 the chairmen of these Joint District Boards. I shall be very glad 
 now to hear from the Attorney-General how he reconciles the giving 
 of guidance and instructions to the chairmen in the interests of one 
 side with the statement of the Prime Minister that in the interests 
 of the other side it was most improper that any instructions should 
 be given. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I think the honourable member who 
 has just spoken has forgotten what is was the Prime Minister did 
 say with regard to this matter. I will refer the Leader of the 
 Opposition to the words of the Prime Minister, from which he will 
 see that by leaving out the words “ amongst other matters ” we are 
 carrying out exactly the pledge which the Prime Minister gave to 
 the House, and which we thought the House had agreed to. 
 Honourable Members : “ Why put them in ? ”) 
 
 Mr BONAR LAW : Was this amendment drafted without 
 consideration by the Cabinet ? 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : Is it not a fact that in moving this amendment 
 to-night — I made a note of it at once — that these words were left 
 out, and were they not left out when the amendment was read from 
 that box. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The President of the Board of Trade 
 undoubtedly stated that he was willing to leave them out, because 
 there has been representations made about them. I will read the 
 words used by the Prime Minister on Friday. It is these words we 
 are dealing with. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON : No, it is not. 
 
286 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : Surely, when an honourable member 
 says that we are doing something contrary to what the Prime 
 Minister stated, I am justified in referring to the words the Prime 
 Minister used. The right honourable gentleman said : — 
 
 “ Next, in regard to what was said by the honourable Member 
 for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) I should not in the least 
 object to a provision being inserted in the Bill in appro- 
 priate terms that in settling the minimum of the wage 
 regard should be had by the Joint District Boards to the 
 average daily rate paid for work of that class in the 
 district.” — (Official Report, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270). 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : Read the rest of the speech. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : Will the Attorney-General read the Prime 
 Minister’s answer to me ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can only deal with one point at a 
 time. The leader of the Opposition asked me to read the rest of 
 the speech. What does he mean ? 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I want the part which followed. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : That is this 
 
 “ I do not think that any Joint District Board which under- 
 stood its functions would fail to take this into account.” — 
 Official Report, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270.) 
 
 That carries out exactly what I was stating to the House. That 
 was that regard should be had to the average daily rate. Some 
 fears were expressed by honourable members below the Gangway 
 as to the use that might be made of the words “ amongst other 
 matters,” if inserted in the amendment, and they consequently say, 
 “ we prefer to adhere to the exact words used by the Prime Minister 
 on Friday.” It is in order to give effect to that that we propose to 
 leave out these words. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON : It is no doubt my fault, but the Attorney- 
 General did not understand what I said when I referred him to the 
 Prime Minister’s answer to the question I put to him, a question 
 which he very courteously answered, although it was a Friday. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That surely does not touch the point. 
 Undoubtedly the question was raised, and has been discussed again 
 and again, as to giving definite and distinct instructions in the Bill 
 to the Joint District Board. This carries out exactly what the 
 Prime Minister said, and what we thought was ageed upon by the 
 whole House. 
 
287 
 
 Mr. SANDEBSON : May I put a question to the Attorney- 
 General ? Is it not intended that the District Board should con- 
 sider other matters besides the average daily rate ? (Honourable 
 Members : “ Of course it is.”) Then why in the world do you leave 
 out the words “ amongst other matters.” If you leave out the 
 words, and give an express direction to the tribunal to have regard to 
 one particular matter, is there not a grave risk that that tribunal 
 will come to the conclusion that that is the only matter which they 
 have to decide ? 
 
 Question put, “That the words ‘amongst other things’ stand 
 part of the proposed amendment.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 147 ; Noes, 267. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Bt. Hon. Sir William B. 
 
 Baird, J. L. 
 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South 
 Barnston, H. 
 
 Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry 
 Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E. 
 Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 
 Boles, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 Boyton, James 
 Bridgeman, W. Clive 
 Burn, Col. C. B. 
 
 Butcher, John George 
 
 Campion, W. B. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 Chaloner, Colonel B. G. W. 
 
 Clyde, J. Avon 
 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Cooper, Bichard Ashmole 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Dickson, Bt. Hon. C. Scott- 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Du Cros, Arthur Philip 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Faber, George Denison (Clapham 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Finlay, Bt. Hon. Sir Bobert 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Gardner, Ernest 
 Gibbs, G. A. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldman, C. S. 
 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Grant, J. A. 
 
Greene, W. R. O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid 
 
 Guinness, Hon. W.E.(B’ryS.Edm’n’s Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berks., 
 Abingdon) 
 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. 
 
 Hills, John Walter 
 Hill-Wood, Samuel 
 Hohler, G. F. 
 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Horner, Andrew Long 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 
 Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East 
 
 Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Lloyd, George Ambrose 
 Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury 
 Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey 
 Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston 
 
 McCaw, William J. MacGeagh 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine 
 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Morrison-Bell,Capt. E. F. (Ashburt’n 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 
 Pearson, Rt. Hon. Weetman H. M. 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge 
 Perkins, Walter F. 
 
 Peto, Basil Edward 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pollock, Ernest Murray 
 Pryce-Jones, Col. E. 
 
 Ratcliff, R. F. 
 
 Rawson, Col. Richard H. 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rothschild, Lionel de 
 Royds, Edmund 
 Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool, 
 
 W. Derby) 
 
 Salter, Arthur Clavell 
 Sanders, Robert Arthur 
 Sanderson, Lancelot 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Starkey, John Ralph 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord E. 
 
 Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W. 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 Thynne, Lord A. 
 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 
 Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, Major G.D. (Lancs., SouthpTt 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude 
 Winterton, Earl 
 Wolmer, Viscount 
 
Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 289 
 
 Yate, Colonel C. E. 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes : — Mr, Bemnant and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr, C. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Byland D. 
 Agar-Bobartes, Hon. T. C. B. 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Bt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Armitage, B. 
 
 Atherley- Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, Harold T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Bobert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir J. Emmott (Somerset 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick 
 Barran, Bowland Hurst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, William 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 Benn, W. W. (T’w’r Hamlets, S.Geo. 
 Bentham, George Jackson 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 Brady, P. J. 
 
 Brocklehurst, William B. 
 
 Brunner, J. F. L. 
 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 
 Burns, Bt. Hon. John 
 
 Buxton, Bt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar 
 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, H. T. (Heywood 
 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Bickett, Bt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, Ellis William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Denman, Hon. B. D. 
 
 Dillon, John 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, William 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Edwards, JohnH. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N 
 Essex, Bichard Walter 
 
 Ferens, Bt. Hon. Thomas Bobinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 France, Gerald Ashburner 
 
 Gelder, Sir William Alfred 
 George, Bt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gill, A. H. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 s 
 
290 
 
 G-lanville, H. J. 
 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Guest, Hon Major C. H. C. (Pembr’ke 
 Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale 
 Harcourt, Robert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W. 
 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S. 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 Hodge, John 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Holt, Richard Durning 
 Hope, John Deane (Haddington 
 Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hume- Williams, W. E. 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts, Rushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, Matthew 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.(Devon,S.M’ltVi 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklad 
 Lansbury, George 
 Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland, 
 Cockermouth 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 Lynch, A. A. 
 
 Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 McGhee, Richard 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 McVeagh, Jeremiah 
 M'Callum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 McLaren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 M'Micking, Major Gilbert 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, Michael 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C, 
 
Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Neilson, Francis 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 Ogden Fred 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shaughnessy, P. J. 
 
 O’Shea, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan Y. 
 
 Pointer, Joseph 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Rea,Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 
 Reddy, M. 
 
 Redmond, William (Clare 
 Richards, Thomas 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 Roberts, G. H. (Norwich 
 Robertson, Sir C. Scott (Bradford 
 Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Roe, Sir Thomas 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rowlands, James 
 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. 
 
 Scott,A.MacCullum(Glas..Bridget’n 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim 
 Snowden, Philip 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Yerney, Sir Harry 
 
 Wadsworth, J. 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 Watt, Henry Anderson 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 White, James Dundas (Glasgow 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir Archibald 
 
292 
 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, Et. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 
 Wood, Et. Hon. McKinnon (Glas. 
 
 Young, W. (Perthshire, E. 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Question put, “ That the words ‘ and in settling any minimum 
 rate of wages the Joint District Board shall have regard to the 
 average daily rate of wages paid to the workman of the class for 
 which the minimum rates is to be settled ’ be there inserted in the 
 Bill.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 265 ; Noes, 139. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr. Christopher 
 Adkins, Sir W. Eyland D. 
 Agar-Eobartes, Hon. T. C. E. 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Et. Hon. Chas. P. (Stroud 
 Armitage, E. 
 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, H. T. (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Eobert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir JohnEmmott (Somerset 
 Barnes, G. N. 
 
 Barran, Sir J. (Hawick 
 Barran, Eowland Hurst (Leeds 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Beauchamp (Sir Edward 
 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 
 Benn, W. W., (T. Hamlets, St. Geo. 
 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Bowerman, Charles W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Brady, P. J. 
 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, J. F. L. 
 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 Burns, Et. Hon. John 
 Buxton, Et. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 I 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Chappie, Dr. William Allen 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Eickett, Et. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
 Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 De Forest, Baron 
 Denman, Hon. E. D. 
 
 Dillon, John 
 
Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 I Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid. 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Bichard Walter 
 
 Ferens, Bt. Hon. Thos. Bobinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 France, Gerald Anstruther 
 
 Gelder, Sir W. A. 
 
 Gill, A. H. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Guest, Major Hon. C.H.C. (Pembr’ke 
 Guest, Hon. Fredk. E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Bt. Hon. L. (Bossendale 
 Harcourt, Bobert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardie J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Alien, Sir Henry 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S. 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Bt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 
 Hodge, John 
 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 
 Holt, Bichard Durning 
 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 
 • 
 
 293 
 
 Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hughes, S. L. 
 
 Isaacs, Bt. Hon. Sir Bufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar B. (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts, Bushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney 
 Jowett, F. W. 
 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, M. 
 
 Kellaway, Frederick George 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 Lambert, Bt.Hon.G. (Dev’n,S.M’lt’n 
 Lambert, Bichard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 Lansbury, George 
 Lawson, Sir W. (C’mb’rl’nd ,C’k’rm’h 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 Lough, Bt. Hon. Thomas 
 Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 Lynch, A. A. 
 
 Macdonald, J. B. (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 McGhee, Bichard 
 Macnamara. Bt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 MacYeagh, Jeremiah 
 M‘Callum, John M. 
 
 McKenna, Bt. Hon. Beginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 
 McLaren, Hn.F.W.S. (Line., Sp’lding 
 
 M‘Laren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 M‘Micking, Major Gilbert 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marks, Sir George 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 
294 
 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, M. 
 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Mond, Sir Alfred M. 
 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Morton, Alpheus Cleophas 
 Munro, E. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Et. Hon. E. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Neilson, Francis 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 Ogden, Fred 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shaughnessy, P. J. 
 
 O’Shee, John James 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, James (Half ax 
 Pearce, Eobert (Staffs., Leek 
 Pease, Et. Hon. Jos. A. (Eotherham 
 Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Philips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan V. 
 
 Pointer, Joseph 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central 
 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, SirW.E.B. (Bradford, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 
 Eaffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Eea, Et. Hon. Eussell(South Shields 
 
 Eeddy, Michael 
 
 Eedmond, William (Clare, E. 
 
 Eichards, Thomas 
 
 Eichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 
 Eoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 
 Eoberts, G. H. (Norwich 
 
 Eobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford 
 
 Eobertson, J. M. (Tyneside 
 
 Eoch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 
 Eoche, Augustine (Louth 
 
 Eoe, Sir Thomas 
 
 Eose, Sir Charles Day 
 
 Eowlands, James 
 
 Eowntree, Arnold 
 
 Eunciman, Et. Hon. Walter 
 
 Eussell, Et. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 Scanlon, Thomas 
 Schwann, Et. Hon. Sir C. E. 
 
 Scott, A. MacCullum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Seely, Col. Et. Hon. J. E. B. 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 Snowden, P. 
 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W. 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Swift, Eigby 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Eadcliffe 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derbv 
 Thorne, W. (West Ham 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Yerney, Sir Harry 
 

 Wadsworth, J. 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 
 Wiles, Thomas 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, J. Glamorgan 
 Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen 
 Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir A. 
 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid 
 Wilson, Et. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 Wood, Et. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas. 
 
 Young, William (Perthshire, E. 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Anson, Et. Hon. Sir William E. 
 
