I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of pauper children at present in the metropolitan workhouses, and if the number given in February, 1895, by Mr. Knollys, the Chief General Inspector of the Local Government Board, at 1,809 has been reduced; and whether any action has been taken by the Local Government Board to provide receiving homes for the children; and, if so, what has been the result of such action?

The number of children in the metropolitan, workhouses, according to our latest returns, excluding children under two years of age, was 1,124; 554 were under two years of age. The number of children between the ages of two and three ought also to be deducted as children under the age at which they are sent to school. With this deduction the number would probably be about 900. The Local Government Board have communicated with the several boards of guardians with reference to provision by them of accommodation in separate establishments for the children of the less permanent class, and the guardians in many instances have promised to give the matter their consideration. Whilst, however, there is scarcely a union where the question as to provision for the children is not now under consideration in some form or other, there is an indisposition on the part of guardians to provide additional accommodation until it has been seen what has been the effect of the change Which will result from the transfer to the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District of the care of certain classes of children, including those suffering from ophthalmia, and their arrangements for that purpose are necessarily not yet complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the site contemplated for the new post office in Clones belongs to the wife of the present postmaster, and is situate in a steep part of the Diamond; also that the Town Commissioners did not approve of the site, but merely recommended that the site should be in a central position; whether the postmaster was shown or informed of the contents of communications addressed to the Department stating on what terms other owners of property in Clones were prepared to sell or lease premises for the purposes required; whether he is aware steps have been taken by the inhabitants of Clones to protest against the site in question being selected; whether, when the post office surveyor visited the several premises offered to the Department, he was on each occasion accompanied by the postmaster, and whether letters addressed by two of the Clones Town Commissioners to the Secretary of the Dublin Post Office, protesting against the choosing of the site in question, were forwarded or their contents made known to the Clones postmaster; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the entire matter of selecting a site for the proposed new office, so as to meet with the approval of the general body of the inhabitants of Clones?

The answer to the first sentence of the first paragraph is "Yes," to the second "No." On the contrary, the Town Commissioners are unanimously in favour of the site "as being the most Suitable and central in the town." The answer to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs is in the affirmative. A decision has not yet been finally given, and the matter is therefore still open to further inquiry if a better scheme can be suggested within the limits of expense which the comparatively small amount of the Post Office business at Clones will warrant.

The Town Commissioners were not unanimous.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to give greater freedom to students, it would be possible to assimilate the Home Office practice with regard to historical records to that of the Foreign Office, under which correspondence up to 1830 can be inspected subject to some restrictions?

I have been looking into the whole question, and have made inquiries of other departments as to their practice. The matter is somewhat complicated, but I hope it will be possible to make arrangements in the direction of relaxing the present rules.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tenants in Ireland who get fair rents fixed before the Sub-Commission Court experience much annoyance by not being able to get the Appeal Court valuers' valuation in case there is an appeal unless the landlord signs a joint application; and whether lie will direct that in future tenants can get the court valuers' valuation without application to the landlord?

On behalf of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary I have to say that the Land Commissioners have already publicly announced their intention to revert to the practice, which spreviously obtained, of notifying the result of court valuers' valuations in appeal cases to the parties interested, and of issuing to either of them copies of such reports where they are bespoken prior to the hearing. This change in procedure will be effected with the least possible delay.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great pastern Railway Company have made any, and, if so, what, effort to redeem the promise made to him to improve their station at Peterborough; whether the plans then produced for various alterations have been proceeded with; and, if so, to what extent; why the matter should be continually delayed, and when the work will be carried out; whether the inspectors of the Board of Trade have reported that the existing conditions under which all traffic is carried on at the station and its approaches are perfectly satisfactory and consistent with public safety, especially having regard to excursions and times of special pressure, and that the means of access to the Island platform is safe, convenient, and proper; and whether the Board of Trade are able to enforce existing bye-laws and can compel the Great Eastern Railway Company to carry them out at this station?

