O.M.S. (ORGANISATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLIES).

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Motion that was put from the Chair at the beginning of the proceedings to-day declared a state of national emergency. I was one of those who voted for that Resolution. Whatever anybody's opinion may be on the merits of the dispute, there can be no difference of opinion as to the gravity of the emergency that has arisen. In the very few words which I am going to address to the House I shall make rather an appeal to Parliament to see whether something cannot be done even now to avert an unknown catastrophe. We are face to face with something which has never quite arisen before in this country. I think it is worth while for Parliament to step in and see whether it is not possible to bring the parties to some sort of accommodation. This is a great Parliamentary country. In fact, I believe it is the only Parliamentary country in the world—the only country that really understands Parliament. It is the only country where Parliament really governs, whatever Government is in power.

The miners and the mineowners have been negotiating for over 18 months. That has come to nothing. The Trade Union Congress a n d the Government have now intervened. I can see no hope left except Parliament. We have had two very grave and very impressive speeches couched in the language of conciliation. Neither was in the language of defiance. Therefore, I think the temper is still one in which negotiatilons are possible. But I am not sure how long that will last. There are very deep passions lying underneath—very deep and very fierce passions which have been growing for years. The Prime Minister was good enough to refer to the fact that I have taken part in many disputes. I 83 shall refer to that later; and to a dispute to which he did not refer. He assumed it was all since the War, but the difficulties in the coal trade started long before the War. They are not post-War difficulties. There is something inherently wrong in the whole industry. Therefore, I am going as an ordinary citizen to make one more appeal to Parliament. I must speak quite frankly. It is no use unless I do. I think there have been two mistakes made by the two parties. I think the general strike is a mistake. I am not now discussing the merits of the dispute, but there is a great difference between a general strike to force Parliament to legislate on a subject for which a majority of the nation has not declared, and a general strike in an ordinary trade dispute. The first strikes at the very root of democratic government. I am not, therefore, going to express any opitnion as to whether under any given conditions you may have a general strike, but I think it is a mistake at the present moment. I say also that I think it was a very serious mistake on the part of the Government to announce this morning that they would not negotiate. They will be forced out of that position by circumstances. It is a mistake.

May I point out to the Prime Minister and the Government why they are not in a position to do this: A general strike was threatened before July. There was the same kind of threat. What was the answer to it? The subsidy! It was in effect part of the criticism which some of us directed against the subsidy. When my right hon. Friend and I negotiated in 1921 we refused to give a subsidy unless the general strike threat was withdrawn. The Government are not in that position. They gave a subsidy after the threat of a general strike. The general strike is not a new threat in this dispute. It is an old one, and even now the general strike was talked of several days ago. In spite of that the Prime Minister went on negotiating. Why, therefore, the change? Having taken up that attitude—I am not criticising the Prime Minister for having negotiated in spite of the threat of a general strike—that is not the point I am making—but there is no justification for saying now there is to be a. general strike, that, therefore, he is breaking off negotiations.

84 I would, therefore, urge upon the Prime Minister not to stand on the mere question of dignity. If there was a threat to' the institutions of this country; if this movement were directed by men who simply use the language they do as part of the mechanism of blowing up the whole of the machinery of the Constitution, then, I agree, the Government would have no other answer. But everybody knows that the amen who were responsible for this resolution are men who have fought hard against the subverters of the Constitution, against men who were either in alliance with their own party, or were the left of their own party. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not treat this as if it were a menace to our institutions. I do not say that if it goes on it may not have that effect. That is not my point. What I want to put is this: I know a great many of the people responsible. They are as little revolutionary as any Member of this House. They have fought the rebellious ones in their own party. Therefore I want to put this to the House of Commons in all earnestness, that this is not a threat directed by people using it merely for revolutionary propaganda. There is no surrender on the part of the Government if they continue negotiations in spite of what I regard as a mere mistaken threat on the part of the Trade Unionists.

I come to the next point. I should like to ask the Government and both parties exactly what is the position. Many of us have heard for the first time what has taken place. I am not complaining that the Government did not till to-day tell us what the proceedings had been. You cannot do that in negotiations. I am not complaining of my right hon. Friend, or that it was not indicated. You cannot do that while negotiators are moving here and there and trying to keep together. But we have heard, for the first time most of us, what has happened. May I point out to the House of Commons this? Here are two witnesses to the truth. Here are undoubtedly two hon. Members of this House who have done their best to produce peace. The Prime Minister has undoubtedly laboured for peace. Nobody doubts that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has laboured for peace. Nobody doubts that. They have each of them given their version which they regard as a perfectly accurate one of the 85 various transactions. Yet they do not agree. That is a matter which I hope will be taken into account, for there are undoubtedly vital differences between the two.

May I say something which ought not to be forgotten. This has been a dispute about wages. It arose about wages. I do not say that is what is at the bottom of it, but it was a demand for a reduction of wages that precipitated this conflict. Yet I did not know until now that it was not until Friday, after the lock-out had begun, that the demands of the owners were formulated and submitted to the Trade Union Congress. [Interruption.] Yes, the modifications. It is no use quoting what the Commission said. I have read the Report of the Commission with very great care, after having been engaged myself in a great many of these mining disputes, and I could not quite make out exactly what the demand was. I asked for an interpretation from two of the ablest men whom I know, who were quite impartial, having nothing to do with the industry, and I did not get the same account from them as to the actual effect of the recommendations. The miners representatives said, "Tell us exactly in figures what it means." They got those figures for the first time on Friday last.

§ Sir ROBERT SANDERS

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Was it not a fact that when the lock-out notices were posted it was at the same time announced what rates of pay the owners intended to give. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

My right hon. Friend's understanding is inaccurate there. [Hox. MEIMBENS: "No!"] I am informed that what they said was that the figures would be announced later. That is what I understand.

§ Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON

I have got a copy of the notice here, and the right hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not in a position myself to express any opinion. I can only say there seems to be a difference of opinion upon the subject. My hon. Friends on the Labour benches, who come from the districts, inform me that that was the notice. At any rate there was only about a week's notice, I understand.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON

I have here the notices in respect of South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that notices were not posted in some districts—that no notices were posted because the owners were perfectly willing to continue on the present basis. They could not post reductions because they did not post notices. In those districts the miners themselves posted notices. In the case of South Wales, the notice I have here was issued to each individual man concerned in the pits. It is dated the 22nd April, and it gives the full effect of the proposals, and is an official notice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This shows exactly the position we are in. It only shows the confusion that exists. [Interruption.] I hope the House will hear me. After all, if this begins there is only Parliament left. The Press has gone; there will be no discussion of public opinion. I have seen many strikes, and this House of Commons has always kept its head, and in the end it has been the intervention of the House of Commons that has brought about peace in each case, and I am perfectly certain that is what will happen here. For Heaven's sake do let us keep calm. Let me put to my hon. Friend the reply which I have got. I understand that the document he has was issued by the Miners Federation pointing out what, in their judgment, the effect of the alterations would be.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON

It has nothing to do with the Miners' Federation. It is issued by, as it states on the notice, the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal-owners' Association, and it purports to explain exactly the effect of their proposals.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Of course, I accept the statement made by my hon. Friend, but it is a statement with regard to one coal mining area. I understand that in other coal mining areas, at any rate, there has been no explanation. Why did the representatives of the coal miners ask for a document showing the effect of it if they had already got it? It was open to the Government to say, "Why are you asking for the effect, when you have already got it?" It is quite clear that it was only on Friday last that we had any sort of national intimation from the coal owners as 'to what the effect would be. Is it not really rather hard? 87 There has been no negotiation on the figures at all.