 Baird, John Lawrence 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Baldwin, Stanley 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Barnston, Harry 
 Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry 
 Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E. 
 Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 
 Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue 
 Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- 
 Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid. 
 Boy ton, James 
 Bridgeman, William Clive 
 Burn, Col. C. E. 
 
 Butcher, John George 
 
 Campion, W. E. 
 
 Carlile Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cave, George 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ. 
 Chaloner, Col. E. G. W. 
 
 Clyde, James Avon 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Cooper, Eichard Ashmole 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 Craik, Sir Henry 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Dickson, Et. Hon. C. Scott 
 Doughty, Sir George 
 Du Cros, Arthur Philip 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. 
 
 Fell, Arthur 
 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Finlay, Et. Hon. Sir Eobert 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Gardner, Ernest 
 Gibbs, G. A. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldman, C. S. 
 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Grant, J. A. 
 
296 
 
 Greene, Walter Raymond 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. 
 
 Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Haddock, George Bahr 
 Hall, Fred (Dulwich 
 Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Hewins, William Albert Samuel 
 Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. 
 
 Hills, John Waller (Durham 
 Hill-Wood, Samuel 
 Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Horner, Andrew Long 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Ingleby, Holcombe 
 
 Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E. 
 
 Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Knight, Captain E. A. 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury 
 Locker-Lampson, 0 (Ramsey 
 Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston 
 
 MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh 
 Mackinder, Halford J. 
 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 
 McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine 
 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mason, James F. (Windsor 
 Mildmay, Francis Bingham 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Morrison-Bell, Capt, E. F. (Ashb’rt’n 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newton, Harry Kotingham 
 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid. 
 Orde-Powlett, Hon. William 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. G. A. 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge 
 Perkins, Walter Frank 
 Peto, Basil Edward 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pryce-Jones, Col. E. 
 
 Ratcliff, R. F. 
 
 Rawson, Col. Richard H. 
 
 Remnant, James Farquharson 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rothschild, Lionel E. 
 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 
 Starkey John Ralph 
 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 
 Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knt’sford 
 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord Edmund 
 Trrrell, George (Wilts, N. W. 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N. 
 Thynne, Lord Alexander 
 Touch, George Alexander 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 
 Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, Major G. D. (Lancs., S’thport 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude 
 Winterton, Earl 
 Wolmer, Viscount 
 Wood, John (Stalybridge 
 
 Yate, Colonel C. E. 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : Mr. G. Lloyd and Mr. Pollock. 
 
297 
 
 Amendments made : In Sub-section (2) after the word “ for ” 
 (“ provide for ”) insert the words, “ securing equality of voting 
 power between.” 
 
 Leave out the words “ voting as separate classes.” — (Mr. 
 Buxton). 
 
 Mr. L. HAKDY : I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out 
 the words “ casting vote,” and to insert instead thereof the words, 
 “ deciding voice.” 
 
 I think it must be clearly seen that while it may have been 
 possible for Conciliation Boards to settle rates with a casting vote 
 that when it comes to Boards which have to decide all the intricacies 
 of district rules, safeguards, and all other matters, that it is very 
 important that the chairman should have the deciding voice and not 
 merely a casting vote. The Government have tried to avoid making 
 the chairman into an arbitrator, but they cannot do so. They will 
 have to face it in Clause 4, where they make him into an arbitrator. 
 I do ask the Government to consider whether it is not most 
 desirable that this question should be left so that all these matters can 
 be decided on their merits and not merely on a question of a casting 
 vote. Under Clause 4 the chairman becomes the District Board in 
 order to bring about a settlement within the time. When he 
 becomes a District Board what power does he have. That is only a 
 temporary clause, and you have to look back to Clause 2 to discover 
 what his powers are. I think it is desirable that some clarifying 
 words should be introduced. I press on the right honourable 
 gentleman to reconsider this question of the casting vote in order 
 that these matters may be decided on their merits. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : As the Bill stands, the chairman has a casting 
 vote only in what I may call the earlier stage of the proceedings, 
 and if the Joint Board are unable to come to an agreement as to 
 rates and rules, then he has the power of deciding for himself. It 
 was proposed on a former occasion that the chairman should at the 
 initial stages have this power of decision. I promised to consider 
 the matter, at the same time stating that I preferred the process 
 proposed in the Bill. I have considered that point, and I adhere to 
 the view I then took. We all desire that in the earlier stages the 
 chairman should act rather as a conciliator than as a chairman 
 with powers of decision. I think that is the better way of getting 
 agreement, and that is the procedure well known in the coal mining 
 trade. From that point of view it would be a mistake to give the 
 chairman too great a power at the earlier stages of the proceedings. 
 If in the end the two sides are unable to agree, then the chairman 
 will have to decide the rules and the rates. As regards how far 
 the Clauses 2 and 4 conflict, I have amendments on the Paper to 
 make the point clear, and I think there is no doubt whatever that 
 the clauses will not conflict. 
 
298 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word “classes” 
 (“between the two classes”), insert the words “of members.” — 
 (Mr. Buxton.) 
 
 Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) to leave out 
 the words “other than mines to which and workmen to whom a 
 special minimum rate or special district rules settled under the 
 provisions of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and 
 workmen to whom the Joint District Boards declare that the general 
 district rates and general district rules shall not be applicable 
 pending the decision of the question whether a special district rate 
 or special district rules ought to be settled in their case.” 
 
 Considerable attention was given to this matter in the Committee 
 Stage, and I rise only to suggest that the sub-division of which this 
 clause is capable should be, if not prevented, at least much limited. 
 The first part has special reference to the formation of a Joint 
 District Board for a particular area which may be described as a 
 joint district, but the latter part very seriously undermines the value 
 of the earlier portion. It is whittling down the value of the measure. 
 If there is any value in the Bill it is that there shall be a definite 
 district within which the rates are settled, and the employers have 
 something like equality of conditions. If you begin to break up the 
 districts and have smaller areas, employers in those areas may have 
 to meet unfair competition, and the workmen may not be on 
 equal terms. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The honourable gentleman says that we 
 discussed this at some length in Committee, and I do not think any 
 useful purpose would be served by discussing it again. But the 
 words read into the Sub-sections that follow. The honourable 
 member will see that there are some amendments put down by the 
 Government. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). 
 This is, I conceive, the very worst Sub-section in the Bill. Sub- 
 section (3) is already subdivided down to “ classes of workmen ” to 
 whom the general district rules and minimum shall be applicable, 
 but this subdivides down to the classes of workmen in any mine. 
 There are amendments on the paper in the name of the right 
 honourable gentleman, but we are anxious to delete the Sub-section. 
 It serves no useful purpose. It would really play into the hands of 
 the employers, who would get small bodies of men to agree to be 
 exempt from the operation of the general district rule. It would do 
 away, or very largely do away, with the efficiency of collective 
 bargaining in the mines. 
 
299 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : I beg to second this amendment. The 
 amendment put down by the President of the Board of Trade does 
 not meet the point raised by us. There are a number of large 
 colliery companies in various parts of the coalfield. Some are 
 employing as many as ten to twelve thousand men, and have a large 
 number of pits under their control. Some of these pits may be 
 pits at which no profit is being earned, while taking the whole 
 concern, a good profit may be earned. These groups under the 
 amendment of the President of the Board of Trade would have the 
 pits where no profit was being earned brought up and reviewed. 
 That would not meet our point at all. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I do not think my honourable friends have 
 quite grasped the effect of my amendments to Sub-section (4). 
 We have given the matter careful consideration and great atten- 
 tion, and we think it is quite as much in the interest of the 
 men as the owners that the District Board should have some 
 power of elasticity with regard to certain groups of mines. As 
 the clause stood in the Bill, these powers not only applied to groups 
 of mines, but to single mines, and to classes of workmen in mines. 
 My amendments exclude that, as I think it would have extended 
 the elasticity too far. We limit the application to classes of single 
 mines, and we take out the words “ any classes of workmen ” for 
 the reasons given by my honourable friends, because the impression 
 left upon members on both sides of the House who studied the 
 sub- section, was that it gave powers to District Boards to take men 
 working in particular mines, and to fix a different minimum rate for 
 them. That was never intended, and we have cut out these words 
 and the words remaining will be “groups of mines.” That will 
 keep the elasticity from the Boards, but will not in any way interfere 
 with the general principle on which the Bill is based. I think that 
 really meets the case made by honourable friends, and I hope it will 
 meet with the general assent of the House. There will be sufficient 
 elasticity, but not excessive elasticity, given under the clause as it 
 will be when amended. 
 
 Sir A. MABKHAM : One question as to the word “ groups.” 
 The President of the Board of Trade conveyed that it w 7 as not the 
 intention of the Government where there were different seams in a 
 mine that the men should work under different conditions. There 
 are cases were one seam in a mine may be profitable, while another 
 could not pay higher wages without leading to its closing. If you 
 are going to fix the same principle for one mine you destroy the 
 whole question of differentiation. I have a mine in my mind where 
 the average wages earned by the men working at one seam of coal 
 would be 10s. 6d., and at another seam in the same mine the average 
 would be 9s. — a difference of Is. 6d. I know another mine where 
 the average wage at one seam is 9s., and in the second seam 7s. 
 What does a “group” of mines mean, then? Does it mean one 
 mine or two or three or four mines ? 
 
300 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : I beg to move in Sub-section (4) to 
 leave out the word “ shall ” (“ (4) The Joint District Board of any 
 district shall ”) and to insert instead thereof the word “ may.” The 
 word “ may ” is not so imperative as the word “ shall,” although I 
 admit that the amendments to be moved by the President of the 
 Board of Trade are an improvement on the clause as originally 
 drafted. 
 
 Mr. WALSH : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I wish to support this amendment. 
 The object of it is that discretionary power should be given to the 
 District Boards. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will accept the amendment on behalf 
 of the Government. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move in Sub-section (4) to leave out 
 the words “ coal mine within the district or of any ” and to insert 
 instead thereof the words “ group or.” 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : As the clause originally stood if there were 
 a certain number of mines in a district and only one was just paying, 
 then the District Board could not take into consideration the 
 circumstances of that mine. As the clause will read with this 
 amendment the group of mines will have to be considered. As far 
 as I can see there is nothing which defines what a group is, and 
 “ group ” is a word which the District Board will have to define. It 
 must mean more than one. In case there are six or seven mines in 
 a group, and if out of that number there is one mine which is only 
 just paying, that mine will have to be shut up or worked at a loss. 
 I cannot conceive what is the object of giving the District Board 
 discretionary powers to consider special cases and then putting a 
 limitation on them and thus preventing them doing what it was the 
 intention of the Government they should do. It is evident these 
 words very seriously alter the power of the District Board to deal 
 lightly with mines where, if the actual minimum rate for other 
 mines is applied, the only result will be that they will be closed and 
 the workmen will lose their employment. Having settled a very 
 large number of amendments in Committee, we are asked by the 
 Government on the report stage, which was supposed to be formal, 
 to reverse what we have already done. I will not say they have 
 departed from their pledges, though they are really sailing rather 
 near the wind on this occasion. Unless the Attorney-General can 
 inform us how it is meant to define a group, and unless I am wrong 
 
301 
 
 in thinking the result will be to destroy poor mines altogether, I 
 think we ought to divided upon this amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I always thought we had a Report Stage rather 
 with a view to considering questions which had been discussed in 
 Committee, and especially questions to which the Government said 
 they would give their attention to see whether amendments should 
 be made. This is one of the cases where after careful consideration 
 we did think if you had a whole series of mines excluded from the 
 minimum rate fixed for a district there would be a considerable 
 curtailment of the application of the principle of the Bill. It is 
 not likely that the particular case to which the honourable gentle- 
 man referred will occur. What is likely to occur is that a group of 
 mines, which of course, must be more than one mine, or a class of 
 mine of a particular character, might be shown to be in a peculiar 
 position and might deserve special consideration. It would then be 
 for the District Board and for the chairman to consider whether 
 under these circumstances proper cause could be shown for treating 
 them in a different way. I have already explained that the words 
 “ different class of workmen ” has given rise to some misunder- 
 standing. Really the words are not necessary. They are covered 
 by the words “ group of mines.” 
 