The Board of Trade, have continued negotiations with the company on this subject, and as recently as the 1st of this month they heard from the manager of the Great Eastern that the proposal to provide a large station at Peterborough, to accommodate the traffic of all the companies, is still engaging attention, but the difficulties, which are considerable, have not yet been overcome. The Board were further informed that the company had instructed their engineer to carry out in the meantime certain works at the existing stations estimated to cost £9,500. The reply to the fourth paragraph of the Question is in the negative, and I am bound to say that, although the Board recognise that the work about to done will be a great improvement, it is very doubtful whether the Department can pass the plans as altogether satisfactory. I am not sure that I understand my honourable Friend's reference to by laws in the fifth paragraph; but, in the event of the Great Eastern carrying out the works to which I have referred, they will have to submit the station to the Board of Trade for rein-spection.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a Report by Dr. Willcocks, of the Charing Cross Hospital, by which it appears that out of 82 children, varying in age from three to 16, in the Barrack Schools of Hanwell, belonging to the Central London District, it was found that 30 were suffering from adenoid growths of the throat at the back of the nose, and 23 from enlargement of the tonsils, while in nine cases there was considerable enlargement of the tonsils, and in several cases a discharge from the ear, with perforation of the drum of the ear; and whether he will direct an inquiry to be made by the Local Government Board with a view of the best thing being done for each individual child?

I have already given directions, for an inquiry with regard to the cases of the children referred to. I may, however, say that Dr. Willcocks, in his Report, distinctly states that the school life and surroundings of the children cannot be held responsible in any sense for the adenoid disease, the disease being prevalent among children in all classes of society.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of shipwright ratings that will be leaving the Navy on pension during the next two years; and if he will inquire whether a larger percentage of those could be induced to serve on if improved pay and position were conceded?

The number of shipwright ratings likely to be pensioned in the ensuing two years cannot be stated. The numbers pensioned during the last two financial years were:—1896–97, eight; 1897–98, 13; total, 21. The number is so small that the adoption of the honourable Member's suggestion would not much affect the situation. The Recruiting Committee have made certain suggestions, which are under the consideration of the Board.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Volunteer medical officers who were officially ordered to take medical charge of brigades or provisional battalions on Jubilee Day, and actually did duty as such, have been entirely excluded from participation in the distribution of the Queen's Jubilee medals (unless in command of a brigade bearer company), whereas brigade major and chief transport officers received it; whether he is aware that this exclusion is regarded as a slight to these medical officers; and whether he will have their services on that occasion recognised as the other officers referred to?

The rules for the distribution of the Jubilee medals were made by Her Majesty, and the Secretary of State has no control in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland whether he can state the number of future tenancies created in Ireland since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881?

The Government have no official record of the number of tenancies referred to, and no means of obtaining information as to the number.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, during the military manœuvres to take place from the 1st September, the movements and the choice of camping grounds will be left to the discretion of the general officers commanding the two opposing armies, and varied by them according to the altering conditions of each day's actions, or whether these movements and camping grounds will be previously decided upon and carried out according to a settled programme?

The general officers commanding the opposing forces will be able to encamp their respective units on any grounds for which water arrangements have been made. There will be no settled programme beyond fixing where water will be available. The difficulty of having sufficient good water must in some degree limit the freedom of the movement, as also it necessarily does in war.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether duplicate Press telegrams to separate newspapers are charged at a reduced rate for the second telegram where payment is made in cash, but at the full rate when passes are handed in with the message; and whether, in the interests of the newspapers of the United Kingdom, he will have the reduced rate allowed on passes as well as in cash payments, and the total cost apportioned equally to the several addresses?

It is the fact that, duplicate press telegrams to separate newspapers are charged at a reduced rate for the second telegram when payment is made in cash, but at the full rate when the passes of the separate newspapers, are handed in with the message. This practice was sanctioned by regulations framed by the Postmaster General in 1879 with the approval of the Treasury, and laid upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Bailieborough Board of Guardians had erected under contract, superintended by their architect, a labourer's cottage in the townland of Urcher in 1896, which was certified by the inspector of the Local Government Board in March, 1897; whether he is aware that in December, 1897, the guardians received a report from the sanitary inspector that, in consequence of the walls and floors being damp and the building badly erected, it was unfit for habitation; and whether, under these circumstances, the Local Government Board having certified for the cottage, the Government will consider it advisable to order an inquiry into the matter to ascertain by whose fault the present state of things exists?