I know what is said. The miners have said to their spokesmen, "We will not accept a reduction." Well, anybody who has negotiated with trade unions, or negotiated even with lawyers, knows perfectly well that you do not start by saying you are going to take lower terms. That is the psychology of every negotiation. They are not going into negotiations saying, "We are going to start with an acknowledgment that we are going to have a reduction." What I ask the Government is this, and I ask it in all solemnity—that instead of asking that there should be a resumption of negotiations on the basis of a reduction of wages they should say to them, "Are you prepared to enter into a. discussion about wages?", which is a different thing. Then, when you enter into the negotiations, the question of reduction will naturally come in. [Interruption.] Well, I would ask hon. Gentlemen who have had some experience of negotiation whether there is not great force in that?

The second point I want to put to the Government is this. I want to know exactly what they are prepared to do, for they have really not yet made it clear. The Prime Minister in his speech read the declaration which he made on the 24th March. I confess that when I read the declaration of the 24th March I was under the impression that the Government were prepared to put through the whole of the recommendations of the Commission, however obnoxious any part of them might be. The miners thought otherwise, the miners were doubtful about it. The miners were a little doubtful as to whether he meant that, and I confess that when I read the document issued by the Government on Friday last I think there is some justification for that. The Government then issued a document intimating their general acceptance of the Report, provided it was accepted also by the mineowners and the miners. and although unfortunately there has not been on the part of the mineowners and the miners the same unqualified acceptance, the Government desire nevertheless to reaffirm their willingness to give effect to— What?— to such of the proposals in the Report as we believe will be of benefit to the industry. 88 Just observe the difference between the two. On the 24th March there was what I thought was an unequivocal declaration by the Government that they were prepared to legislate to carry out all the recommendations of the Royal Commission, good, bad and indifferent from their point of view.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON

Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again?

HON. MEMBERS

Sit down!

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have another quotation.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON

I am endeavouring to help the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will give another quotation.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON

Give it right this time.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will take a quotation from the letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the Miners' Federation on Friday, 30th April: The Government desire nevertheless to re-affirm their willingness to give effect to such of the proposals in the Report as we believe will be of benefit to the industry. They then proceed, and these are the words which are of very great consequence: In particular the Government propose in any case at once to arrange an authoritative inquiry into the best method of following up the recommendations of the Commission with regard to selling organisations and amalgamations. What does that mean? Not that they are proposing to legislate. They will first of all pick the things which they consider to be best for the industry, and they will then set up another inquiry in order to show how the thing could be done. As a matter of fact, instead of proposing to carry out their part of the bargain, what they are proposing to do is to set up another Commission to find out how the thing can be done. The question I would like to ask the Government is this, "Do they stand by the unequivocal declaration they made on the 24th March?"

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)

Yes.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is important. [Interruption.] I am en- 89 leavouring as a Member of the House o ask these questions. We are on the we of a very serious national conflict and we ought to know exactly where we are. I, therefore, wanted to ask the Government, and I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the answer is in the affirmative—that the Government, without any reference to their views with regard to any particular part of the Report, whether they dislike the purchase of royalties, whether they dislike compulsory grouping, whether they dislike municipal selling, or whatever other recommendation there may be, the Government, whatever their own opinions may be, are prepared immediately to legislate for the purpose of carrying it out.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

Provided that there is an agreement by the other parties that they also will do so.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question. Does that mean that there must be agreement on the part of the coal owners also before they will agree to this?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

Our pledge was to carry out our share of the responsibility of the Report if the other parties would do likewise, and use all our influence to procure that.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That does not mean—[Interruption.] I really am not making difficulties. I am trying to clear up difficulties. [Laughter.] Well, really, if we are to discuss this in that spirit it will be quite impossible to get a national understanding. I only wanted to know, and I think it is a very important question, because I know this difficulty arose in 1919—what I would like to know is what will happen supposing the coal owners persist in their objection—because they have not yet accepted the agreement—to the recommendation with regard to com- pulsory amalgamation? I take it the Government will regard that as their business, and that whether the coal owners agree to that or not they will legislate upon the basis of the Report. Might I ask if my right hon. Friend, who seems ready to answer a question—

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

It would be inconvenient for me to 90 attempt to answer categorical questions on these very complicated matters as part of a discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dodging again."] No, not at all. I will gladly give an answer in the course of this Debate.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take a note of that particular query, because it is very, very important. The first question is whether the Government would be prepared, whatever the views of the parties may be to these recommendations, and whatever their individual views may be, to legislate and to submit their proposals to Parliament and to put them through and afterwards enforce them. The next thing I want to put is this: If there is a disposition to resume negotiations I should like to put this question to the Government. I was one of those who opposed the subsidy. There are very few Members of this House who did, and I did so because I thought it was unwise. We pointed out then that it would artificially depress the price of coal, and make it very difficult to resume normal conditions. I also pointed out that I did not think it was possible to bring it to an end abruptly on 30th April. I felt certain that negotiations would be going on, and to stop the subsidy on the 30th April and imperil negotiations by doing so would have been impossible.

I want to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this: I want to ask him whether it would not be possible to resume the negotiations now, making it absolutely clear what the Government propose to do, what legislation they propose to introduce, whether they are prepared to undertake to preside over the discussions of the Trade Union Congress Council and the miners and mineownera with a view to ascertaining what can be done. If that were done I do not think even those who have opposed the subsidy would object to the subsidy for a fortnight or three weeks more, which would he necessary in order to conclude the negotiations. There is something which is radically wrong with the mining industry, and that is admitted. It is no use saying it is something which arose since the War. In 1912 we had as serious a strike as we have ever had. I was a member of the Government a couple of years before the War. We have had two or three inquiries, 91 and there is one feature in common between the recommendations of all, and it is that they have all admitted that the industry needs reorganisation.

That is not merely the Sankey Report, but the Report of four out of five of the members of that Commission. The Government appointed a Committee of Inquiry under Mr. Macmillan. They inquired last year, and they came to the same conclusion. They appointed a Committee of Inquiry this last winter, and after reading the evidence very carefully I noticed the disadvantage the miners were at as compared with the mine-owners. The mine-owners were in the position of engaging some of the ablest experts to give their views, and they gave expert evidence, but the miners did not do so. In spite of the fact that there was expert evidence supporting the mine-owners there was a unanimous recommendation from this Committee, following-two others, that the industry needed re-organisation, and that it was essential. If wages are depressed, it is not the fault of those who are working the mines. It is something which is inherently wrong in the whole of the industry. That is accepted by the Government to-day. It was accepted by the preceding Government, and it has been accepted by three inquiries.