 Mr. BONAR LAW : I must say I do not understand the object 
 of this amendment. It seems to me to be entirely contrary to the 
 principle on which this Bill was introduced to the House. The 
 provision was deemed so very important that, although but 
 comparatively few details were given when the Bill was brought in, 
 this matter was specially mentioned, I ask the right honourable 
 gentleman to reconsider his decision. The sole object of the 
 differentiation is that if the mine is found to be of such a nature 
 that it cannot be worked at the same minimum rate of wages as 
 other mines in the district, the effect of this Bill shall not be to close 
 the mine. Any District Committee would desire to make such a 
 provision if it could possibly be done, and the natural instinct will 
 be to have the area as wide as possible. But to deliberately make 
 this amendment is contrary to the principle of the Bill, and is done 
 with an abject which cannot possibly be justified to the House. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : The case of a group of mines in West Yorkshire 
 is fully met by this section as amended. But I think it will not 
 add to the smooth working of the Board to enable a particular 
 colliery at any time to keep on raising its own case. In West 
 Yorkshire there will be from twenty to forty mines at least that 
 would go as a group, and it would not help the case of any one of 
 them if it tried to hold out for a separate decision on its own account. 
 But I think the effect of this proposal will be entirely opposite to 
 what the miners’ representatives wish, and I wish to throw out this 
 caution. The change no doubt meets our case in West Yorkshire; 
 
302 
 
 we shall be considered as a group. But should there be one colliery 
 in a different locality which desires a very low minimum the effect 
 will be disadvantageous to the rest because very probably the District 
 Board and the chairman will hesitate to decide upon" a minimum 
 which they know will close even one mine, and it will most likely 
 be found to be the case that the miners themselves will come forward 
 for an amendment of this Act in the future in an entirely opposite 
 sense. I mention this in order to put the House in full possession 
 of the possibilities of the position. The change meets our case in 
 West Yorkshire, but it may be there is an odd mine which stands in 
 a unique position, and then the operation of the amendment will be 
 as I have stated. 
 
 Viscount HELM BLEY : It seems to me that the Government 
 amendment is a most fatuous proposal whether in the interests of 
 the men or of the owners. It does not appear to me to be likely to 
 make for peace. If you have a district in which there are two mines 
 to whose special conditions the general district minimum rate could 
 not apply you can consider them separately. But if it happens to 
 be a district in which there is only one such mine to which the 
 minimum rate would not apply it cannot be dealt with separately. 
 It is an absurd proposition. Honourable members must see there is 
 not really any advantage to them whatever. Sub-division was 
 provided for in Clause 6, as originally drawn. I think it is a great 
 pity that the Government have given way on this point. There is 
 a good deal in what has fallen from the honourable Member for 
 Pontefract (Mr. Booth), that by insisting on keeping your district 
 larger and not taking into consideration the cases of special individual 
 mines you will tend to prevent the District Board from fixing so 
 high a minimum rate as they might otherwise do. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : May I put the case of a district in the Rhondda 
 Valley, where at one pit coal of second class value is drawn, while in 
 the same area there are other pits which produce only very high 
 priced coal. Would you have the same minimum in both cases ? 
 
 Mr. AMERY : I would venture to put one further point. So 
 far as I understand the wording of the proposed amendment, a 
 District Board may be empowered to make special arrangements in 
 the case of one district where there are three mines employing 
 about fifty men apiece, and may not be empowered to make special 
 arrangements for one mine where there are 1,000 men employed. 
 Surely the wording of the proposed amendment is entirely 
 unsatisfactory. 
 
 Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask whether it is 
 the intention of the Government that the word “ mine ” shall mean 
 a colliery, or shall mean a seam. In Lancashire the word “ mine ” 
 means one of the seams, and a colliery may have as many as five or 
 six mines in it, while two or three collieries may each have six- 
 
303 
 
 seam mines. Considerable confusion has been caused in that way. 
 The honourable Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) used the word 
 “ mine ” as if he meant a colliery. The whole sense of this amend- 
 ment will be quite different from what honourable members think 
 it is, unless we make the meaning quite clear. 
 
 Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM : That will come under the defini- 
 tion of a coal mine contained in the Coal Mines Regulation Act. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : There is no reference to the Coal Mines Regu- 
 lation Act. 
 
 Sir A. MARKHAM : That is rather an important point, and it 
 ought to be made quite clear. May I ask the Attorney-General 
 whether the word “group” means mines in the same locality or 
 contiguous to each other ? 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : It means a group of mines in a district. 
 
 Mr. EDGAR JONES: Take the ordinary level of drifts. 
 Does it mean that house coal drifts are one group and that steam 
 coal drifts are another group. 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG : I have handed in a manuscript 
 amendment which I think will deal with the point. It provides 
 that in sub-divided districts, sub-division shall be made by the Joint 
 District Board in respect of seams as well as in respect of localities, 
 so that the sub-division should be not merely superficial — that is to 
 say, it shall not be horizontal, but what is far more important, 
 vertical. There might be a far greater difference between seams as 
 to conditions of quality and thickness and prices if taken vertically 
 than is taken superficially. But that matter will more properly be 
 discussed on Sub-section 5, and I only thought it might assist the 
 House if I informed it that 1 have an amendment down on the 
 subject. 
 
 Lord HUGH CECIL: It may be my fault or the lateness of the 
 hour, but the President of the Board of Trade’s answer conveyed no 
 meaning to me whatever. He said that if the mines were separately 
 dealt with by the Joint District Board it might seriously imperil the 
 principle of a minimum wage. I do not know what the principle of 
 the minimum wage is, and I do not know whether the Government 
 know. But the minimum wage is to be adjusted to the circumstances 
 of the case, and why not to the circumstances of each case and not 
 only to the circumstances of every two or three cases ? This is 
 meant as a concession to the Labour party, but it does not seem to 
 me that the Labour party or anyone else get anything out of an 
 arrangement frankly foolish. If you can trust a District Board with 
 all the enormous powers this Bill is going to give them you can 
 surely leave to them the question whether the mines can be dealt 
 
304 
 
 with separately or in a group. I think the Government, after reflecting 
 for twenty-four hours, might have produced a defensible amendment 
 of a little more intellectual creditability than the present one. 
 
 Question put, “ That the words proposed to be left out stand 
 part of the clause.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 112 ; Noes, 255. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Agg-Gardner, James Tynte 
 Amery, L. C. M. S. 
 
 Baird, J. L. 
 
 Balcarres, Lord 
 Banner, John S. Harmood- 
 Barnston, Harry 
 Barrie, H. T. 
 
 Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E. 
 Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks 
 Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth 
 Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich 
 Bennett-Goldney, Francis 
 Bigland, Alfred 
 
 Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue 
 Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- 
 Boyton, J. 
 
 Bridgeman, W. Clive 
 Burn, Colonel C. B. 
 
 Butcher, J. G. 
 
 Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred 
 Cassel, Felix 
 Castlereagh, Viscount 
 Cave, George 
 
 Cecil, Lord H. (Oxford University 
 Chaloner, Col. B. G. W. 
 
 Clyde, J. Avon 
 
 Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham 
 Cooper, Bichard Ashmole 
 Cory, Sir Clifford John 
 Courthope, George Loyd 
 Craig, Captain James (Down, E. 
 Craig, Norman (Kent 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 
 Pavies David (Montgomery Co. 
 
 Dickson, Bt. Hon. C. Scott 
 
 Eyres-Monsell, B. M. 
 
 Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey 
 Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue 
 Fleming, Valentine 
 
 Gibbs, G. A. 
 
 Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. 
 Goldman, C. S. < 
 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Grant, J. A. 
 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. 
 
 Gwynne, B. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne 
 
 Hardy, Bt. Hon. Laurence 
 Harrison-Broadley, H. B. 
 
 Helmsley, Viscount 
 
 Henderson, MajorH. (B’rks,Abingd’n 
 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 
 Hills, J. W. 
 
 Hill-Wood, Samuel 
 Hohler, G. Fitzroy 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Hunt, Bowland 
 
 Jardine, E. (Somerset, E. 
 
 Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr 
 Knight, Captain E. A. 
 
 Larmor, Sir J. 
 
 Law, Bt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle 
 Lewisham, Viscount 
 Lloyd, G. A. 
 
 Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury 
 
305 
 
 Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey 
 Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston 
 
 MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh 
 Macmaster, Donald 
 M‘Neill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine 
 Malcolm, Ian 
 
 Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas 
 Morrison-Bell, Captain E. F. 
 (Ashburton) 
 
 Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton 
 Mount, William Arthur 
 
 Newdegate, F. A. 
 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 
 O’Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid 
 Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William 
 
 Paget, Almeric Hugh 
 Parkes, Ebenezer 
 Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington 
 Perkins, Walter F. 
 
 Peto, Basil Edward 
 Pole-Carew, Sir R. 
 
 Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. 
 
 Ratcliff, Major R. F. 
 
 Rawson, Colonel R. H. 
 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Sanders, Robert A. 
 
 Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells 
 Spear, Sir John Ward 
 Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston 
 Starkey, John R. 
 
 Stewart, Gershom 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Talbot, Lord E. 
 
 Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W. 
 Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N. 
 Thynne, Lord Alexander 
 Touche, George Alexander 
 Tryon, Captain George Clement 
 
 Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 White, Major G. D. (Lancs., S’thp’rt 
 Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W. 
 Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud 
 Wolmer, Viscount 
 Worthington-Evans, L. 
 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes: — Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. J. Mason. 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour 
 Adamson, William 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. 
 Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Armitage, R. 
 
 Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, H. T. (Accrington 
 
 Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset 
 Barnes, George N. 
 
 Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick 
 Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George 
 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 
 T 
 
Bowerman, C. W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 Brady, P. J. 
 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Burke, E. Haviland- 
 Buxton, Bt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Chappie, Dr. W. A. 
 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas 
 Dillon, John 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 Edwards, John H. (Glamorgan, Mid 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thos. (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 France, G. A. 
 
 Gelder, SirW. A. 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gill, A. H. 
 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Greenwood, Granville (Peterboro’ 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. 
 (Pembroke) 
 
 Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway 
 
 Hackett, John 
 Hall, Frederick (Normanton 
 Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale 
 Harcourt, Robert Y. (Montrose 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds. 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W. 
 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayward, Evan 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Henry, Sir Charles 
 Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S. 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. 
 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 
 Hope, John Deans (Haddington 
 
 Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich j 
 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 
 Hudson, Walter 
 
 Hughes, Spencer Leigh 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts, Rushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T.H’mts,Stepn’y 
 Jowett, F. W. 
 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, M. 
 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 
307 
 
 Lambert, Rt.Hon.G. (Dev’n,S.M’lt’n 
 jLambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade 
 Lansbury, G-eorge 
 Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland, 
 Cockermouth) 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 !Low, Sir F. (Norwich 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 [Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 MacYeagh, Jeremiah 
 M‘Callum, John M. 
 
 McGhee, Richard 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 McLaren, W. S. B. (Ches., Crewe 
 M‘Micking, Major Gilbert 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 i Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s Co. 
 Middlebrook, William 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, M. 
 
 Molteno, Percy Alport 
 Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Munro, R. 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Neilson, Francis 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster 
 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 Ogden, Fred 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey Mark 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek 
 Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan V. 
 
 Pointer, Joseph 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 
 Redmond, William (Clare 
 
 Richards, Thomas 
 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 
 Roberts, G. H. (Norwich 
 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 
 Rowlands, James 
 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 
308 
 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. 
 
 Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W. 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan Charles Philips 
 
 Yerney, Sir H. 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 Wardle, George J. 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 
 Watt, Henry A. 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 Wedgwood, Josiah C. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Glas. Tradeston 
 White, Patrick (Heath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, J. (Glamorgan 
 Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir A. 
 
 Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N; 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas! 
 
 Young, W. (Perthshire, E. 
 
 Yoxall, Sir James Henry 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. 
 
 Question, “ That the words ‘ group or ’ be there inserted,” put, J 
 and agreed to. 
 
 Further amendments made : — 
 
 Leave out the words “ or in the case of any class of workmen.” 
 
 Leave out the word “ mine ” (“of the mine or class,”) and 
 insert instead thereof the word “ group.” 
 
 Leave out the words “ mine or workman,” and insert instead 
 thereof the word “mines.” 
 
 Leave out the word “ mine ” (“that mine or class,”) and insert 
 instead thereof the word “ group.” 
 
 Leave out the words “ or class of workmen.” 
 
 Leave out the word “ mine ” (“ applicable to that mine,”) and 
 insert instead thereof the words “ group or.” 
 