The cottage in question was erected in 1896 by the Bailieborough guardians under the superintendence of their own architect, and was inspected by one of the Local Government Board's engineering inspectors in March, 1897. The Board's engineering inspectors never give certificates in relation to the completion of such cottages, payment being always made on the certificates of the local architect. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The responsibility for the carrying out of works in strict accordance with the approved plan and specification devolves upon the architect employed by the guardians, and not upon the Board's engineering inspector, who obviously could not superintend the erection of labourers' cottages throughout Ireland. The guardians have been informed by the Local Government Board that if they are not satisfied with the action of their architect in this case, they may employ another architect to examine the site and house, and give them a professional report as to what should be done to remedy the defects complained of. The matter is one entirely between the guardians and their architect, and it would be outside the province of the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry as suggested.

On behalf of the honourable Member for West Bradford, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the new tariff is coming into force in Japan; and if he can lay upon the Table of the House any Papers in connection with it?

The date when the new tariffs will come into force in Japan is dependent upon the ratification of the Treaty with Austria-Hungary, the last of the new series of Treaties negotiated by Japan with the Powers. When this has taken place the Japanese Government have undertaken to allow a further period before the new tariff comes into force, and a public announcement in this sense will be made. There are no Papers which it would be of any advantage to lay.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government are now prepared to make a statement in reply to the influential deputation from the great fishing centres of the United Kingdom which waited upon Lord Salisbury on the 8th inst., and to whom the Prime Minister could not reply at the time, owing to the absence of the Secretary for Scotland from the interview, as to their intended action regarding the continued presence of foreign trawlers in the protected waters of the Moray Firth, whereby British fishing interests, both trawling and line, are seriously jeopardised, and the experiment for which those waters were closed rendered abortive?

The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to accept the assumptions which are contained in the Question. I have no statement to make.

Will the right honourable Gentleman say how soon a statement will be forthcoming?

I have no statement to make.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that last year 14,840 old horses and 257 donkeys and mules were exported to France for consumption abroad, and that, owing to the improper accommodation on the steamers, and to the fact that these animals are regarded as useless for work, the greatest cruelties exist; and if he will take steps to enforce humane treatment as long as they are under British control?

Details as to the actual numbers of old horses or donkeys exported for consumption abroad are not supplied in the annual trade accounts of the United Kingdom. The total exports of horses, however, to the country named by the honourable Member, in the year 1897, were 27 stallions, 1,683 mares, and 2,973 geldings. I have recently caused careful investigation to be made into the conditions under which the trade referred to by my honourable Friend is carried on, and I am in communication with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the subject, with a view to their supplementing, if possible, the information we have ourselves obtained. We shall then, I hope, be in a position to determine whether, so far as the equipment of the vessels is concerned, there is any ground for intervention on our part, and generally to consider what steps are necessary to prevent and punish the offences in connection with the trade.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, will he explain why substantive lieutenant-colonels of Marines are put on the same roster as captains in the Army, although no other substantive lieutenant-colonels are put on such rosters; and if he will see that, in future, the officers of Marines shall only be put on rosters oil which officers of similar rank in the Army are liable to serve?

When the number of field officers in a garrison is small, it frequently happens that captains in the Army and Royal Marines are put upon the duty roster of field officers. It is probable that, in the case of the garrison which the honourable Member has in view (Plymouth), the substantive lieutenant-colo- nels are in command of regiments, and so, in the opinion of the general officer commanding, are not available for garrison duty. I see no reason for making any change in the present practice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received any confirmation of the rumour that the stoppage in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal trade would extend to those non-associated collieries from which the Admiralty have latterly been mainly supplied, and which he stated to be the simple reason for countermanding the naval manœuvres this year; and, should the rumour prove to have been unfounded, will the countermanding order be cancelled; and should, on the other hand, the rumour prove to be correct, and the present sources of supply be closed, will he say what objection, if any, there would be to holding the naval manœuvres upon the general resumption of work at the collieries in South Wales?

I have no further information as to the probability or improbability of the strike extending to the non-associated collieries. If the honourable Member is in a position to give me any information on the subject, I shall be much obliged to him. Naval manœuvres cannot be ordered or countermanded from week to week. Different arrangements have now been made for the Channel Squadron, the Reserve Squadron, and the other ships which would have taken part in the manœuvres, and for the officers who would have been employed. The decision is final.

May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that contracts have recently been made with coalowners in Monmouthshire to supply coal to the Navy, and whether he can state that an opportunity will be given to the Northumberland owners to tender for the same contracts?

I prefer notice of these matters. I can only say generally that Northumberland owners would not have tendered for the same service as the Welsh owners, the Northumberland coal not being employed in the same manner.