This terrible conflict, which no one can tell the end of, is just like a fever; you never know where it will discover sonic weak spot in the constitution that no medical diagnosis would ever enable you to discover. An internal conflict of this kind may search out spots of that kind. The victory will not be much use to either party, but it may be disastrous to the State. A victory to those who are organising a general strike will soon get out of their control. That is the history of every movement of that kind. A victory for the Government against the trade unions will also get out of their control. But it will go much further than they anticipate. It will give a sense of superiority to power and wealth, and this is a combination which the Prime Minister is the last man I know to want, and I beg, as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of this country, the Government just once more to make an effort for peace.

§ Sir ROBERT HORNE

I am certain that there is none among us who having 92 listened to this Debate has not been struck with the solemnity of the speeche: both of the Prime Minister and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). There is no person, I am sure, in this House who would venture to utter an opinion to-day without a very great sense of responsibility. I, for my part, desire to put the greatest possible restraint upon my language, and I hope what I say will be regarded as a sincere effort to keep the points which we all should understand clearly before the country, and not in any sense with a desire to score debating points or to create provocation. I listened with great care to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. I was one who, like my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lloyd George) disagreed with the policy of the subsidy, because I think it was a mistaken policy, and I expressed my opinion to that effect here. To-day we know that it has disappointed the hopes upon which it was based, and we are now face to face with a situation which the Prime Minister said was just as serious to-day as it was in July last year, when we decided to grant that subsidy to the mining industry. In these circumstances I think I may be regarded as an impartial witness when I come to consider whether the Government took the right course in the negotiations which followed the issue of the Report.

My right hon. Friend is bound to keep certain factors in view when he is charging the Government with not giving proper consideration to the Report. This particular discussion about coal has been going on since January last year. At that time the coalowners and miners began to meet for the purpose of going into the figures, and by the month of March sufficient had been revealed to show that both parties were in agreement with regard to the statistics of the industry. In fact, I ventured to say—what I am sure the progress of this inquiry has made plain—namely, that no new Commission was likely to reveal any figures which had not already been discovered. This Commission deserve credit for the conspicuous way in which they gave those figures to the public. They were not, however, dealing with an unfamiliar matter, but with something which had been agitating the minds of the coalowners and miners and about 93 which they had been negotiating constantly during a period of 18 months.

Let me give my own version of the progress of recent events as I see them. As the Prime Minister told us, on 10th March the Report of the Commission was issued, and upon the 17th March the coal-owners and miners met and had a general discussion upon the Report. All the recommendations of the Report were before both parties, and were being discussed at that time on the 17th March. They separated, and met again on 25th March. In the meantime the Prime Minister summoned a meeting of both parties on the 24th March. After dealing generally with the Report, he announced the intention of the Government to give adhesion to the Report, and in so far as they were concerned, to put into operation all the items incumbent upon the Government. On 20th March a meeting between the mineowners and the miners took place, and they met again upon 31st March to discuss the terms and recommendations of the Report. Upon 3rd April the owners issued their statement, which came out in the Public Press, announcing their acceptance of the main recommendations of the Report, and these were given in fully tabulated form containing the recommendations of the Commission on one side and the reply of the owners on the other side, so that there was absolutely no dubiety as to their position.

On 8th April the miners met the Trade Union Congress Committee and discussed the Report, and on 9th April they issued a letter to the coalowners in which they said that they would not agree to any reduction of wages or any lengthening of time. Their position was perfectly plain, even to being dogmatic. The Prime Minister met the owners and the miners on the 13th April, and they discussed matters once more. On that occasion Mr. Herbert Smith said in emphatic language to the coalowners that they were not prepared to discuss a reduction of wages. The Prime Minister then summoned the Trade Unions Council and the miners on 15th April, and it was made plain to him that it was no use discussing the question of a reduction of wages or increase of hours in the mines. Their attitude was perfectly consistent throughout, and it has never varied from that day to this.

Mr. THOMAS

It is very important to correct that statement. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the negotiations with the Government. I have the documents here, and after consultation with us, and indeed upon our advice—we need not make any secret of it—on Friday, the miners themselves sent a communication to the Government stating clearly that they refused to discuss a reduction of wages as a preliminary to the arguments. But they stated to the Prime Minister, on our request in his presence, and on our advice, that they would discuss the Report from end to end to get a settlement which included even the question of wages.

§ Sir R. HORNE

I am quite well aware of the points to which my right hon. Friend refers. I can, of course, only go upon public documents, but I shall give my right hon. Friend and the House the benefit of the reports which were issued, and I think it is perfectly plain, upon those documents. I am not now in any way, as the House will understand, criticising the attitude of the miners as to whether they were right or wrong in refusing a reduction of wages; I am only putting before the House why it was that any attempt to arrive at a settlement upon the basis of the Report broke down, and I think my right hon. Friend will not be disposed to disagree with me when I come to the end of my story. The House will remember that the Commission—I will venture to read this to the House, in case I may be thought to be paraphrasing the language—reported in these terms: If the present hours are to be retained, we think a revised minimum percentage addition to the standard rates of wages fixed in 1924, at a time of temporary prosperity, is indispensable. A disaster is impending over the industry, and the immediate reduction of working costs that can only arise in this way is essential to save it. The Commission laid it down perfectly plainly that the industry could not carry on unless with a reduction of miners' wages, and they said that it would have to take place immediately, because they went on: The reductions that we contemplate will still leave the mine owners without adequate profits in any of the wage agreement districts, and without any profits in most districts. If trade improves, and prices rise, a profit will be earned; if prices do not rise, an adequate profit must 95 be sought in the improved methods which should in any case be adopted. That was the Report of the Commission. It was perfectly plain that, in order to get this industry going at all, an immediate reduction in wages was essential. That, surely, was a pertinent question for the Government to raise. They tried throughout all the negotiations, as the published documents show, to obtain a different answer from the miners upon that point, even after they had given the emphatic reply that I have already described. They, however, got no concession from them on that head. Indeed, from start to finish, there has been no movement on the part of the miners to meet them on any point in this discussion.

Let me remind the House of what took place after all these attempts, by meetings on the part of the Prime Minister with various sub-committees. On Friday, the 20th April, he asked the miners, would they not, even now, consider the question of reduction of wages, as that was involved in the Report. And, since it was necessary to decide whether it would be prudent or not to continue the subsidy in order to give longer time for discussion, it was essential that the Government should know whether they had any chance of getting an agreement as to wages. They were prepared, as they stated, and as is stated in the public print that I have in my hand, to continue the subsidy, for discussion, not as to the amount of the reduction, not to compel the miners necessarily to take the reduction which the Commissioners thought should be accepted, but to give the miners the opportunity, i f they once agreed upon the principle of some reduction, to discuss what its amount should be.