309 
 
 Leave out the words “ mine, or class of workmen,” and insert 
 instead thereof the word “ mines.” — (Mr. Buxton). 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to move the deletion of Sub-section 
 (5). I think after what has already taken place in Sub-section (3) 
 and Sub-section (4), the necessity for Sub-section (5) has practically 
 disappeared. The protection now given by the Bill extends to 
 classes of mines in any district or group of mines in any district 
 upon good cause being shown to the District Board. Surely there 
 is no need for any further sub-division ? The noble lord below the 
 gangway wanted to know the reason why, if it was right to give 
 protection to any group of mines, it was not equally right to give 
 protection to any one mine, or, indeed, as he put the question, to 
 any single workman. I wonder whether the noble lord has ever 
 heard of the process known in arithmetic as the greatest common 
 measure. That surely is the whole object of the Bill to begin with 
 that the greatest common measure of agreement shall be found in 
 joint district for which the Board acts, and that, so far as that 
 greatest common measure applies the decisions of the Board shall 
 apply ; but that there may be, as we have never denied certain 
 conditions that would entitle a particular body of employers perhaps 
 to relief. That has been amply provided for. The relief necessary 
 in exceptional cases has been amply provided for in Sub-sections (3) 
 and (4). You give power to separate your district in Sub-section (3), 
 for special treatment of special classes. In Sub-section (4) you have 
 enabled groups of mines or classes of mines to be taken, and surely 
 that is as far as you ought to carry your exceptions. 
 
 Mr. RICHARDSON : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This seems a different point from the last. 
 This gives power, if the District Boards desire, to divide any 
 particular district into parts. In the Committee stage an amend- 
 ment was moved by the honourable Member for Barnard Castle in 
 which he suggested that instead of allowing the committees to sub- 
 divide to an unlimited extent they should be allowed to divide a 
 particular district mentioned in the schedule into two parts. That 
 seemed to me a very reasonable proposal. The next amendment I 
 have put down will limit that power of division to two, except by 
 agreement, and, I hope, under the circumstances, my honourable 
 friend will allow the Sub-section to remain in. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Further amendment made : Leave out the words “ a minimum 
 rate,” and insert instead thereof the words ‘'minimum rates.” 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move after the word “ district ” 
 (“district rules”), to insert the words “into two parts or, if the 
 members of the Joint District Board representing the workmen and 
 
310 
 
 the members representing the employers agree, into more than two 
 parts.” 
 
 Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND : I confess I do not know whether 
 the Government have inquired how far this amendment will apply 
 to the case of Scotland. The House will see on referring to the 
 schedule that Scotland is given as composing one district. The 
 effect of this amendment would be that the Joint Board, acting 
 through the neutral chairman as conciliator and arbitrator, would 
 not have power to sub-divide the whole of Scotland into more than 
 two districts. I frankly hesitate to think that that is desirable. 
 There are at least five separate districts in Scotland where different 
 classes of conditions prevail. These are Lanarkshire, Fife and the 
 Lothian, Ayr and Dumfries, Argyll, Stirling and Dumbartonshire. 
 I may point out to the House that Staffordshire is divided 
 into three parts, an aditional part having been added in Com- 
 mittee. These are North, South (excluding Cannock Chase), 
 and Cannock Chase. Really it seems to me if these powers 
 of sub-division are necessary in the case of Staffordshire, at 
 least power ought to be given in the schedule, if it is thought 
 desirable after the full consideration of the Board, and acting under 
 the opinion of the neutral chairman, to so sub-divide Scotland. 
 Possibly the Government have considered the point, or perhaps it 
 has not occurred to them ; but, in any case, I should be very glad to 
 know their view. I do not think the right honourable gentleman 
 will complain of my raising the matter. 
 
 Sir C. CORY : I think the same thing applies to the case of 
 Monmouthshire. If you agree to the amendment, certainly you 
 ought to separate Monmouthshire from Wales. 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG : I should like to invite some reason 
 from the Government as to why a district may be divided into two 
 without the agreement of the representatives of the employers and 
 the men, but may only be divided into three or more if they agree. 
 On what principle can that be based ? I do not want to travel 
 further than the immediate amendment, which may have a very 
 serious effect upon an amendment which I propose, with Mr. 
 Speaker’s permission, to move after this, with a view to defining 
 more closely what shall be a district for the purpose of the Bill, and 
 with a view to enabling sub-divisions to be more elastic. There can 
 be no logical reason why a district should be a district in two parts 
 without agreement, and should only be a district in three parts 
 or more by agreement. There is no reason in it at all. If you are 
 going to trust the chairman and Joint District Board, why not trust 
 them more fully ? Why limit them ? I cannot help suspecting 
 that because this sub-section is disagreeable to some honourable 
 gentlemen on the other side below the Gangway this modification is 
 proposed. We have it that they do not want sub-division at all, and 
 as you would not get agreement there could not be more than two 
 
311 
 
 parts to a district. I would also point out that the district which 
 you are getting under this section as it stands is a district reckoned 
 solely by surface. 
 
 To take the example given by my honourable friend (Mr. 
 Mitchell-Thomson) Scotland may be divided into two sub-districts 
 without agreement, but how many classes of coal as regards quality 
 and thickness, and how many conditions of work and differences of 
 price at the pit-head exist throughout Scotland ? And yet you are 
 to treat the whole lot as one. The thing in itself is ridiculous. By 
 a previous amendment the question of the average daily rate has 
 already been dealt with. If Scotland is to be divided into at most 
 two parts without agreement, what is going to happen with regard 
 to the average daily rate ? It has got to be reckoned all over 
 Scotland without reference t'o the different conditions. When the 
 Joint District Board comes to consider the question of the minimum 
 rate they will be very slow to adopt one which would have the effect 
 of shutting down mines, and, therefore, so far as the men are 
 concerned, they are likely to get a lower minimum than they w T ould 
 get if the subject were treated with more elasticity. It is a matter 
 which rests very largely upon the conditions in different seams 
 underground. You may get a seam, as the honourable Member for 
 Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) says, where a miner may fairly ask as 
 a minimum wage for his day’s work 7s. 6d., 8s., or 9s., or in the 
 same seam only 5s. or 6s. If the minimum is fixed with reference 
 to the best seam you are not going to work the worst seam at all. 
 If it is fixed with reference to the worst seam, the miners are not 
 going to get as much as they might fairly expect from working the 
 best seam. Those, therefore, who are opposed to elasticity are 
 really injuring the cause they seek to promote. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the last remarks of the 
 honourable and learned gentleman are directed more to the elasticity 
 of the sub-clause than the particular amendment with which we are 
 dealing. We have already discussed that at some length, and passed 
 it. The case of Scotland was undoubtedly considered, and 
 considered very carefully. What is intended by the amendment is 
 that there should be one sub-division in that agreement, and 
 thereafter you may further sub-divide subject to agreement. It 
 would be very easy, of course, to say, as no doubt the honourable 
 and learned gentleman has said, why should you do it a third time 
 by agreement, whereas before you do it by order of the District 
 Board. 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am sure the right honourable 
 gentleman wishes to appreciate my point. As I understand the last 
 clause dealt with what the District Board might do within its 
 district. This clause deals with what the district shall be. It is a 
 totally different point. 
 
312 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What we are really dealing with here 
 is the sub-division of districts. We considered what was put to us 
 in Committee, and came to the conclusion that it was reasonable 
 there should be some limitation placed upon the right of sub- 
 division, but no limitation where there was agreement to sub-divide, 
 and that is the amendment we are now upon. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : For the last thirteen years we have had one 
 Conciliation Board for the whole of Scotland, and one district rate 
 of wages. During that time we have had all the various classes of 
 coal to which the honourable and learned gentleman has referred, 
 and I have never heard, even on the part of the employer, any 
 desire for sub-divisions. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : Not one district rate of wages? 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON : We have had one minimum arrangement for 
 the whole of Scotland. 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to propose an amendment, the 
 character of which I have already indicated. I do not intend to 
 trespass further on the time of the House, but I do attach im- 
 portance to the amendment. It is not on the paper, but I have 
 given notice of it to the Government. The amendment I propose is 
 to insert at the end of the Sub-section (5) the words “and in making 
 any such sub-division a seam underlying the whole or any part of 
 the district may, for the purpose of fixing a minimum rate, be 
 treated by the Joint District Board as a district.” This is not 
 a proposal to create new boards. It is the same Board dealing with 
 the same district. The next point is that you do get in the same 
 district a number of different seams and also in the same shaft 
 different seams, and different profit and different selling power. The 
 honourable member who spoke just now (Mr. Adamson) was good 
 enough to refer to my ignorance of Scotland. Let me refer him to 
 Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Take these counties as a district 
 and fix your minimum wage in reference to the top hard seam 
 or in reference to the low main seam. The one can fetch a much 
 higher price than the other and can enable much higher wages to be 
 paid to the worker. You want elasticity. The greatest importance 
 exists in distinguishing between the different seams underground, 
 even in the same district. I would remind the House that 
 we have no definition of a mine here. If you did have even 
 the definition, which the honourable Member for Mansfield has 
 alluded to, you would still have difficulties unless you accept 
 the amendment. What I want is to give a wage in reference 
 to the possibilities of the mine, and to give the fairest wages you 
 can. You should not deal with the matter from the superficial 
 point of view, but from the point of view of the seam. 
 
 Mr. MOUNT seconded the amendment. 
 
313 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty in the way of accepting 
 this amendment is that the districts are all mapped out geo- 
 graphically and not with reference to the seams running from one 
 county into another. If we did not deal with them as here we 
 would get into the most hopeless confusion. Supposing the same 
 seam ran from Northumberland into Scotland, you would have a 
 Joint District Board dealing with Scotland. 
 
 Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: No, no. Only when it is in the 
 district. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I am dealing with the matter in regard 
 to the seams. The amendment of the honourable and learned 
 gentleman is affected by the clause we have already dealt with, and 
 is therefore unnecessary, because its object, I think, is carried out 
 without adding the w T ords the honourable member desires. 
 
 Mr. W. E. HARVEY : The honourable gentleman has as great 
 a lack of knowledge with regard to Derbyshire as he had with 
 regard to Scotland. He cannot have any knowledge with what 
 operates in Derbyshire. What obtains there is that for a very long 
 time we have had an arrangement with the coal owners throughout 
 the whole of the county. It has worked so harmoniously that we 
 are desirous to retain it. It is not necessary that we should have a 
 division in Derbyshire. The owners would not like it. It is well 
 known by those who live in the districts surrounding Derbyshire 
 that we have managed our business as well as anybody in the whole 
 of the United Kingdom, and we have not done so by a division of 
 districts, but by a united district. It does come with bad grace from 
 a stranger to tell us to alter a system which has operated so well in 
 these districts. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Clause 4. — (Provision for bringing Act into operation, etc.) 
 
 (I) If within two weeks after the passing of this Act a Joint 
 District Board has not been recognised by the Board of Trade 
 for any district, or if at any time after the passing of this Act 
 any occasion arises for the exercise or performance in any district 
 of any power or duty under this Act by the Joint District 
 Board, and there is no Joint District Board for the district, the 
 Board of Trade may either forthwith or after such interval as may 
 seem to them necessary or expedient, appoint such person as they 
 think fit to act in the place of the Joint District Board, and while 
 that appointment continues, this Act shall be construed, so far as 
 respects that district, as if the person so appointed were substituted 
 for the Joint District Board. 
 
 (2) If the Joint District Board within three weeks after the 
 time at which it has been recognised under this Act for any district 
 
314 
 
 fail to perform any duty with respect to the settlement of the first 
 minimum rates of wages and district rules in that district, the 
 chairman of the Joint District Board shall perform that duty in 
 place of the Joint District Board, and any minimum rate of wages 
 or district rules settled by him shall have the same effect for the 
 purposes of this Act as if they had been settled by the Joint District 
 Board. 
 
 Provided that, if the members of the Joint District Board 
 representating the workmen and the members representing the 
 employers agree, or if the Board of Trade on a report from the 
 chairman of the District Board direct, that a specified period longer 
 than three weeks shall for the purposes of this sub-section be 
 substituted for three weeks, this sub-section shall have effect as if 
 that specified period were therein substituted for three weeks. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move to insert at the end of sub- 
 section (1) the words : “ the Board of Trade in any such case where 
 it appears to them that the necessity for the exercise of their powers 
 under this provision arises from the failure of the employers to 
 appoint members to represent employers on a board when the 
 workmen are willing to appoint members to represent workmen, or 
 from the failure of the workmen to appoint members to represent 
 workmen on a board when the employers are willing to appoint 
 members to represent employers, may, if they think fit, instead of 
 appointing a person to act in the place of the Joint District Board, 
 appoint such person as they think fit to represent the employers or 
 the workmen, as the case may be, who have failed to appoint 
 members to represent them ; and in that case the members so 
 appointed by the Board of Trade shall be deemed to be members of 
 the Board representing employers or workmen as the case requires. 
 