Has the right honourable Gentleman received any reports with regard to Scotch coal?

Order, order! Scotch coal does not arise out of the Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Government propose to take to meet the difficulty experienced by the Naval Department that at no time is there any stock of coal held at Cardiff by colliery owners or coal merchants beyond that held in loaded wagons?

I think on the whole it is better that buyers and consumers should not prematurely reveal their plans to producers and sellers.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill will be introduced into this House; and whether the Government will give an opportunity on that occasion for some explanation and discussion of that Measure.

I think the honourable Member has failed to observe that this Bill has been passed by the House of Lords, and has, therefore, been already introduced in this House in the ordinary way, and now stands for Second Reading, on which, of course, an opportunity for discussion will arise.

I was quite aware of the Bill having been introduced in the House of Lords, and was waiting for its appearance in this House. I wanted to know when we were to have an explanation of the Measure, which is one of great interest to Scotland.

The honourable Member is not so familiar with Parliamentary procedure as I thought. House of Lords' Bills read themselves the first time, and there is no opportunity, therefore, for explanation on the first Reading. The Bill stands in the ordinary way for Second Reading.

Will the right, honourable Gentleman allow me to point out that I do not mention "First Reading" in my question. I took the trouble to inform myself as to the procedure. I ask when the Bill will be introduced in this House?

It is the third order on Monday, the 27th.

Are we to understand that that evening we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Bill?

That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

That is the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the uncertainty that prevails in Ireland as to the preparation of the lists of voters in registration units under the new Registration (Ireland) Act, he can state if specific instructions have been issued by the authorities to the different clerks of peace and clerks of unions, directing them in making out the supplemental lists to include in these lists the names of all the voters in each registration unit in counties and boroughs, so that at the next Revision Sessions the Revising Barristers may be able to deal with the correctness of the names in these lists.

The supplemental lists, both of £10 rated occupiers and of householders, are to be made out in registration units, and the Local Government supplemental lists of Peers and women are to be similarly dealt with. This is clearly prescribed in the special instructions attached to the Order in Council dated 23rd May, 1898, and no uncertainty should exist in the matter.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state when the Government Amendments to the Local Government (Ireland) Bill will be in the hands of Members of the House of Commons?

The Amendments and new clauses, with the exception of a few which, owing to the illness of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary, it may be necessary to delay for a couple of days, will be placed upon the Paper to-day. As the Report stage has been adjourned for a week, honourable Members will have ample time to consider those which are for the present withheld.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many of the 266 men forming the new battalion of Guards are transfers, and how many recruits?

The 266 non-commissioned officers and men forming the 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards on 1st March, 1898, were made up as follows:—142 joined as recruits, 131 joined as transfers, making a total of 273, from which seven must be deducted for casualties.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to naming the date upon which the acceleration of the Irish day mail service between London and Dublin will come into operation, and give the exact times of departure and arrival?

One or two small details have still to be arranged, but I have no doubt the service will be in operation by the 1st August. The mail train will leave Euston 1¼ hours later than at present, and reach 4Dublin half an hour later. It will leave Dublin three-quarters of an hour later than at present, and arrive in London at the same time as now.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Siamese Government lately expelled Mr. Lillie, a British subject, by permission of Her Majesty's Government; whether there was a violation of domicile in this case by the Siamese police; in what form protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lillie; and what was Mr. Lillie's offence?

Mr. Lillie was expelled from Siam on the 19th March last, wit' the entire concurrence and approval of Her Majesty's Government. Protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lillie by the refusal of Her Majesty's Minister to protect him, and the arrest having been effected with the concurrence of the British representative no question of a violation of domicile arises in the case. The reason for which Her Majesty's Government declined to interfere on Mr. Lillie's behalf was his publication in a paper called the "Siam Free Press," of which he was the proprietor and editor, of a series of seditious and disgraceful attacks upon the King and Government of Siam.

I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would be willing to lay upon the Table of the House copies of these articles for which Mr. Lillie has been expelled?

No, Sir; I think that would be entirely contrary to practice.

Would the right honourable Gentleman be willing to specify in any way the particular articles which constituted Mr. Lillie's offence?