Observe the reply which the Government get at this stage. My right hon. Friend has represented that everybody was ready to meet the Government and give them the necessary information, but here is what happened. The Government sent a communication to the Trades Union Committee, who by that time were taking an active part in these negotiations, saying that there had been no indication during the discussion that the miners' representatives were prepared to negotiate upon the basis proposed by the Report as far as regards wages. On the contrary, they went on to say, the miners' 96 declarations had made it plain that they were unable to accept any departure from the 1924 minimum. But, as a last resort even now, they invited the miners to consider the principle of the Report so far as the reduction of wages was concerned, and then the Government would be prepared to extend the time of the subsidy in order that discussion might take place as to the amount,

Mr. THOMAS

The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me again, but this is very important. I have the words here; this is the shorthand note—

§ Sir R. HORNE

I am quoting from the report in the "Times."

Mr. THOMAS

Exactly, but I am quoting from the verbatim report. This is what was said on Friday night:

" PRIME MINISTER (to Mr. Smith): Will you accept the Report, Mr. Smith? "

§ Sir R. HORNE

I have not reached that place yet. I have not reached the answer given on Friday night; I am giving the letter of Friday morning, which one would have supposed would at least have extracted an answer. Here is the answer that was sent by the Trades Union Committee in reply to the Government's memorandum: The miners state they are not prepared to accept a reduction in wages as a preliminary to the reorganisation of the industry, but they reiterate "— — I would ask the House to observe this— that they will he prepared to "— to do what?— that they will be prepared to give A. full consideration to all the difficulties connected with the industry when the scheme for reorganisation will have been initiated by t—he Government. They do not say that when the schemes of reorganisation have been initiated they will be willing to discuss the question of wages at all. They were asked an explicit question, whether they woul—d consider the question of wages, and the answer is, "We shall be prepared to consider the difficulties of the industry." I cannot imagine equivocation going further than that answer. Of course, what took place —later in the evening, as is stated in the report quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, was that Mr. Herbert Smith came to the Prime Minister, and had a talk with him and even then his ultimate attitude was, upon 97 that phase, that he was not prepared to consider a reduction of wages. If my right hon. Friend has anything more to say in reply to that, I shall be very glad to hear it.

Mr. THOMAS

Exactly. Let the House please observe that, when the right hon. Gentleman talked about this quotation of Friday morning, it was not on the Friday morning but the reply quoted is the reply which reached the miners, with the terms, at 1.15 on Friday mid-day. Then the meeting took place, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, and this is the question put by the Prime Minister: PRIME MINISTER (to Mr. Smith): Will you accept the Report, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: When you say, will we accept the Report,' I should answer that question like this: When we see what the re-organisation is going to be, and what the amalgamations and selling agencies are going to be, all provided in the Report, we shall he prepared then to discuss the whole thing. If the policy of re-organisation is worked wit properly, we are bound to enter into a. discussion, but I am not prepared to accept a reduction in wages in advance. I want to tell you straight that I want to see the horse I am going to mount.

§ Sir R. HORNE

The House will observe that, after all that verbiage, Mr. Smith has never mice said that he would be prepared to accept the principle of a reduction of wages. But the matter does not stop there. He attended other meetings after that, and his last words of importance, as far as I can find, to the delegates at the miners' conference on Saturday Were that they must not, be asked to accept any reduction of wages. That was not a question of being preliminary to anything; it was—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend had been listening, he would have observed, when the Prime Minister was speaking about standing fast on the (pest ion of wages, how many cheers came From the benches behind him, indicating full approval of that. It is out of all question to say that there was any willingness on the part of the miners at any time to accept the principle, which the Report definitely contained, that there must be an immediate reduction of wages if the industry was to survive.

§ Mr. WALSH

Will my right hon. Friend observe that, on page 229 of the Report, it says something very different from what he says, and from what he asks the House to believe? Here are the exact words— 98 these are the suggestions for meeting the situation: Our suggestions for meeting the present situation are as follows: 1. Before any sacrifices are asked for from those engaged in the industry, it shall be definitely agreed between them that all practicable means for improving its organisation and increasing its efficiency should be adopted "— before any sacrifices are asked for—[HON. MEBERS "Agreed!"]— as speedily as the circumstances in each case allow. There is a full stop there. I submit to the House that my right hon. Friend is not entitled to say that it is an essential condition that first of all reductions in wages must be agreed to, the first and essential consideration, in view of the statement here, being that, before any sacrifices are asked for, some other things must be done.

§ Sir R. HORNE

I know the passage which the right hon. Gentleman quotes—

§ Mr. WALSH

But you discreetly keep it in abeyance.

§ Sir R. HORNE

—hut it does not give effect to his words. What it says is that, after an agreement, these sacrifices, which were asked of both parties—that is to say, both owners and miners—should be adopted.

§ Mr. WALSH

"Agreed to be adopted" is the phrase used.

§ Sir R. HORNE

There is no question about it. The Commissioners' Report would be nonsense without accepting what they say as to an immediate reduction of wages being necessary, and that reduction—[Interruption]—well, I will read the passage—[HON. MEMBERS: "From the Report !"] I am afraid my hon. Friends opposite are not sufficiently familiar with that document. I have already read it, but I will read it now from the Report, in order sufficiently to assure my hon. Friends that I am reading it correctly: If the present hours are to be retained, we think a revision of the minimum percentage addition to standard rates of wages,' fixed in 1924 at a time of temporary prosperity, is indispensable. A disaster is impending over the industry, and the immediate reduction of working costs that can be effected in this way, and in this way alone, is essential to save it. 99 That is on page 236 of the Report. It is perfectly plain that this immediate reduction of costs is the Commissioners' desideratum, and, since it is also plain that the Commissioners said that the subsidy should not be continued, where was the reduction of costs to come from? If there was to be no subsidy, how was the industry to carry on? It could mean only that this immediate reduction of wages was absolutely essential to the carrying out of this Report. I ask the judgment of the House, after these passages, whether it is not grotesque to say that the Government has failed to do its duty in the attempt to bring the parties together. Since the right hon. Gentleman was an gaged in these meeings over Sunday, I wonder if he, or anyone, would give the assurance that at any time they have had the mandate of the miners to agree to a reduction of wages on the principle of the Report.

Mr. THOMAS

I cannot, and do not intend to refer to private conversations, which I am precluded from doing, but the General Council told the Prime Minister that they would themselves take the responsibility—they would do it to-day with the authority of Mr. Herbert Smith to discuss that Report, and get a settlement of it which included that recommendation in the Report.

§ Sir R. HORNE

The House knows how clever the right hon. Gentleman is, and if he cannot give a better reply than that, it is obvious that there was no willingness or readiness at all—

Mr. THOMAS

That is mean.