 The object of the amendment is in case of the appointment of 
 the District Board, either side declining to appoint their representa- 
 tive it can, in these circumstances, be left to the Board of Trade to 
 appoint the members of the committee. It is hoped that neither 
 side would, in any case, decline to send their representatives, and it 
 does not follow that the Board of Trade might necessarily carry out 
 that course, but as a measure of precaution it is thought expedient 
 to take these powers, which I think should never be used. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Further amendments made : — 
 
 Leave out the words, “ perform any duty with respect to the 
 settling of,” and insert instead thereof the word “ settle. ” 
 
 After the word “ district ” (“ with respect to the settling of the 
 first minimum rates of wages and district rules in that district,” 
 
315 
 
 insert the words, “or if the Joint District Board, within three weeks 
 after the expiration of a notice for an application under this Act to 
 vary any minimum rate of wages or district rules fail to deal with 
 the application.” 
 
 Leave out the words, “ perform that duty ” (“ the chairman of 
 the Joint District Board shall perform that duty,”) and insert 
 instead thereof the words, “ settle the rates or rules or deal with the 
 application as the case may be.” 
 
 Leave out the words “ the Board of Trade on a report from ” 
 (“ on a report from the chairman of the District Board.”) 
 
 Leave out the word “direct ” (“ or if the Board of Trade on a 
 report from the chairman of the District Board direct,”) and insert 
 instead thereof the word directs.” — (Mr. Buxton). 
 
 Clause 5. — (Interpretation and Provision as to Chairman). 
 
 (1) In this Act — 
 
 The expression “ coal mine ” includes a mine of stratified 
 ironstone ; 
 
 The expression “workman” means any person employed in a 
 mine below ground who is not a person employed solely 
 in surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine. 
 
 (2) If it is thought fit by any persons when appointing a chair- 
 man for the purposes of this Act, or by the Board of Trade when so 
 appointing a chairman, the office of chairman may be committed to 
 three persons, and in that case those three persons acting by a 
 majority shall be deemed to be the chairman for the purposes of this 
 Act. 
 
 Mr. BAIRD : I beg to move, after tbe word “ ironstone ” (“ the 
 expression ‘ coal mine ’ includes a mine of stratified ironstone ”), to 
 insert the words, “except where stratified ironstone occurs outside 
 the coal measures.” At a previous stage of the Bill the Attorney- 
 General said stratified ironstone w r ould not be included in the 
 definition where it was not included in the dispute. There is a 
 small ironstone mine in Scotland where the quality of the ironstone 
 is low, and it will be impossible to utilise it unless it is obtained at a 
 low price. Otherwise this promising industry would be closed down 
 at the very start. The outlook now is favourable in a part of the 
 country where it is hard to obtain work, and it would be impossible 
 to carry on the experiment if the wages were raised. The Cleveland 
 district ironstone miners voted against the strike. It was the only 
 district that did not want a strike. They were afraid of any 
 alteration in the conditions of employment which might lead to their 
 
316 
 
 being thrown out of work owing to the mines being closed down. 
 The quality of the ironstone mined in the Cleveland district and in 
 Scotland is very much lower than that which comes from abroad, 
 and there is great risk of this trade being stopped altogether if these 
 districts are included under the Bill. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON : I beg to second this amend- 
 ment, but I am not sure that the Government may not consider 
 that possibly it goes further than even my honourable friend intends. 
 Under these circumstances I would ask the Government to take 
 some special steps to consider the case of this island in the north- 
 west of Scotland which was referred to. It would be undesirable of 
 course to have a special rate for ironstone miners where there are 
 coal miners working alongside. I recognise that that might give 
 rise to friction ; but in the case of this island there are no coal mines 
 anywhere near, and I think the Government might well take that 
 case into consideration. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The amendment goes much further 
 than, I think, the honourable gentleman who moved it intended. 
 It would cut out various ironstone mines which are not intended by 
 him to be excluded. I am afraid it is much too wide. If his point 
 is merely to exclude the island to which he referred, we will 
 consider how to meet it, and it shall be met. 
 
 Mr. BAIRD : On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The clause contains a definition of the 
 persons to whom this Act is not to apply. These are persons 
 “ employed solely in surveying or measuring, or an official of the 
 mine.” It is felt that the clause as drafted would exclude numbers 
 •: b ? co of b on( %_fid e workmen from the benefits to be conferred, presumably, 
 by this Act. Who is an official it is difficult to determine. The 
 new Mines Act brings in quite a number of workers of various 
 grades — deputies, firemen, timbermen, and others of that type — 
 all these might be classed as officials and so be excluded from this 
 Act. I beg to move to leave out the words, “an official” (“or an 
 official of the mine ” and to insert instead thereof the words “ who 
 is a manager, or under-manager, or other official who may be 
 declared by mutual agreement by the joint committee not to be a 
 workman to whom this Act applies.” It will be observed that this 
 amendment does not lay down any hard and fast rule as to who are 
 to be classed as officials. The amendment leaves that to be decided 
 mutually between the miners and the owners, and as it requires 
 agreement between the two sides obviously no injustice can be 
 done. 
 
 Mr ARTHUR HENDERSON seconded the amendment. 
 
317 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This is rather a difficult question involving a 
 definition as to how far, if the word “ official ” is left in, it may put 
 outside the Act certain men whom we have no desire should be 
 excluded from its benefits. I have been in communication with the 
 the Home Office on the matter, and if my honourable friend will be 
 good enough to withdraw his amendment, I shall be disposed to 
 move it more or less in the same words, which will, I think, carry 
 out his objects. I propose to leave out “ an official of the mine,” and 
 to insert “ or any manager or under-manager of the mine, or an 
 official of the mine who is recognised by the Joint District Board 
 as not being in the position of a workman.” 
 
 Mr. KEIB HARDIE : I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. 
 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move to leave out the words, “ an 
 official of the mine ” (“ a person employed solely in surveying or 
 measuring, or an official of the mine ”), and to insert instead thereof, 
 the words “ or any manager or under-manager of the mine, or an 
 official of the mine who is recognised by the Joint District Board as 
 not being in the position of a workman” 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move after the words last added to 
 insert the words “ or a person employed as mechanic.” 
 
 Viscount CASTLEREAGH : Does this amendment cover the 
 case of those who go occasionally down a mine ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Those words cover the point which the noble 
 lord has raised. 
 
 Sir F. BANBURY : May I ask what is meant by “ or a person 
 employed as mechanic.” I suppose “ a mechanic ” is what is meant. 
 Would the right honourable gentleman see that his amendments are 
 written in English in future ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Obviously this is a clerical error. 
 
 Mr KEIR HARDIE : Is this to apply to an engine-keeper 
 underground, or simply to an engineer who goes down to construct 
 or repair an engine ? 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : Does it include the smith who goes down 
 occasionally to shoe the ponies ? 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : In reply to the honourable baronet, I under- 
 stand the amendment is the proper drafting.” 
 
318 
 
 Mr. WALSH : This word “ mechanic ” has given us more 
 trouble than any other under the Eight Hours Act. We have had 
 scores of employers who have been trying to bring in the man who 
 repairs a rope or looks after small parts of the engine, as a mechanic 
 to whom the Eight Hours Act is not applicable. In the Committee 
 stage we pointed out what confusion w T as likely to arise under the 
 Eight Hours Act, and it has arisen. I am afraid we are going to 
 have similar difficulties on this Bill. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY : I beg to move to add the further words, 
 “ any person whose principal duties are above ground.” 
 
 This is really the point raised in the Committee stage — as to 
 whether it is safe to leave out any reference to the people who 
 go down a pit occasionally to do odd work. Electricians were 
 mentioned during the Committee stage, and I do not think they can 
 be quite called mechanics. I do not quite know what “ mechanic ” 
 is without the “ a.” The honourable Member for Pontefract has 
 mentioned the shoer of horses. There are a good many people who 
 go down in connection with the ponies. There are the veterinary 
 surgeon, the sadler to mend the harness, and various other people. 
 If we look back to the first Clause we see mentioned “an implied 
 term of every contract for the employment of a workman under- 
 ground.” Therefore words are wanted to exclude those people sent 
 down on special jobs who are certainly not underground workers in 
 any sense meant by the honourable Members of the Labour party. 
 We are all agreed on the point, but the definition is not full enough. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : This point was raised in the Committee stage, 
 and I can only answer now as I did then. Persons employed only 
 intermittently would not come under the provisions of the Act. It 
 is intended to apply only to those who are bona fide underground 
 workers. We think they are fully covered by this definition Clause. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY : May I ask the right honourable gentleman’s 
 attention to the two first lines of the Bill? It is no use the Govern- 
 ment saying they intend to do a thing unless they do it. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I am not a draughtsman or lawyer. I think 
 the words referred to in the first clause mean a workman employed 
 underground in the ordinary sense of the term and not one inter- 
 mittently employed. I have looked into the matter, and I am 
 assured that that is the position. I will look into it again. 
 
 Amendment, by leave withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH : I beg to move to leave out the word 
 “ South ” (“ South Yorkshire.”) For the life of me I cannot 
 understand why Yorkshire should be divided into two districts. 
 Since the year 1881, when the miners of the two districts 
 
319 
 
 amalgamated into one organisation, the whole of the business 
 has been done between the one organisation and the owners’ 
 association in the district. Now both those districts are in one 
 conciliation area, and the Joint Board’s work, so far as com- 
 pensation cases are concerned, is the work of one Board for the 
 whole of Yorkshire. If this is allowed to remain in the Bill as two 
 districts we are liable, under an amendment recently carried, to be 
 split up into four districts. I think the Government ought to 
 reconsider the matter, and place us, at all events for the time being, 
 as one district. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I beg to second the amendment. 
 
 Mr. L. HABDY : I hope the Government will not go away 
 from the schedule without very careful consideration. There are 
 a good many reasons which could be given for this division. I 
 think the most important fact we have to face is that, although 
 undoubtedly there has been one district — one Board as it were— for 
 the whole of Yorkshire, there has always been two associations of 
 coal owners, because the coal owners have recognised that, so far as 
 they are concerned, it is impossible to work Yorkshire in one 
 district. It is an interesting fact that at the end of last year these 
 very questions in connection with which this dispute has arisen, 
 were coming up. There was an attempt to deal with these questions 
 locally by a Joint Board sitting with representatives of South and 
 West Yorkshire, and they failed to come to an agreement. Just 
 before this minimum question was raised they sought to discuss it, 
 and, if possible, to settle it in separate districts, namely, West York- 
 shire and South Yorkshire, so that it is actually the case that, so far 
 as this type of question is concerned, they had already found it was 
 necessary to separate those two districts. Therefore, we come here 
 with a very strong claim when we say that these questions can only 
 be adequately dealt with in this way. On the last two occasions on 
 which this subject was before the House, I think, the honourable 
 Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) emphasised the great 
 difference there was in West Yorkshire. The honourable Member 
 for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has also alluded to the matter again and 
 again, and it was brought out in the Conference. In the case of 
 the Midland Federated area and Cannock Chase the necessity for 
 division has been recognised, and that being so, it cannot be said 
 that South and West Yorkshire should not be divided. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I am afraid I must resist this amendment. 
 We considered the question of West Yorkshire very carefully. I do 
 not think any one who attended the conference thought South 
 Yorkshire or West Yorkshire could be dealt with as one area. The 
 whole circumstances of the coal trade in Derbyshire and Staffordshire 
 and the methods of working are quite different. 
 