No, Sir; I decline to be involved in any pledge to give even a specification.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the trials on Wednesday, the 15th instant, of the Belfast rioters and to the evidence of Serjeant Clarke, of the mounted police, to the effect that a city magistrate, named Doran, asked the police why they had charged a riotous mob; that the crowd then shouted to put the police off the road; that Doran then ordered the police to retire; and that, in the presence and hearing of the mob, he told them they must do so when directed by him; and whether, seeing that similar proceedings during the 1886 riots were strongly denounced by the Royal Commission that followed, the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will be directed to the incident?

My attention has been drawn to the evidence referred to in the Question. The matter will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have power to so alter their rules as to prevent arbitrary dismissal by school managers of teachers who, though no fault as to conduct or teaching qualifications or capacity has been proved or alleged against them, have no right of appeal tinder existing rules against such dismissal; and whether the Commissioners propose to make such alterations in their rules, especially in view of recent occurrences; if not, whether Government has power to reconstitute the Board of Commissioners so as to give the teachers representation thereupon; and, if so, whether the Government intend to exercise this power, or take any other steps that may be necessary to safeguard National school teachers against arbitrary dismissal by school managers?

The Commissioners have power to alter any of their rules with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. The Commissioners consider that the expression "arbitrary dismissal" in the first part of the Question is not a correct one, in view of the provision in the agreements, that must, in all cases, be executed between managers and teachers of National schools, under which notice of dismissal must be given three months beforehand to the teacher, unless there be sufficient cause for immediate dismissal. The Commissioners in 1895 adopted two additional forms of agreement, which provide for a referee, without whose written concurrence in the action of the manager there can be neither immediate dismissal of the teacher nor the issue to him of the three months' notice. This provision was the result of much consideration by the Commissioners. The referee may be an individual or a committee, or other body, or may be the Commissioners of National Education themselves. The Commissioners have not yet fully considered whether further modifications of their regulations in the direction referred to by the honourable Member would be proper or expedient.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that 1,010 sheep were lost out of 1,325, and also 157 cattle out, of 225, off the SS. Port Victoria, from Buenos Ayres to Liverpool, which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, the 12th June; and whether measures will be taken to prevent such losses in future by the substitution of fittings which will resist the weather and carry live stock in a more humane fashion?

I am aware of the extremely serious losses to which the honourable Member directs attention, and careful investigation is now being made of the circumstances which led to them. Our Orders require that the materials used in the construction of the pens in which animals are carried shall be of a substantial character, and of sufficient strength to withstand the action of the weather, and if it should appear, as the result of our inquiries, that there was any contravention of the Orders in this respect in the case referred to, we shall consider whether proceedings against the persons responsible should be instituted, or the use of the vessel for the carriage of animals prohibited.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that recently, in the morning, in the Law Committee Room, the thermometer registered 74 degrees, and in the Library 68 degrees; and that in entering the House between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., even on a fine morning, the atmosphere intimates an inadequate influx of fresh air; whether his attention has been called to the impossibility or inadequacy of opening windows, both in the lobbies and elsewhere; and whether he will consider the propriety of altering the windows generally so as to enable them to be opened during the summer months, especially at the top?

My honourable Friend does not state on which day the temperature in the Law Committee Room was shown to be 74 degrees. The readings of the thermometer taken between 10 and 11 o'clock on the first three days this week do not show so high a figure, the temperature varying between 67 and 69 degrees, or within two degrees of the outside shade temperature. However, if by any alteration of the existing windows greater comfort can be secured for Members using this Committee Room, I will gladly give directions that the necessary work shall at once be carried out. The matters referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the Question are now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state with regard to the Niger Convention to what territories Article IX. applies?

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the area over which English and French are respectively to receive the same fiscal treatment as nationals in West Africa; whether there is any provision to secure that French goods imported by way of the Ivory Coast, Senegal, or Algeria into the French territory in the upper part of the basin of the Niger shall be subject to any duty; and whether under the new Treaty it will be impossible to give Canada and other colonies which may decide to admit British products on specially favoured terms any reciprocal preferential advantages in the colonies of the Gold Coast, Lagos, and in the Niger Coast Protectorate without extending the same advantages to the French and, as a consequence, to all other Powers with which the most-favoured-nation Treaties exist?