§ Sir R. HORNE

—on the part of the miners to agree to that portion of the Report which requires an immediate reduction of wages. I am not criticising the miners for this. I do not say they were not absolutely right to take up that attitude. All I am saying is that when we came to a discussion as to how this matter arose I could find no reason whatsoever to blame a single step the Government took, or to say there was any step they omitted. When the history of this difficulty comes to be written it will be said of this Government that, from the time when they first came forward and gave a subsidy, amounting to a very large sum of the taxpayers' money, to the time 100 when in the end they were willing to extend the subsidy, against the wish of what was known to be a great body of people in the country, they showed every reasonable latitude, and went to every limit that was possible.

There was another remark which the right hon. Gentleman made which I should like to say a word about. There is no one in the country who wishes to see wages reduced, or the standard of living of anyone reduced. Everyone realises that that is only the way to bring trouble. The higher the wages that can he paid, and the more comfortable people are in their existence, the more chance there is of the country going ahead, for the benefit of everyone. But we must be alive to the fact that we live in very difficult times. I am sure every Member of the House receives the same sort of letters that I get daily from a very large number of people who are living to-day at a standard of life that does not amount to 50 per cent. of what they were able to get before the War, and a large number are unable to find any sort of employment at all. The House will forgive me if I give two examples out of my personal post bag to show that it is not only one section of the community that has suffered a diminution in the standard of life. had a letter not very long ago from a young man who had been to the same school I went to in Scotland. He started life in a shipping company's office as a clerk. He did well and came to one of the biggest shipping offices in London. There he made a very considerable success and got an advancement by going to another shipping office in Singapore, where he held a comparatively high post. When the War broke out, he came home and enlisted as a private. He served throughout the War and left the Army as a Captain with certificates such as could not be bettered. That young man to-day, for lack of a job, is serving as a common porter in Covent Garden Fruit Market.

§ Mr. G. HALL

He is getting more wages than a miner.

§ Sir R. HORNE

That is one example. Let me give another. A man wrote to me some months ago. He had been a lawyer, and when the War was over his business was gone. He said he could not take a lowly position in another 101 place in Glasgow, and asked if I could get him a job as an office keeper in London. These are only two examples out of hundreds of cases, not dissimilar, that I am sure come to all of us. We have to realise that we are not living in ordinary times. Other people than the miners have had their wage standard reduced. I take the case of the engineers. I am sure the miners do not say they are a much better body of men than the engineers. After all, most engineers are skilled men, who have spent five years in apprenticeship, and before the War used to earn excellent wages. The Commission reports that, whereas the miners' standard of wages was 78 per cent. above pre-War, that of the engineers was only 45 to 55 per cent., and that while the man at the face was earning 70s. a week, an engineer-fitter, a skilled man, was making only 56s. 6d., and in the shipyards a skilled shipwright was making only 55s. 7d. This disaster does not come upon us through any desire to cut down wages in any particular industry. All the unsheltered industries are suffering alike, and the miners must not ask us to believe they are being put in a. very exceptional difficulty as compared with the other industries of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked, "What is the strike all about?" Tho answer is very simple. A stoppage has occurred, and for exactly the same reason as occurred when he and I had to confront a similar difficulty in 1921. It is because, as the Commissioners show, there is not sufficient money in the industry to pay the wages that are being asked, and you cannot get more than a pint out of a pint pot. That really is the situation.

§ Mr. MACLAREN

Toes the right hon. Gentleman Make out that capital pays the wages, or does he admit that Labour renders a service for the wages it gets?

§ Sir R. HORNE

If the hon. Member wants a theorotical economic discussion, I shall be delighted to spend an agreeable evening in an amiable argument, but my purpose now is quite other than that. The difficulties of this trade are, really, not difficult to understand. They have been carefully analysed in the Report. It shows that the export trade has been 102 dwindling. Attention has been called to the increased exports in recent months Compared with the first three months of last year, but that arose from two causes. One was the anthracite strike in America, which caused a large export of anthracite from here, and the other is that the coalowners, for the most part, took advantage of the subsidy not to put the money into their pockets, but to endeavour to regain the South American markets. But let the House remember that the coal industry has had a tremendous accretion in its personnel. In 1913 there were 1,110,000 men in the coal industry, and there was an output of 297,000,000 tons. In 1920 you had 1,248,000 in the industry, and the output had decreased by 20 per cut. to 257,000,000 tons. If, accordingly, you have a greater personnel to keep, and a less output to keep them on, is it possible to say you can keep the wages up to the same level?

§ Mr. POTTS

Is it not a fact that the employer employs all the workpeople and if there are more workpeople than are required—

§ Sir H. HORNE

The truth stares you in the face, that you are trying to keep very much larger bodies of people on a less output, and it is obvious that you cannot have the same standard of life. Now, however, that you have a declaration of a general strike, this crisis Is taken out of the category of the ordinary labour dispute altogether. We have had a declaration that the essential services of the country are to be stopped, and the Trade Union Committee make no bones about using that threat. There is a question as to whether in the matter of electricity and gas they are not in direct breach of a Statute at present. In other cases there arc breaches of contract, but the statute that deals with public utility lays down very strict injunctions as to what a man may do without notice in leaving his job. At any rate they have taken upon themselves to adopt that policy. Happily we have advice upon this matter from no less a gentleman than the Leader of the Opposition. In a letter deliberately written, and not in a public speech or in the heat of debate, he gave his considered views. He said: No Government could live if it did not help to maintain essential services. 103 He says further: The functions of Government cannot be assumed by any organisation but that of the Government. And he goes on to say, I think wisely: The more serious the threat the more rigid should the Government he to carry out the letter as well as the spirit of their constitutional responsibilities.'' Let us see what this means. I understand it very well, but I- do not think my right hon. Friend (Mr. R. MacDonald) wishes to face the implication of what he said. We have here a very strong combination of unions. It is not the case of a union defending itself against the lowering of wages; it is a combination of unions allied together to act in combination under circumstances which they think proper. Their arrangements are so extraordinary that a junta of men may, without consultation with their constituents, decide to bring the country to a standstill, and to order the life of every citizen in the country. For example, they could, if they chose, having an organisation of that kind, use it for political purposes just as easily as for industrial purposes. They could, for example, say, "Unless you give nationalisation to the mines, we will hold up the. eountry." There is no political problem upon which they cannot use this extraordinarily powerful machine which they have created. This action, be it remembered, is their first. The organisation has not been in existence before. If this is its first action, what may we anticipate will be its further progress in interference with the life of the country?

§ Mr. SPENCER

This is an unprovocative speech.

§ Sir R. HORNE

The constitutional life of this country cannot be carried on if this kind of mechanism is allowed to usurp the place of government, and to dictate. to the people. They arc going to allow us to get our food, not because we are free citizens of a democratic State, but only of their grace and mercy. I remember a remark of the Leader of the Opposition on Saturday, in a speech which he made after the terrible events which I am sure have saddened the hearts of the whole of the responsible citizens of this country. He said he was moved with a great emotion. also am moved to-day with emotion.