320 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH: In those districts there are separate 
 organisations. If there were two separate trade organisations in 
 Yorkshire we should have no objection to division. 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : As regards the miner, it is quite true that 
 of late years there has been one association, but for many years there 
 were two associations. Their interests seem different, and in many 
 respects antagonistic, and, though the endeavour was to treat the 
 district as a whole, it was found impossible, and it was agreed 
 by both sides that they should be treated separately. I am told 
 there is an additional reason in respect of railway rates, and that the 
 alteration of these figures would give rise to many financial difficulties. 
 I hope, therefore, the House will support the proposal in the Bill for 
 the division of Yorkshire, in the circumstances. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I would like to appeal to the Yorkshire Miners’ 
 Federation in regard to this matter, and, speaking on behalf of the 
 West Yorkshire mine owners, there is not the least wish that the 
 miners’ organisation of Yorkshire should be split up or divided. The 
 honourable member knows that many of us in West Yorkshire 
 regard the organisation at Barnsley as our best friends. The enemies 
 we are afraid of are not the Miners’ Association, who in Yorkshire 
 give us every consideration, but the rival owners in the South. I 
 want to appeal to the honourable member to protect us in West 
 Yorkshire against the rival coal owners in the South. The House 
 has had evidence this week that some of them are ready to gobble 
 us up. We shall have to state the case for our mines before 
 a joint board, including a number of owners. We have heard 
 one in this House. He did not mind if a certain number 
 of mines were closed. On behalf of those who would expire, I 
 claim that we have the right to wriggle, and perhaps groan, before 
 being sacrificed, and I want to appeal to the honourable member 
 whether he is prepared to hand over a number of mine owners, with 
 whom he has always dealt on fair terms, to the owners of South 
 Yorkshire, who will not show us the consideration which he shows 
 us. I would appeal to him on account of the miners, in whose 
 interest, I think, it is better that we should be kept separate. I 
 sympathise with the efforts of the miners to get as high a 
 minimum rate as possible consistent with the position of the 
 collieries, and I think that the mine owner who wants to keep the 
 rate down should have upon him the burden of proof to show 
 sufficient cause. I am entirely with the honourable member on that 
 point, but I ask him to consider whether it is in the interest of the 
 Yorkshire miners that the coal mines in West Yorkshire should be 
 grouped with the South, thereby giving the arbitrator an oppor- 
 tunity of making a lower minimum over the whole county. I take 
 this opportunity of saying I know more than one mine which would 
 be closed to-day but for the miners’ agents having come down to 
 our local people and appealed to them to give employers full 
 consideration. I make that acknowledgment with gratitude. 
 
321 
 
 Viscount HELMSLEY : I should like to ask the Government 
 as to the definition of a district like South Yorkshire or Cleveland, 
 for example, because, although those districts are no doubt perfectly 
 well known in the coal trade, and have been worked as districts by 
 the employers’ and workmen’s organisations, yet, at the same time, 
 does it not require some further definition when you are specifying 
 these districts in a statute ? I should like also to ask what would 
 happen supposing there is a mine which is not covered by any one 
 of these districts, as might easily happen. Take Cleveland. There 
 are ironstone mines in other parts of the North Riding not in the 
 district of Cleveland. What would happen there ? Surely some 
 other and more close definition is required. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : I hope the Government is going to 
 accept this amendment. Supposing the case put by the honourable 
 Member for Pontefract had been made out, the clause we were 
 considering a few minutes ago giving a District Board power to group 
 certain mines for a certain rate entirely covers that case. The point of 
 view of the miners is largely that this clause was put in not only against 
 their will, but without their having been consulted. It is now quite clear 
 from the two speeches of the right honourable gentleman opposite 
 (Mr. Laurence Hardy), and the honourable member above the Gang- 
 way (Mr. Booth), that this was put in by the Government at the 
 instigation of the employers without the men having been consulted. 
 
 Mr. L. HARDY : I may say that is not at all the fact. The 
 case was again and again openly stated by the owners in presence of 
 the men’s representatives at the Conference. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : But the employers claimed it without 
 consulting the men, and the Government accepted it. 
 
 Mr. BOOTH : I am not connected with any owners’ or- 
 
 ganisation, and I was only aware of this division when I saw the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The owners asked for this and they have 
 got it, and the honourable member is glad to help them. That is 
 one strong reason why this amendment should be carried, but there 
 is the further point, that if it is found in actual practice that the 
 division of Yorkshire is required, that division can be made. We 
 ask the House to restore Yorkshire as a unit. If it is found in 
 practice that south and west are in danger of playing the part of 
 Kilkenny cats with each other, then a division can be made and the 
 objects arrived at by the schedule can be secured. I hope the House 
 is not going in its very last division in connection with the Bill, to 
 assent to the proposition that the Government should give way to 
 the desires of the mine owners without even having had the courtesy 
 of consulting the miners on the point. 
 
 u 
 
322 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : Neither side was consulted. 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The miners hold it would injure their 
 position. In what is probably the last division, do not let us send 
 the miners away with this feeling rankling in their minds that this is 
 an Employers’ Bill framed to suit the employers — which I believe 
 it to be — to the disadvantage of the miners. 
 
 Amendment negatived. 
 
 Mr. BAIBD : I beg to move, after the word “ Scotland,” to 
 insert the words “ the mainland of.” 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
 Clause 6. — (Short Title and Duration.) 
 
 (1) This Act may be cited as the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) 
 Act, 1912. 
 
 (2) This Act shall continue in force for three years from the 
 date of the passing thereof and no longer, unless Parliament shall 
 otherwise determine. 
 
 Sir RUFUS ISAACS : I beg to move, after the word “ mines,” 
 to insert the words (“ including mines of stratified ironstone.”) The 
 point of this amendment is to alter the title so as to include the 
 words “ mines of stratified ironstone.” It alters nothing in the Bill, 
 as the Bill already says stratified ironstone is included. It is 
 necessary in order to bring the Bill into harmony with the practice 
 and forms of the House. It is unnecessary to say more, except in 
 regard to one important matter which I can only do very briefly as 
 you, Mr. Whitley, happen to be in the chair at this moment. You 
 were in the chair when the matter was discussed very briefly in 
 Committee. All I desire to state now is that it is of importance 
 that when a law officer makes a statement to the Speaker and to 
 the House and it afterwards turns out that the law officer was 
 mistaken in his recollection of a definition in a Statute that he 
 should state it in the House and should state it to you. I desire to 
 state that when the question did arise at the last moment before the 
 question was put as to the Second Reading my recollection was that 
 in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, the definition of coal mine included 
 stone mines, shale mines, and fire clay mines. The Act does not in 
 fact deal with the four classes of mines, but I was wrong in thinking 
 that the definition was coal mine. The definition was, in fact, mine. 
 That is the whole point. I state that in order that the House 
 might understand how the difficulty had arisen, and that I might 
 put myself right with you, Sir, and with the House. 
 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 
323 
 
 Mr. BUXTON : I beg to move, “ That the Bill be now read 
 the third time.” 
 
 Sir F. BANBUBY : I cannot allow the Third Beading 
 of this Bill to pass without entering my protest against it and 
 against the conduct of the Government in bringing forward 
 such a revolutionary proposal. I speak only for myself. I 
 believe that this necessity would never have arisen if the Govern- 
 ment had carried out the proper functions of a Government in 
 governing the country. What are the functions of a Govern- 
 ment? First of all to protect life and property. If the 
 Government, at the commencement of this strike had stated their 
 determination to protect every man who desired to work I do not 
 believe that this strike would have lasted a fortnight. Instead of 
 doing that the Government attempted to interfere between employers 
 and employed, which is not, in my opinion, their duty — a duty 
 which they are incapable of undertaking, which they have tried to 
 undertake during the last three or four years, with the result that 
 they have intensified disputes. What has been called settlements 
 have been only temporary, patched makeshifts, which have resulted 
 in satisfying neither party, but which have encouraged the party 
 who have gained to go on with further strikes. 
 
 Only this evening a right honourable gentleman, representing 
 one of the divisions of Islington, speaking in defence of the 
 Government, made this statement ; he said this was the most 
 extraordinary departure from legislative methods that he had ever 
 remembered ; and it is an extraordinary departure not only from 
 legislative methods, but an extraordinary departure from the laws 
 of political economy. It has been justified by the Government 
 solely on the ground that it was a temporary measure which they 
 believed would end the strike. It is a temporary measure which 
 is not satisfying or agreeable to either party. Honourable members 
 below the Gangway have told us over and over again that they are 
 not satisfied with the measure, and that the miners will not accept 
 it. The Prime Minister told us to-day that the owners take the 
 same view, and therefore what we are going to do is to make a 
 departure the result of which no man can foresee, and the object 
 of which will not be attained by the passing of the Bill. Mr. 
 Deputy-Speaker, I have made my protest. I should certainly, if it 
 was worth while, have divided the House, but as the House has 
 chosen to adopt this policy — a course which eventually it will rue, 
 and which must tend to the destruction of the prosperity of the 
 country — I will not interfere with the course which it has so 
 foolishly adopted. 
 
 Mr. BAMSAY MACDONALD: I ought to apologise to the 
 House for adding even five minutes to the length of the sitting, 
 but unfortunately it must be done. The House is fully aware 
 that during all the discussions on this Bill my colleagues and 
 
324 
 
 myself have done our very best to make this a strike-settling 
 Bill. We have failed. The amendment upon which we put the 
 greatest store, namely, the five shillings and two shillings 
 amendment, we pressed upon the Government. I believe that 
 if that amendment had been carried this Bill would have settled 
 the strike. That amendment was rejected in Committee, and it was 
 rejected to-day. We therefore had to consult our colleagues of the 
 Miners’ Federation, and to report the whole case to them. In 
 conjunction with them, and after very careful consideration of the 
 whole circumstances, we have felt that nothing has been left for us 
 but to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. Now, the position 
 I have as a matter of fact, explained. We want results. We do 
 not believe it is possible for the men to go in until something 
 tangible has happened. They are not out for words ; they are not 
 out on sentiment. They are out for an increas af wages and for the 
 establishment of a bottom wage which will have some relation to 
 the expenses of living. When men come out this House cannot 
 expect them to go in until there is some reason for their going in. 
 If this had not been a struggle in the coal trade this House would 
 not have interfered at all. As I said the other day, if it had been 
 carpenters or joiners who had struck this House would have stood 
 by them. The strike would have gone on and would have been 
 finished just in the ordinary way strikes are finished. But this 
 House — I think quite rightly — in view of the circumstances of the 
 case, was bound to take the strike into consideration. When it did 
 take it into consideration it was bound to do by legislation just 
 enough at any rate to enable the men to resume work. It has not 
 done that in this Bill. 
 
 Therefore it would be sheer folly on our part, it would be 
 deluding the public, and it would be deluding this House, if we 
 accepted this Bill as a settlement. Now in spite of us, the Bill will, 
 I suppose, be carried, because the junior Member for the City of 
 London does not yet lead the Conservative party. The Bill will be 
 carried. We have had combinations to-day in the division lobbies 
 which show how the Bill is being supported, and it will be carried. 
 When it is carried it will be an element that has got to be taken 
 into consideration. My honourable friend the Member for Ince, 
 in the earlier part of this sitting, in eloquent language declared 
 that he was a citizen first and a trade unionist afterwards. I 
 have no doubt that in the conference that is to be held to-morrow 
 morning by the Miners’ Federation to consider its attitude to this 
 Bill, my honourable friend will deliver the same speech, and gather 
 the influence round about him to which he is entitled. But the 
 position to-day and the position now is a mucn narrower one than 
 that. We have to put to ourselves this question: in view of all that 
 has been said by the Government and honourable members opposite, 
 speaking for capital, telling us of magnificent intentions while they 
 were going to vote against carrying out these intentions, and in view 
 of all these things we are compelled now to put this one, simple, 
 
325 
 
 narfow question to ourselves : Does this Bill grant to the men some- 
 thing sufficiently substantial, which would enable the men to resume 
 work to-morrow morning, if they could only vote upon it ? It does 
 not. 
 
 When the Bill is carried the men may consider how best it can 
 be put into operation in their interests ; but there is no member of 
 the House who can get up and say that when this Bill is carried, 
 whilst the minimum is being considered, whilst the districts are being 
 divided and sub-divided, whilst all the elements that are going to 
 settle wages are being taken into consideration— whilst, as a matter 
 of fact, nothing but a few words have been inscribed on the Statute 
 Book — a minimum wage that is limited, confined and taken away by 
 subsequent clauses and sections of clauses — whilst that is all that 
 has been done for the men who have been out for two or three 
 weeks to go in and leave all the making definite of these clauses to 
 the courts of arbitration, to District Boards — I say it is simply 
 playing, it is simply making fools of the men who have shown them- 
 selves to be so solid in their determination to improve their condition. 
 At the same time, if the men can use this Bill by all means let them 
 do so. But whilst they are trying to use it do not let us imagine 
 that the strike is going to be declared off. This House has refused 
 to help us to make the Bill effective. There are certain things in 
 the Bill which, in the opinion of the men themselves, may make the 
 difficulties of the trade union in the coal industry greater than they 
 are now. The very sub-divisions that the honourable Member for 
 Yorkshire has drawn attention to are cases in point. 
 
 We shall continue our efforts to bring something about that 
 will make peace, and, as I have said, this Bill once passed will 
 be an element in the situation. But we cannot possibly — we 
 would be untrue to every principle we have put forward, to every 
 attitude we have taken up from the commencement of this Bill — 
 we cannot possibly go to the men to-morrow morning and say, 
 “ This Bill is so satisfactory that yon ought to resume work at once 
 and await its application, knowing that you are going to get what 
 you desire.” Not being able to do that, we cannot vote for the 
 Third Beading of the Bill, because that would be committing the 
 men to a course of action to which we cannot conscientiously commit 
 them. We regret that, and in a way that is very difficult to express. 
 We are sincerely sorry that it is impossible for us to take up another 
 attitude, but after careful consideration of the men concerned, and 
 taking everything into account we have been reluctantly but unani- 
 mously compelled to come to the decision I have announced. 
 