The question in the first paragraph of the Question of the honourable Member for Londonderry identical with the Question standing in the name of the right honourable Member for the Forest of Dean. The fiscal areas mentioned in Article IX. of the Convention are marked on the large map which has been placed in the Library. Shortly summarised, they include the Ivory Coast and interior up to a point upon the ninth parallel, the Gold Coast and interior up to the eleventh parallel, with a projecting triangle, the apex of which is Wagadugu, Dahomey and its interior up to the same parallel, and Lagos and the Niger territories as defined in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Convention. French goods imported by way of the Ivory Coast, Senegal, or Algeria may be subject to any duty that the French Government choose to impose, but in the case of the Ivory Coast, which falls within the fiscal area, such duties must be identical with those imposed upon British goods. The answer to the last Question is in the affirmative.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what relief would be given to the ratepayers of the county Waterford, by the terms of the Local Government Bill, towards the reduction of the guarantee now paid by them to the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway?

If the railway in question comes within the provisions of clause 50, paragraph 4, of the Bill, the amount of relief to which the guaranteeing baronies would appear to be entitled on the present rate is roughly estimated at £3,130.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House what progress the Royal Commission upon the best way of granting old age pensions to deserving members of the working masses is making, and when its Report may be expected?

I understand that the Report to which my honourable Friend refers is now in the hands of the printers. It has been presented in dummy to the House, as my honourable Friend is probably aware.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the National Sea Fisheries Conference, held on the 31st March, as to the desirability of establishing telegraphic communication between this country and the Faroe Islands and Iceland; and whether, seeing that the Great Northern Telegraphic Company of Copenhagen are prepared to construct and maintain the cable, besides granting preferential conditions as to the transmission of telegrams, if given an annual subsidy of about £3,000 for 20 years, the Government are prepared to take advantage of this exceptional opportunity, more especially in view of the importance of the question to the Admiralty and to the meteorological stations, as well as to the fishing and commercial interests between this country and Iceland, which interests are annually increasing in importance and seriously suffering from the want of such communication?

A copy of the resolution of the National Sea Fisheries Conference was forwarded to the Treasury. Subsidies are granted by Her Majesty's Government for telegraphic communication only as regards cables which are considered to be necessary for purposes of Imperial defence or administration. The Great Northern Telegraphic Company is, in fact, a foreign company, and I know of no instance of such a subsidy to such a company; and no evidence has been laid before the Treasury to show that this scheme would afford such advantage to our national interests as would justify the proposed subsidy from the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government propose in the new Treaty of Commerce to exempt Canada from the most-favoured treatment accorded to goods from the rest of the British Empire; if this is in consequence of the preference which the Dominion is determined to accord from the 1st August to the manufactures of the United Kingdom over German goods; and, in such a case, if Her Majesty's Government will take care that its representatives stands firmly by the rights of the Colony?

The announcement to which my honourable and gallant Friend refers does not relate to the new Treaty of Commerce which is in course of negotiation with Germany, but to an ad interim provision which has been made by the German Government to cover the period between the expiration of the old and the conclusion of a new Treaty. Under this provisional régime, most-favoured-nation treatment is accorded to Great Britain and her colonies, with the exception of Canada; the reason for the exclusion of the latter being, doubtless, the circumstances to which allusion is made in the Question. The Dominion Government is, I believe, fully alive to its own interests in the matter, and is able to protect them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is any special reason why the Explanatory Memorandum of the Indian Financial Statement has this year been issued in such an abridged form; and whether the portions of the statement omitted upon this occasion will be published and be placed in the hands of Members before the discussion of the Financial Statement takes place at the end of the Session?

The Explanatory Memorandum was issued this year in an abridged form in order that, before the Debate of the East India Loan Bill, the House might be in possession of all the material information necessary for a discussion. I was not aware that there was any wish for the enlarged Memorandum of previous years, but, if such a feeling exists, I will lay on the Table a Supplementary Paper giving such portions of the usual Statement as were omitted in the Memorandum already issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the number of places for the Indian Civil Service to be offered this year, and what was the number allotted in the same service in the year 1884; and whether he will inform the House what is the principle by which the number of annual appointments in this service is regulated?

The number of appointments offered this year is 65. In 1884 the number was 36; but since 1887 provision has had to be made for the Burmah Commission. The number of places to be offered annually is settled quinquennially with reference to the number of sanctioned posts; but this settlement is modified from time to time with reference to the actual state of the service, which is reported to be much depleted at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received a copy of the new commercial Treaty between Germany and the Orange Free State; what are the terms of the clause under which the contracting Powers reserve the favours granted by one party to a neighbour for better intercourse at the frontier or under a Customs union; and whether a similar reservation will be made to the most-favoured-nation clause in all future British commercial treaties?