§ Mr. LAWSON

Impossible.

§ Sir R. HORNE

This is the saddest spectacle with which any one of us has ever been confronted. There was no episode in the War which created so much anxiety and apprehension in our breasts as the thought that those who would ordinarily be acting with us are determined to ally themselves against the Government. I never understood the psychology which advocates arbitration in all international disputes, but absolutely refuses it in cases of difference between our own kith and kin. I am moved with anxiety about this old country, to which we all belong, and which I am sure we all love. With all its limitations, it is the freest country in the world, and in suite of all its faults, it is the sweetest country in the world. We have gone through a time of great vicissitudes and great misfortunes. We endured the horror, of the War with a courage which was tiring-Hailed. We have faced the after difficulties of the War, and dealt with them in a spirit of high honour and patience that has commanded the admiration of the world. -We seemed just to be emerging at the present time from the tangle of difficulties in which for so long we have been enmeshed. It has been a steep and uphill task, and now it looks as though we arc going to be thrown hack into the abyss. Poor, unhappy Britain! We are faced with this trouble, and we must meet it with the same courage that we have met other misfortunes of our time. You cannot, happily, exhaust the fortitude of the British people in a high cause, nor can you intimidate them. In my opinion, the whole instincts of the British people will revolt against any attempts to take from them their freedom and to plant a tyranny in of constitutional government.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

I never rose to address this House feeling more deeply in my heart that I wished it were unnecessary that T should do so. To-day we have to face a situation the end of which, the evolution of which, not even the keenest-eyed foreseer can visualise now. I have' risen to ask the house whether it is impossible, in our moment of great trial, to rise to that magnificent power which would put that trial under our feet and upon it raise ourselves to the height of a great triumph. It is all 105 very well to raise points that are quite germane in negotiation. I, although not having been in the negotiations have been separated from them by such a very thin partition that. I might say the partition was transparent, feel, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) feels, that at this moment we might concentrate our minds upon the real issues, which have suffered a severe setback.

May I try to explain what the situation is and what the difficulty is? A great deal has been said about wages in relation to the Report. What is the position there? Let us be perfectly clear about one thing. If the owners and the miners are alone left to try to settle the question of wages in the coalfield, there will be no settlement and there can be no settlement? Why? When I started this business, I thought that perhaps the difficulty was due to the fact that there was some special devilment in one or in the other of the two parties. That is not the case. In this respect, the value of the Royal Commission upon Coal is not in the document that we all know, which is sold at 13. From the point of view of understanding the real problem of wages, this House must turn repeatedly to those three enormous folio volumes which, unfortunately, cost 15s. In pages 215 and 235 the House will find a series of tables showing the losses in the getting of coal in district after district, in a combination of districts under the national averages, in cost. of production, production per man, production per man shift and so on. What emerges from these figures? In my opinion what emerges is the biggest thing in the whole situation.

Let me ask the House to visualise one thing. Take the table dealing with profits. It begins by showing the maximum profit in shillings per ton of coal raised, and it comes down to sixpences or shillings to the bottom statement, which gives the maximum loss per ton of coal raised. Across the top you get in various columns essential information regarding the amount of coal raised in each category, the amount raised at 5s. per ton. profit, at 4s. per ton profit, and so on. What does that mean? It means this, that the problem of settling a national minimum, on account of the great variety of district prices and district profits exists in the districts themselves. The difficulty in using a paper authority 106 as the basis for the payment of wages does not merely affect the nation as a whole, the whole of the national coal field, but it is pr, sent with the same baffling force in the districts themselves.

It is quite obvious that no wage agreement can be come to, whether it be an increase in wages, a stationary condition of wages or a decrease in wages, without co-ordination. if hon. Members opposite were miners and had to face this problem, after having read the reports of negotiations, from the point of view of their own wives and their children, they would come to the conclusion that unless there is co-ordination in the trade there can be no settlement of the wages difficulty. A very able general manager of a railway once made a remark which I found very enlightening at the time, and I find it so still. lie said: Has it struck you that if we had to sectionalise our railway, every 20 miles or every 100 miles, independently of the whole system, it would be absolutely impossible to run a national system of railways that would take you from John o' Groats to Land's End." It is the co-ordination of the national services to meet the national needs which is the basis of the smooth running of the whole system.

7.0 P.M.

I do not know how far hon. Members are willing to go, but you must have some co-ordination. Now that is what the miners, have stood out for, and when on this day of all others hon. Members come here with nice little arguments about figures that is not going to save the position. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the history of the coal trade is a special part of the industrial history of this country. Hon. Members who come from Lancashire, Yorkshire and South Wales know that quite well. If you take the history of engineering, the history of iron, the history of any of the great sections of our national industries, there is none of them which has its pages so disgracefully black as the history of our coal-mining industry. As reasonable men, and as men of the world, we must expect to find that history reflected in the men who are living to-day. You cannot get away from it. That is one of the explanations of the very true observation which was made by the Prime Minister, that he found himself uncomfortable when he had to go into this freezing atmosphere of unholy suspicion 107 and hostility which you always get the moment you have these two sections alongside or opposing you.

These are facts, and they must be taken into account when you are negotiating. Therefore, when the question of wages was mentioned—not a question of increase or anything else, but just the question of wages—almost any keenly alive workman would immediately pull himself together, feeling that something was being attacked. It is in the air. It is useless to say that you are not contemplating it, because as a matter of fact they have experienced it. Let me put it this way, and in a way that I hope will not be offensive. Suppose one of those contemptible demagogic humbugs who arise from time to time wanted to fix upon something, some cry or slogan, which would raise all the fears and passions of the working class multitudes of this country. If such a man came to me and asked my advice and I was in the way of giving him that advice—if he, asked me from my knowledge of the working-class psychology of the present moment what sort of question he should embody in this slogan he was going to use in order to raise fear and to get certain things in his capacity as humbug, I should say "raise the question of wages; that will settle the whole thing." That is quite true. Every employer knows it.

I blame the Government very much, because I think this is one of the things which the Government might have done before. It threw the owners and the workpeople in the coal trade, with that economic problem which is embedded in these papers and that extraordinarily valuable Report and with that psychology which is prevalent at the moment, it threw them together, and said, "Settle the wages problem between you." That drew from the miners the dogma that not a penny of reduction and not a minute of increase of time and no district settlement should he agreed to. Of course, those of us who are outside it all to a certain extent, and can employ what you might call our free reason upon it in criticising our friends, may say, "Why do do you not keep yourselves free?" It is all very well to indulge in those criticisms. Hon. Members who have any experience of trade union negotiations know perfectly well the tremendous difficulties in doing that. The Prime Minister paid a tribute 108 to the way in which my colleagues have worked for peace. But the Prime Minister really does not know how they have worked for peace. He saw what he did see, and heard what he did hear, but I saw what he did not see and I heard what he did not hear—the fight for peace which was put up by us all, the striving to get security, to get confidence, to get people to believe in each other.