 The CHANCELLOK of the EXCHEQUEB (Mr. Lloyd 
 George) : I sincerely regret the decision which my honourable 
 friend has announced, and I regret still more the language in which 
 it is couched. I cannot help regarding it as very deplorable. My 
 honourable friend has chosen to stigmatise this very remarkable 
 
326 
 
 departure in legislation as being nothing but words. If it is nothing 
 but words, it at least embodies the very words which the miners 
 themselves went out on strike for. Has my honourable friend really 
 considered, or did he consider before he uttered that phrase, what 
 were the words upon which the miners themselves balloted before 
 they decided to embark upon a struggle of great moment to them- 
 selves, and of great gravity to the whole of the industries of the 
 country — a struggle involving great suffering to themselves and their 
 families, and greater sufferings to millions of other workmen in the 
 land ? These are the words of the ballot : — 
 
 Are you in favour of giving notice to establish the principle of 
 a minimum wage for every man and boy working under- 
 ground in every district in Great Britain ? 
 
 Those are almost the words embodied in this Bill. This was not a 
 vote taken upon a schedule ; it was not a vote taken upon a question 
 of fixing a definite figure. It was a vote taken upon the prin- 
 ciple of whether a minimum wage ought to be established. 
 They decided to vote in favour of it ; by a majority of four 
 to one they struck on that. I say that that principle is embodied, 
 and embodied for the first time, in the history of a great industry, 
 in an act of the legislature which was carried by a majority of 120 
 in this House, and I think it is very deplorable that my honourable 
 friend should have treated that as if it was a mere matter of words, 
 of no substance at all. Has he realised — I am sure he must have — 
 what the Bill means. 
 
 There is no mistake at all on the part of the right honourable 
 and honourable gentlemen opposite as to the import of the measure. 
 It establishes for the first time in a great industry the principle of 
 the minimum wage. It may be said that we are simply embodying 
 the principle. But there is machinery for carrying that principle 
 into effect. And let me point out that as far as the vast majority of 
 those who are engaged in that trade are concerned, he was prepared 
 to accept the method of the Government for carrying the principle 
 into effect. I have followed the subject very closely for the past two 
 or three weeks, and, after all, the 5s. and 2s. only applied to a 
 comparatively small minority of those who are engaged in the 
 underground work of the mines. The vast majority are engaged in 
 hewing, and are on piece rates. My honourable friend regards the 
 machinery of the Bill for carrying out the principle of the minimum 
 wage as, on the whole, adequate for the purpose. Why should he 
 say, then, that in the case of those who are working for day wages 
 it is pure words, if in the case of hewers he is prepared to accept it 
 as something substantial ? I think he will consider, on reflection, 
 that he has gone very much further than he himself would have 
 wished to do. 
 
 Mr. JRAMSAY MACDONALD : I am sure my right 
 honourable friend does not want to take an unfair advantage. 
 
327 
 
 No one knows better than he does how great a difficulty there was 
 to get anybody even to consider what he is now referring to. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD GEOEGE : I do not think that is really the 
 case. The miners, I understood, were prepared to accept the 
 method embodied in the Bill for the purpose of settling the schedules 
 of minimum rates for the hewers in the trade. I am only answering 
 my honourable friend’s point that this Bill is pure words. I am not 
 referring merely to himself. If the miners’ leaders thought that 
 this machinery was pure words for the hewers, does anyone imagine 
 for a moment that they would be prepared to accept it merely in 
 order to get 5s. and 2s. for the datallers underground ? They must 
 have known that it was a substantial concession. The responsibility 
 which they are now undertaking, what is it ? It is a very grave 
 responsibility. 
 
 My honourable friend is not satisfied with the way in which we 
 have met certain amendments. Well, we cannot all get our way in 
 Acts of Parliament. But even without the 5s. and 2s., what has he 
 got ? He has got for the first time a measure carried through the 
 House of Commons embodying the principle of a minimum wage 
 for one of the greatest industries in the land. He has got the 
 machinery set up for the purpose of settling it. He has got the 
 legal method for enforcing it. Is not that a gigantic advance for 
 labour in this country ? Is he prepared to accept the responsibility 
 on behalf of the Labour party of throwing out the first great Bill 
 of the kind which has ever been introduced by a Government of this 
 country, and carried through the House of Commons. As a matter 
 of fact he is not. Why does my honourable friend intend to divide 
 against the third reading. The words which he used are really the 
 explanation. He assumes that the Bill will go through. He 
 assumes that honourable gentlemen and right honourable gentlemen 
 opposite would not undertake the responsibility of throwing it out. 
 
 I do not believe even now if he knew that by a combination 
 between his section and any other section of this House he would 
 destroy a great measure fixing a minimum wage, he would accept 
 that great responsibility. I ask him whether he thinks it altogether 
 fair, whether it is altogether upright, whether it is a courageous 
 course to take merely to vote against the third reading of the Bill 
 as a protest, when he would not have accepted the responsibility of 
 killing a measure of this magnitude, which marks one of the greatest 
 advances of legislation for labour which ever he or I have seen 
 carried through this House. I will say that I believe he knows that 
 the Bill will be carried and that his amendment will not be carried. 
 Is he not accepting a very great responsibility in refusing, on behalf 
 of organised labour in this House, the acceptance of this Bill ; 
 encouraging by that means the refusal to carry into operation and 
 by that means, without knowing how the machinery will work, 
 without knowing whether that machinery will not give miners all 
 
328 
 
 they have asked for, undertaking the responsibility of plunging 
 millions of people in this country into distress, and wretchedness, 
 the consequences of which neither he nor I can see the end of. 
 
 Mr. KEIK HARDIE : There is one point which requires to be 
 cleared up. It has been referred to by honourable gentlemen 
 opposite and has now been referred to by the right honourable 
 gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point is that the 
 ballot papers issued by the Miners’ Federation did not specify any 
 rates of wages but simply asked the miners to vote upon the 
 principle of an individual minimum wage. That is the ballot paper. 
 That is not disputed. But behind the ballot paper there was in 
 every miner’s mind the fact — (interruption) — I ask honourable 
 members and right honourable members to remember this that a 
 miner is not a lawyer. He does things very much by rule of thumb. 
 He knows what is own meaning is but he does not draw up a 
 document with the precision with which a trained legal mind would. 
 I want to repeat my statement and am going to prove it. In the 
 miner’s mind, when he was asked to vote for this principle, was the 
 fact that a special meeting of the Miners’ Federation, held on 14th 
 November of last year, had passed this resolution : “ That this 
 Conference, having heard the reports from all districts in reference 
 to a demand for a district minimum wage, is of opinion that the 
 best course to pursue at the present juncture, with a view to 
 attaining that object with the least delay, is to negotiate nationally, 
 and therefore we instruct the Executive Committee of the Federation 
 to formulate a scheme for each district — a separate scheme for each 
 district ” — and the resolution goes on. Now, obviously, the ballot 
 paper could not contain the whole list of figures, separate for each 
 district — (“ Why not ? ”) Surely as business men you will understand 
 why not. Schedules are not to be fixed by one million men. They 
 were to be fixed by conferences at which the million men would be 
 represented by properly accredited delegates. These conferences 
 were to prepare the schedules, the men were to decide on the general 
 principle — a separate schedule for each district being merely a 
 detail. (Cheers). 
 
 Honourable gentlemen are cheering too early. There were two 
 figures which were not merely a detail. There were the 5s. and the 
 2s. I have said before that these were the base foundation of 
 rates, and if these had been put into the Bill, as the miners have 
 shown, they would have accepted them as the base rate, knowing 
 that the hewers’ rate would almost automatically have been fixed in 
 proportion. But the base rates were cut out of the Bill. There is 
 no foundation here upon which your Joint District Boards can begin 
 to build. It is because of the absence of that that the miners have 
 come to their decision, and that the Labour party, after having 
 considered the question in all its aspects, have come to their decision 
 this evening. Let me add this remark, that no matter what decision 
 the Labour party had come to, the miners would not have resumed 
 
329 
 
 work until the minimum wage had been fixed. It is as well that 
 the House and the country should know that the responsibility for 
 the strike going on is not due to the decision of the Labour party, 
 but to the failure of she Government to implement the hopes that 
 were raised when they set out to deal with the question, and said 
 they would deal with it in a manner that would settle the strike by 
 putting into the Bill something which the miners could honourably 
 accept and immediately resume work. Because that is not there, 
 the Bill is practically of no use for settling the strike. We do not 
 say it will be of no use in the future, but the Bill was not brought 
 in for the future. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Might I ask the honourable member 
 of what use the Bill would be for the future if thrown out on the 
 Third Reading? 
 
 Mr. KEIR HARDIE : The Bill does not deal with the future. 
 We are dealing with the strike now in existence, and not with the 
 future. The Bill would never have been heard of for the future. 
 It was brought in to attempt to settle the strike. It is not going to 
 settle the strike. That is the point, and, in order that the 
 responsibility for the strike not being settled shall be placed upon 
 the right shoulders, the party to which I belong have come to its 
 decision, and will give effect to it in the Lobby. 
 
 Mr. J. WARD : I am extremely sorry to be obliged to 
 intervene in this part of the discussion. I have not spoken upon 
 the main and general principle in the Bill. I have, it is true, 
 taken some interest in the details of the measure, but now 
 that it is in its final shape we are in a position to decide 
 what our course is to be relating to it. We have just heard 
 two very remarkable speeches — one from the honourable 
 Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the 
 other from the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. 
 Keir Hardie). They, of course, are responsible for their speeches, 
 and they, of course, must take the consequences ; but one cannot 
 forget that one heard from a man much more closely connected with 
 this trade entirely different sentiments. If the speeches to which 
 we have listened had been on those lines, namely, a gentle protest 
 against Parliament interfering without doing what it was thought 
 the situation demanded, but that when Parliament had done its best 
 in reference to a great national crisis, it was well to face the new 
 situation thus created in the spirit in which this Bill has been dealt 
 with in this House, one could have quite well let the matter rest at 
 that. 
 
 But we have heard suggestions in the speeches just delivered as 
 though there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the 
 Government, who have had a very difficult situation to deal with, to 
 raise hopes in the minds of the mining population of the country 
 
330 
 
 which this Bill in no way has brought to fruition. That, of course, 
 is a matter of opinion. It is the suggestion that has been made. I 
 have known a little about the pros and cons of this situation during 
 the week from the inside, and I venture to say that no hopes have 
 been created by the Government that have not been performed in 
 this Bill. It is true that we shall have to do more. It is true 
 that desperate efforts were made, especially last Friday evening, 
 to get what is known as the 5s. and the 2s. included in the 
 Bill, but, having failed in that, so far as the schedules were 
 concerned, there is not the slightest doubt that those who led the 
 men were, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared, absolutely 
 prepared to leave the schedules to be settled by the very Bill that is 
 before the House now. Yet it is declared now, at the eleventh hour, 
 that the Bill is nothing but so many words, and is utterly useless for 
 the purpose, when we know that, as a matter of fact, we were 
 prepared to accept it, providing some other condition, which has 
 nothing to do with the schedules and the hewers at all, could be got 
 outside. On purely labour questions I have nearly always voted and 
 acted with my friends. 
 
 I am a trade unionist, and a trade unionist officer, and I say 
 most distinctly to the House that I only wish I could get this 
 Bill for my men on public works. I only wish I could get 
 it to settle the dispute in the main industry in the con- 
 stituency I represent in this House. I assure you that I 
 should not feel that I was doing my duty to the trade union 
 movement, to which I have belonged now for nearly thirty years, 
 if I put up my hand or gave a vote in this House against a 
 measure that establishes a principle which I do not believe, if the 
 opportunity of this national crisis had not occurred, we should have 
 secured without at least a quarter of a century of ceaseless agitation. 
 While one deplores the condition of affairs at the present time in 
 industrial England, there will at least be one bright spot about it, 
 and that is that Parliament, in its wisdom, in spite of its economic 
 prejudices against the proposal, did face the problem when it was 
 presented to it, irrespective of any preconceived opinions as to what 
 was the right policy to pursue, grasped the difficulty as it was there, 
 and then tried honestly to face it and settle it. In my opinion the 
 nation by this House — and I take it the nation is behind this House 
 in what it is doing — has honestly attempted to meet this specific 
 injustice of the miners’ original demand, and I at least shall support 
 the third reading. 
 