Yes, sir, we have received a copy of the Treaty in question. The clause referred to in the second paragraph is very long, and I cannot well read it out in reply to a question. But I shall be happy to give the honourable Member a translation of it if he desires. Her Majesty's Government could not give any such general assurance as is asked for in the concluding question. Each case must be dealt with on its merits as it arises.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the practice that telegraph clerks commencing annual leave on Bank Holidays are granted a compensatory day at the end of their holidays; whether this custom has been departed from in the case of Belfast telegraphists commencing holidays on 30th May (Whit Monday), and whether the reason for this departure from custom can be stated; and whether the Postmaster General will authorise that for the future, when Bank Holidays fall within the period of an officer's annual leave, the equivalent day shall be added to the holidays?

The practice is to allow an extra day when a Bank Holiday occurs during annual leave. In the case of 10 telegraphists at Belfast whose annual leave began on Whit Monday it was found inconvenient to include the extra day in their annual leave, but an equivalent day will be allowed to them later on. There is no reason for issuing any fresh instructions, inasmuch as the privilege is well understood; but, like all official leave, this is subject to the exigencies of the service.

I desire to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the draft Report of the Select Committee on Money-lending is not at the present time considered a confidential document, not to be issued to the Press; whether he is aware that it appeared in the Times this morning; whether he can state how a copy of the Report reached that newspaper, and, if not, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter?

In reply to my honourable Friend I may say that I saw the Report in the Times this morning with very great surprise and regret. It is manifest that the premature publication of the proceedings of a Select Committee is very embarrassing to the Committee itself, and is misleading to the public. I have not the slightest idea how the Report was conveyed to the Times; but I may point out that it is the original and not the amended draft that is published. The members of the Committee agreed at their meeting yesterday that the Report was not to be communicated to the Press.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business will be taken next Wednesday?

I wish, too, to ask a Question on a subject for which we have endeavoured to obtain information from the Lord Advocate—namely, whether the right honourable Gentleman will make arrangements for the discussion next week of the only two Scottish Government Bills which have come before the House—the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill and the Bill dealing with the equivalent grant to Scotland. It would be a great convenience if the discussion could be arranged for next week.

I hope the opportunity will be found for discussing the Attendance of Children (Scotland) Bill on Monday next. The other Scottish Bill will, I think, be brought on before the end of the month. On Wednesday I hope to be able to proceed with the Criminal Evidence Bill.

I should like to point out that on a Bill for the distribution of money, the only opportunity for objecting, if we wish to, to the method of distribution is on the first stage of the Bill.

I rise to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the widespread privation and dis- tress arising from the dispute between employers and employed in the South Wales coal field, and the dislocation of, and injury to, the commerce of the district by the continuance of the dispute, and the urgent necessity for putting into force the provisions of the Conciliation Act of 1896.

The honourable Member for Swansea asks leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the widespread privation and distress arising from the dispute between employers and employed in the South Wales coal field, the dislocation of, and injury to, the commerce of the district by the continuance of the dispute, and the urgent necessity for putting into force the Conciliation Act of 1896. Is it the pleasure of the House that leave be given?