That is what is happening to-day. You are talking and acting, and people are ceasing to believe you, and when you come to them with fine words and say, "We have no intention of doing this or that or the other thing," people are ceasing to believe all of it, and are fearing that you are talking up your sleeve all the time. It is one of the curses of the present day, this lack of co-operative belief that we mean truly what we say, and that we are trying to make our nation better and our people happier. My colleagues have been fighting for that. Of course, on Monday they did not get it, on Tuesday they did not get it; but they did get it stage by stage. What was the excuse for the miners? I am putting it very low. What was their principal excuse and justification? The miners said, "No consideration of wages apart from reconstruction." Now the Commission says that. It is all very well to quote page 236. It is quite true that your quotation is there; I do not dispute that. But, even before this discussion or deadlock arose, my reading of the Report was that everything said about wages was controlled by what was said on page 229. I cannot see how you can vet away from it. It may he that there are different views. I do not know. It may be that page 229 is not the same as page 230, but I refuse to believe that the Commission, which has produced such an extra. ordinarily able Report, was going to mean one thing on page 229 and another thing on page 236. But I can believe, and I do believe, that often when you start to draft. a Memorandum, if you have some large controlling and qualifying idea which is going to run from the beginning to the end of your draft, you put it right the forefront, and then you go on to make statements knowing that all the other statements, even if they are made in an absolute form later on, are qualified by the statement you have put down at the beginning of your draft. It is very important that we should 109 understand the miners' mind, whether it is our own mind or not. This what the Report says on page 229: It is necessary finally to emphasise the fact that in our view a revision of the minimum percentage should depend upon the acceptance by all the parties of such measures of re-organisation as will secure to the industry a new lease of prosperity leading to higher wages. That is the first sentence. Who is going to say whether any proposal is going to secure the industry a new lease of prosperity? Is it the Government alone? Of course not. If there is going to be a reduction of wages accepted by the miners upon a programme of reconstruction, the miners must see that programme of reconstruction first. That is surely common sense. But there is another point. The Report goes on, after passing over a heading, to say "Before any sacrifices are asked"—that is the very opening qualifying warning words— Before any sacrifices are asked "— not enforced but asked— from those engaged in the industry, it shall he definitely agreed between them that all practical means for improving its organisation and increasing its efficiency should be adopted as speedily as the circumstances in each case allow. That is the case for the miners. Everything else must follow from that. Now you cannot go away and just blindly say that this or that is the real reading of the Report, and that you are not going to encourage anybody to give it even a chance of exploration. On Friday night, after some hours of black depression, about 9 o'clock I thought that the sun had broken through, because we did get a statement from the miners which, in view of the new things which have arisen and owing to the fact that we were negotiating with the Government, and in view of the fact that we bad put up this point which I have just left in my argument—in view of the fact that. we said to the miners, "Yes, we arc going to try and get the wages question discussed and settled in relation to the reconstruction question," I was hopeful. I candidly confess that if I had been a miner I would not have moved a second before. They did the right thing. They moved. There are masters of the English language here, and there are people who are not masters of the English language. Mr. Herbert Smith made this statement in public on Saturday, and I say that it is quite clear 110 as an indication of what was in their minds. He made a speech which I personally welcome as a great contribution to peace, and then there was some misunderstanding as to what he did say. Mr. Smith made another speech in which he said, "I did not say this, I said that," and it makes much stronger the statement, whatever it is, when it is said in that much more definite way. What did Mr. Smith say in his second speech? This is his second statement: Somebody had declared that he had agreed to accept the Report. What he intended to say was that he was prepared to examine the Report from page one to the last page and stand by the result of the final judgment. [An HON. MEMBER, "That is nothing at all!"] Do not let us hurry. I am trying still—it may be a thankless and Godless task, and I do not know what sort of awkward task. I have not moved from the position I took up last Monday, and I am not going to move from it at all, whatever hon. Members may say. What I say is this, that their statement shows that they are prepared to discuss wages in relation to the Report, and it also indicates that they are prepared to accept the decision. Supposing it is as vague as some hon. Members think, is it worth while fighting on the margin of vagueness in that statement when we have not had time to explore it finally? If you say there is still something there remaining, I may agree with you. But there is a very short time. Is there any justification whilst we are still working at it at this moment. I am putting the case on which, at 20 minutes past seven on Monday, the man who stands for peace takes his stand upon; and I am going to be for peace at 20 minutes past seven on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, and right through until it is finished. This is the situation. We are still working at that, and because there was no time, everything was precipitated. Something has been said about the employers. I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a mistake quite naturally about this; the thing has not been properly published. One requires to have been there, to have been able to follow minute by minute all the intricacies of the controversy. This is what happened. The owners posted up their lock-out notices. There is a new 111 creed out to-day, I have not observed it before, that only those who accept the whole of the Report are saved in this case. When the owners posted up their notices for a district settlement they went home and did not even consult the miners in their districts. They posted up these notices, I believe some of them had figures and some had not, but whether they had or had not does not matter. The miners rejected that absolutely. There is no mistake about that.

Then the Government come in on Thursday, and 1 came in, I believe, on the Monday; but there was no offer except the lock-out notices. On Tuesday from another place, and with great anxiety that not minute should be lost., I sent message after message to push on and get something. Nothing. Wednesday the same. Thursday the same. On Friday I was told that things were getting had, and I came down again. The lock-out notices were actually in operation from either mid-day or one o'clock, and a lat g part of them were to be in operation at two o'clock, when the two o'clock shift came on, and there was no offer from the employers that came even partly within this Agreement, this Report, until a quarter-past one on Friday afternoon. There is no mistake about that—no offer from the employers that came partly within the Report until a quarter-past one on Friday afternoon, a fortnight after the notices had been posted up and after sonic of the earliest of them had come into effect. What have you to say for that Then the offer was not within the terms of the Report, if the Report is the book of salvation. The suggestion about hours was outside the Report.

That is not all. After the lock-out notices had begun to operate this letter which was received by an hon. Friend of mine was conveyed by the Government, not by the owners, and we wanted to know whether it was the Government's offer or the owners'. It contained a paragraph towards the end asking the miners to put up their alternative, proposal. An alternative proposal was put up. It was sent in; the leaflet that the Trade Union Congress had issued about the Report. That leaflet simply embodied the terms of the Report. What 112 happened was that, having been invited by the Government to give their alternative proposals, a letter was put in saying that the alternative proposals are the Report proposals. The thing went on, and it was quite evident that the miners had moved on the question of discussing and accepting wages conditions, and then at 11 o'clock the question was put to Mr. Herbert Smith, "Will you, before negotiations, before seeing our proposals, will you here and now agree to a reduction." That is outside the terms of the Report. You can say it was necessary, but that is another leg on which to stand. You can stand on it if you like, but if you are standing on the Report you cannot resist the comment I have made that the question put to Mr. Smith is outside the terms of the Report. Down came the guillotine after that. We have struggled, We have broken the Sunday in doing a very good piece of work, taking our neighbour's ox out of a ditch, and we have failed.