 Mr. O’GRADY : I want to say at once that I am vice-president 
 of the Federation of whose committee the honourable Member for 
 Stoke is a member, and I am astonished he did not tell the House 
 the reason why he would like this Bill to apply to his own trade 
 and to the potteries in the Stoke district. As a matter of fact, I 
 know of no more disorganised trade than that represented by the 
 Member for Stoke. I endorse every word said by the leader of my 
 own party. I think the Government has sold the pass. That is 
 
331 
 
 my conviction. I think the Bill is a Bill of words, and I am 
 perfectly certain the men will not accept it. You set out to settle 
 this strike. I admit that in negotiations it is a question of give and 
 take. The miners agreed to let the schedules go, but we adopt the 
 principle that if you give something away you should get something 
 else, and we asked for a minimum of 5s. a day. I cannot understand 
 why the Government did not accept a condition like that, as the 
 miners’ leaders had agreed to tell the men to settle the strike. The 
 honourable Member for Stoke said the nation was behind Parlia- 
 ment in this matter. I represent the most poverty-stricken 
 Constituency in the country — most of them poor Irish labourers — 
 who are starving while trade is booming. What is the reply I get 
 from these men ? “Do your level best to settle this on honourable 
 lines; ” and the latest statement I have to-night is that the lines of 
 this Bill are absolutely dishonourable lines. I am expressing the 
 opinion of the man in the street in Leeds. He is out in the streets 
 and is starving ; but he will starve still rather than allow the 
 Government to sell the pass on the miners. I wish to contradict 
 the statement of the Member for Stoke. I say the nation is not 
 behind the Government. I claim that the Government have simply 
 backed up the capitalists, as they always have done in labour 
 measures. Members on both sides of the House have urged the 
 bringing out of troops to intimidate us and to drive the miners back. 
 You can carry laws, carry resolutions, and bring your troops out, 
 but, thank God, the men will starve rather than go back on 
 dishonourable terms. I hope the House will reject the Bill. 
 
 Mr. S. WALSH : I am sorry I was out of the House when my 
 leader made a reference to me. I am sure it was friendly. I did 
 make a statement during the evening which I should have thought 
 could not be taken exception to by any person who puts his 
 citizenship first — the needs of his nation and his citizenship first, as 
 I understand every member of this House does when he takes the 
 oath of allegiance at that box. We have tried — at least, I know 
 every one of my friends on these benches have tried — to make this 
 Bill something more than a Bill of pious resolutions. It seemed to 
 me — and I think so still — that a resolution of the House a month 
 ago embodying the principle of a minimum wage would have been 
 almost as good, so far as any tangible benefit is concerned, as this 
 Bill ; but I consider that when we have done our best, when we 
 have tried to amend the Bill, as far as possible, when we have failed 
 to carry even the slightest amendments that we thought might give 
 some little vigour and force to that which at present is very vague 
 and intangible, when we have done our best and have failed, then I 
 say I am prepared to vote with my party against the Third Reading. 
 
 But, after all, this House is the best judge of its own affairs. 
 This House, after all, is the sovereign body, and if it lays down 
 things in an Act of Parliament, it seems to me then the clear duty 
 
332 
 
 of every citizen to make the best of the thing that is, to evolve, 
 with the common sense which, after all, distinguishes members of 
 trade unions and the people with whom they negotiate, the best out 
 a Bill which at present we believe to be not nearly so good as we 
 had been led to anticipate from the Government themselves. We 
 may have been wrong in that anticipation, but the very strong 
 speech made to us by the head of the Government some time ago in 
 the Foreign Office was thought by every one of us to give a pledge 
 of something more definite than is contained in this Bill. I have 
 never given any indication that this Bill met my views. I have 
 more than once pointed out distinctly that the Bill seemed to me to 
 be a soulless and emasculated measure, but the overpowering 
 strength which the Government have brought to bear against us'will 
 defeat us in the Division Lobby. Having done our best to amend 
 it, I hold that when this measure becomes an Act of Parliament it 
 is the bounden and solemn duty of every person to make that Act 
 work as well as he possibly can, and not — so far as is in his power — 
 hold the country still in pain and travail. It is his bounden duty to 
 do all that lies in his power as a responsible leader to relieve a 
 situation which is rapidly becoming intolerable. 
 
 Motion made, and Question put, “ That the Bill be now read 
 the third time.” 
 
 The House divided : Ayes, 213 ; Noes, 48. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Abraham, Bt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda 
 Addison, Dr. C. 
 
 Adkins, Sir W. Ryland W. 
 Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. 
 Agnew, Sir George William 
 Ainsworth, John Stirling 
 Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire 
 Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud 
 Armitage, R. 
 
 Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry 
 Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. 
 
 Baker, Harold (Accrington 
 Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E. 
 Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark 
 Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple 
 Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somers’t 
 Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N. 
 Barton, W. 
 
 Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
 
 Beck, Arthur Cecil 
 
 Benn, W. W. (T. H’mts, S. Geo. 
 
 Bentham, G. J. 
 
 Black, Arthur W. 
 
 Booth, Frederick Handel 
 Brady, P. J. 
 
 Brocklehurst, W. B. 
 
 Brunner, John F. L. 
 
 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar 
 Byles, Sir William Pollard 
 
 Carr-Gomm, H. W. 
 
 Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich 
 Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood 
 Chappie, Dr. W. A. 
 
 Clough, William 
 Collins, G. P. (Greenock 
 Collins, Stephen (Lambeth 
 Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. 
 
333 
 
 Crawshay-Williams, Eliot 
 Crumley, Patrick 
 
 Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy 
 Davies, David (Montgomery Co. 
 Davies, E. William (Eifion 
 Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth 
 Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 Denman. Hon. Richard Douglas 
 Dillon, John 
 Donelan, Captain A. 
 
 Doris, W. 
 
 Duffy, William J. 
 
 Elverston, Sir Harold 
 Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N. 
 Esmonde, Sir Thos. (Wexford, N. 
 Essex, Richard Walter 
 
 Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson 
 Ffrench, Peter 
 Flavin, Michael Joseph 
 France, G. A. 
 
 Gelder, Sir W. A. 
 
 George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd 
 Gladstone, W. G. C. 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough 
 Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward 
 Guest, Major Hon. C. H.C.(Pembr’ke 
 Guest, Hon. Fredk. E. (Dorset, E. 
 Gwynn, Stephen Lucius 
 
 Hackett, J. 
 
 Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale 
 Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose 
 Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds 
 Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W. 
 
 Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth 
 Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry 
 Hayward, Evan 
 
 Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, E. 
 Helme, Norval Watson 
 Henry, Sir Charles S. 
 
 Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S. 
 Higham, John Sharp 
 Hinds, John 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. R. 
 Hogge, James Myles 
 Hope, Harry (Bute 
 Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 
 Hughes, S. L. 
 
 Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus 
 
 John, Edward Thomas 
 Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth 
 Jones, Leif S. (Notts, Rushcliffe 
 Jones, William (Carnarvonshire 
 Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H’mts, St’pn’y 
 Joyce, Michael 
 
 Keating, Matthew 
 King, J. (Somerset, N. 
 
 Lamb, Ernest Henry 
 
 Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.(Dev’n,S.M’lt’n 
 
 Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade 
 
 Lawson, Sir WJC’mb’rl’ndjC’k’rm’h 
 
 Leach, Charles 
 
 Levy, Sir Maurice 
 
 Lewis, John Herbert 
 
 Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich 
 
 Lundon, T. 
 
 Lyell, Charles Henry 
 
 Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs 
 Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. 
 Macpherson, James Ian 
 MacVeagh, Jeremiah 
 McGhee, Richard 
 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald 
 M‘Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., 
 Spalding) 
 
 M‘Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics. 
 M‘Laren, Walter S. B. (Cues. Crewe 
 M‘Micking, Major Gilbert 
 Manfield, Harry 
 Marks, Sir George Croydon 
 Marshall, Arthur Harold 
 Mason, David M. (Coventry 
 Masterman, C. F. G. 
 
 Meagher, Michael 
 Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. 
 Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen’s County 
 Middlebrook, William 
 
334 
 
 Millar, James Duncan 
 Molloy, Michael 
 Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz 
 Money, L. G. Chiozza 
 Morgan, George Hay 
 Morrell, Philip 
 Munro, Robert 
 
 Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. 
 Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. 
 
 Nannetti, Joseph P. 
 
 Needham, Christopher T. 
 
 Neilson, Francis 
 Newton, Harry Nottingham 
 Nolan, Joseph 
 Nuttall, Harry 
 
 O’Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny 
 O’Connor, John (Kildare, N. 
 O’Connor, T. P. (Liverpool 
 O’Donnell, Thomas 
 O’Dowd, John 
 Ogden, Fred 
 
 O’Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W. 
 O’Malley, William 
 O’Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S. 
 O’Shee, James John 
 O’Sullivan, Timothy 
 
 Palmer, Godfrey 
 Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek 
 Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham 
 Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton 
 Phillips, John (Longford, S. 
 
 Pirie, Duncan Y. 
 
 Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. 
 
 Power, Patrick Joseph 
 Price, C E. (Edinburgh, Central 
 Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham 
 Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E. 
 Primrose, Hon. Neil James 
 
 Raffan, Peter Wilson 
 
 Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields 
 
 Reddy, Michael 
 
 Redmond, William (Clare, E. 
 
 Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln 
 
 Robertson, John M. (Tyneside 
 
 Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke 
 
 Roche, Augustine (Louth 
 Rose, Sir Charles Day 
 Rowlands, James 
 Rowntree, Arnold 
 Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter 
 Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. 
 
 Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel 
 Scanlan, Thomas 
 Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. 
 Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, 
 Bridgeton) 
 
 Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. 
 
 Simon, Sir John Allsebrook 
 Smyth, Thomas S. (Leitrim, S. 
 Soames, Arthur Wellesley 
 Spicer, Sir Albert 
 
 Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W. 
 Swift, Rigby 
 
 Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central 
 
 Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe 
 Tennant, Harold John 
 Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. 
 Toulmin, Sir George 
 Trevelyan, Charles Philips 
 
 Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander 
 
 Yerney, Sir Harry 
 
 Walters, Sir John Tudor 
 
 Walton, Sir Joseph 
 
 Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent 
 
 Waring, Walter 
 
 Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay 
 
 Watt, Henry 
 
 Webb, H. 
 
 White, J. Dundas (Gl’sg’w, Tr’d’stn 
 White, Patrick (Meath, North 
 Whitehouse, John Howard 
 Williams, P. (Middlesbrough 
 Williamson, Sir Archibald 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. G. G. (Hull, W. 
 Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N. 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas. 
 
 Young, W. (Perthshire, E. 
 
 Tellers for the Ayes : Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland, 
 
835 
 
 NOES. 
 
 Adamson, William 
 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick George 
 Bowerman, Charles W. 
 
 Brace, William 
 
 Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. 
 
 Courthope, G. Loyd 
 
 Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet 
 
 Dalrymple, Viscount 
 Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness 
 
 Edwards, Enoch (Hanley 
 
 Gill, A. H. 
 
 Goldsmith, Frank 
 Goldstone, Frank 
 Guinness, Hon. W. E. 
 
 Hall, F. (Yorks., Normanton 
 Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil 
 Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E. 
 Haslam, James (Derbyshire 
 Henderson, Arthur (Durham 
 Hudson, Walter 
 Hunt, Rowland 
 
 Jowett, Frederick William 
 
 Lansbury, George 
 
 Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester 
 Markham, Sir Arthur Basil 
 
 Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield 
 
 O’Grady, James 
 
 Parker, James (Halifax 
 Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. 
 
 Richards, Thomas 
 Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven 
 Ronaldshay, Earl of 
 Rutherford, W. (L’pool, W. Derby 
 
 Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe 
 Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W. 
 Sutton, John E. 
 
 Taylor, John W. (Durham 
 Thomas, James Henry (Derby 
 Thorne, William (West Ham 
 
 Wadsworth, John 
 
 Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince 
 
 Wardle, G. J. 
 
 Wheler, Granville C. H. 
 
 Wilkie, Alexander 
 Williams, John (Glamorgan 
 Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. 
 Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton 
 Wright, Henry Fitzherbert 
 
 Tellers for the Noes : Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Pointer. 
 
 Bill read the third time and passed. 
 
 E. EDWARDS, President. 
 
 THOS. ASHTON, Secretary, 
 
 925, Ashton Old Road, 
 
 Manchester, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>>-. :