It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who interrupted me earlier about the subsidy, or the Prime Minister, who said that if an agreement could be come to they were quite willing to see if a bridge could be built between the is and the ought to be, or the is to be; and in the building of that bridge the Government might consider whether anything that it could do through the Treasury would be useful, Personally, the subsidy, in idea, I oppose, but as an expedient at the last minute on the grounds of necessity it may be you cannot yet avoid it, but to imagine that you are going to keep an essential industry of the country, a big industry, iron, coal and cotton, on subsidies is absurd. You cannot do it. This was the idea we were working on, a fortnight's continuance of the status quo during which time a sort of treaty, I believe that was the word used, not only by myself but by some others on the other side, would be made on the basis of certain temporary agreements, and that in making them the question of wages should he faced and faced honestly. The treaty should be determinate by a certain date which should be fixed; a definite temporary agreement, and at the end of that time the industry should be self-contained carrying its own burden and working out its own salvation. Roughly, that was the idea. I do not feel we have finished, or 113 that we have come up against a stone wall.

I really wish sonic Members opposite had been in some of the negotiations I have been in. Some of them had been in as protracted negotiations. Bat from Friday to Sunday night, when we really got to hand gripe, is not long. The worst is this, that whereas you gave us, Labour, from 1.15 p.m. on the 30th to 12 o'clock on that night to give a final answer, it took the Owners from 13th April to the 30th April to send in their reply. There is no doubt about that. On the 13th April the Government approached the owners, who had previously decided to offer terms which were outside the Report of the Coin-mission. I do not know what happened; I do not want to know, and I do not care. I am not interested to know, but whether they defied you, made any answer to your request, the fact remains here, staring you in the fare, that in order to get the owners away from a position which was contrary to the Report, taken up before the 13th April, and which was a subject of representation from the Government on the 13th April, we, my right hon. Friends and I, had to wait until the 30th April before the reply came. At 1.15 on the 30th April we had the owners' reply to a protest on the part of the Government delivered on the 13th April. Between 1.15 and 12 o'clock we were asked to give our reply. That is not putting on colour. During those hours, when we charged ourselves with the difficult task of getting peace, those notices were expiring. Word was coming in, "South Wales out," this place and the other place out, "Two o'clock shift here out," and so on. And when we were sitting in the Committee rooms waiting for a reply, the conversation among our mining colleagues, pulling out their watches, was, "Well, they are all out now; the time has gone." That was the manner in which we had to try to persuade them to see what could be done to deal with the position, and, to their eternal credit, be it said, they accepted our appeals, and they made our statements.

Have we come to the end of it? I do not know. We have all done our best, and we Will continue to do it. The Prime Minister said that he down with an 114 aching heart. I got up with an aching heart. A remark was made about something I said regarding a general strike. If I have a grievance against the Prime Minister for having read out a statement of mine, it is that he selected a very poor condemnation. I have gone far more into detail than that. This makes no difference to me at all. I have made all the contribution I can. With the discussion of general strikes and Bolshevism and all that kind of thing, I have nothing to do at all. I respect the Constitution as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I am not at all sure, although one does not like to say this, what is to happen even in the highest society unless reason is to he the basis of our social life. I said this, "No man and no party can ever stand between society and revolution unless reason is moving on both sides. Behind the darn which requires to be raised and raised and raised, a heavy, overwhelming, overpowering great flood of water is rising. At last the darn is broken." I have said that, and that is the difficulty in which we are finding ourselves. Every hoer or two—a clay or two—can we afford the time.? The miner says, "I must defend my standard of life." Whether he defends it by complicated methods of calculating his wages or not, is no matter; there is no complicated calculation required for the money he gets at the end of the week. There is no complicated calculation in the little group of pay-sheets which I have showing these wages— £1 8s. 9d., £2 0s. 9d., £2 lls. 2d., £2 ls. 3d., £1 5s. 5d., and £l 5s. 5d. It does not matter how that is calculated. That is what he gets.

§ Sir R. HORNE

I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he does not represent that as a wage paid to-day to the working miner working at the coal face, or even to a labourer underground. These are the wages of surface workers.

§ The MINIATER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur steel-Maitland)

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is the wage paid for a full week's work?

HON. MEMBERS

Yes.

§ Sir R. HORNE

All I want to suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman will find the average earnings in the Coal Commission's Report. Surely that is better 115 testimony than the scraps he has given us here.

§ Mr. MacDONALD

The right hon. Gentleman does not live on average figures; he lives on his actual income, and so do I.

§ Sir R. HORNE

Men can save on the average figures.

§ Mr. MacDONALD

If the earnings I have quoted are all he is getting, the average figures will not help him in his savings. These are actual wages paid to miners. I do not consider whether they are average or not average. This idea of average earnings is a method of dealing with human problems that is misleading us altogether. [Interruption.] I have had four or five or six of these slips handed in, and I say these are the wages earned by miners working in a coal pit. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

Really we are dealing with serious matters, and I must ask hon. Members to restrain themselves. We have to deal with very large matters, and a great deal may depend upon how we deal with them.

§ Mr. MacDONALD

As a matter of fact, during the last five or six minutes. I have been comp etely misled from the point I wish to make, but let there be no mistake about the figures. These represent the earnings of miners in a particular pit, and no one is to persuade my hon Friends that they are not more or less representative of every individual miner. If you were dealing with a body of men like that, and dealing with wages like that, and if you were a trade union secretary, a national secretary, or a district secretary, and these figures were your incomes, I will do hon. Members opposite the justice, I always like to do them, by saying there is not a single one of you that would be very pliable if the proposition was made to reduce those wages, and if the proposition was made to you to reduce much higher wares, you would be very careful that you did not entertain the proposition without careful investigation first of all. I do not know that the last word of the Government is that a general strike may develop, as it may. Are they quite right in taking up the attitude they have taken? In negotia- 116 tions, further explorations, helpfulness in any way without betraying anybody, without giving advice which one cannot conscientiously give from the point of view of national interests—we are ready to give it, because we know perfectly well what a tremendous industrial upheaval may happen. Above all, whatever our views may be, do not let us enter into it, and do not let us keep in it, except with minds determined to see fair play and to do justice all the time.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

The right hon. Gentleman has certainly preserved the calm and restraint which he enjoined upon others and, indeed, the extreme self-control which the House has shown throughout this Debate is the measure of the deep anxiety and sorrow we all feel at the miserable turn which the fortunes of our country have taken. We gladly recognise the efforts for peace which have been made by the Trade Union Committee, by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last and, of course, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has striven with all the compulsive and persuasive powers of his nature and of his experience to bring about a. warding-off of this shocking disaster in our national life. We, too, have striven for peace, and we have deeds as well as words which can be quoted. We hav