In the few observations which I wish to make in support of this Motion I desire to avoid most scrupulously saying anything which may tend to embitter or prolong the painful controversy that is being carried on in South Wales. Nor, Mr. Speaker, for my part, do I intend to give any opinion upon, or to argue the merits of, the questions that are now being debated between the Coal Owners' Association and the miners, who have been formerly employed by them, and are now out of work. The object which my honourable Friends the Members for Glamorganshire and the Member for Monmouthshire and I have in view, without distinction of Party, is to direct the attention of the House to the present disastrous condition of affairs, and to inquire whether it is or is not possible for the Government to do something to bring to an end the quarrel or dispute—call it what you like—which has caused, and is causing, in an increasing degree, immense misery to thousands of families, especially to women and children; a dispute which is disturbing commercial operations of very great magnitude, which is inflicting grave loss on persons whose capital is invested in the coal industry, and which threatens to retard for a long time the progress of a very large and important part of the United Kingdom. Sir, I do not think it is necessary to deal at any length with the present situation. The gravity of the position may be estimated from very few facts. The total number of the miners habitually employed in South Wales coal fields is about 130,000. I have been unable to obtain any trustworthy information as to the amount of capital which is sung in the industry, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the amount is very large indeed. The dispute that is going on at the present time is that between employer and employed, in what are known as the associated collieries—that is to say, in collieries which belong to, or are being worked by, the members of the Coal Owners' Association. The number of men who have been employed by this Association, and who are now out of work is, I am informed, very nearly 90,000—the figure may be a little under the mark. And here, Sir, I want to make a parenthetical observation. In this industry, as in others, there are many classes of workmen employed, and I think it is a matter of credit to both sides in this dispute—certainly a matter of credit to the men—that the banksmen, firemen, and engineers, who are not directly concerned in the hewing and getting of coal, but in the maintenance of the collieries as going concerns, have remained at work with the unanimous consent of the labour leaders, and with the complete consent of the masters of the collieries in the districts affected. It is, of course, a matter of common knowledge to those who may notice what is stated in the public Press in regard to this controversy that there have been some difficulties in consequence of the despatch of military troops into the district, but fortunately, up to the present time such has been the reasonableness of the labour leaders that there has been no countenance given to the suggestion that these men should leave their work, and inflict a great loss upon the capitalists who are concerned in this industry. In most of the non-associated collieries work has gone on, the masters having conceded a considerable advance. That, for instance, has been the case in regard to the very large and important collieries which are greatly controlled by my honourable Friend the senior Member for Merthyr. But what I wish to point out to the President of the Board of Trade, and what I wish to point out to the Government as a whole, is, that if something is not done to terminate the present dispute, it is practically inevitable that its area will be extended—that it will go beyond the associated collieries and extend also to the non-associated collieries; because one of the inevitable results of the 90,000 men going out in the associated district has been that the price of coal has gone up, and that, therefore, is an encouragement to men in non-associated collieries to make further demands. The men have now-been out of work 12 weeks, and I am not using language of exaggeration when I say that the result has been disastrous. Its sad consequences were, first of all, felt by the men themelves, and especially by their wives and families, and the distress is fast spreading to other classes. It is a peculiarity of the coal industry that a strike or a lock-out on an extensive scale has the widest and most far-reaching effect. Coal is a commodity of prime necessity in our manufacturing concerns and in the national trade, and it so happens that the coal that is produced by the associated collieries and the other collieries is of the quality and capacity which is best adapted for the purpose of steamship navigation. No more striking illustration of the far-reaching effect of this dispute can be given than the fact that it entirely alters the plans of the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to our naval manœuvres in the autumn. I will not, Mr. Speaker, delay the House by going into details in regard to the terrible effects that have already occurred, but I should like to mention two very salient facts indicating the direct effects of the dispute which has only gone on for some 12 weeks. The number of seamen, for instance, shipping at Cardiff Swansea, and Newport in May, 1897, was 7,525; the number of men shipped last month was only 2,210, a diminution of nearly 70 per cent. And then, to take another illustration—an illustration of a kind which I might multiply almost indefinitely—I observe that the number of blast furnaces at work in Cardiff all last year was 16, while the number now at work at Cardiff is only three. But the effect of the dispute is not confined to work there; it goes considerably farther. The tradesmen who supply the workmen with the necessaries of life already find themselves in a position of difficulty. They are in many cases unable to fulfil their obligations and to replenish their stocks, and it is not too much to say that, from the highest to the lowest, there is some loss and some suffering caused by the continuance of the present state of affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, this being the condition of affairs, I desire to say a few words as to the origin and character of this unfortunate dispute. Here I must observe that for over 20 years the relations of employers and employed in this coal field have been regulated by what is known as the sliding-scale arrangement. The essential principle of that system is that the wages are adjusted by the average selling price of coal. Upon the average selling prices of coal at Cardiff, Barry, Swansea, and Newport, delivered free on board, as calculated by a two-monthly audit, the wages are adjusted automatically. I will not, Sir, give a detailed explanation of this system, of its merits on the one side, or its demerits on the other, but one part of this arrangement was that either party might give a six months' notice to terminate the arrangement. On 1st October last the duly-authorised repre- sentatives of the men gave that notice. The notice would expire on the 1st April, but before the date on which, the notice to determine the sliding scale became effective, the associated coal owners gave notice to terminate the monthly contracts of the men in their employ. That notice came into operation also on the 1st of April. I will not, Sir, ask under those circumstances, whether the cessation of work that has taken place is a strike or a lock-out. My honourable Friend the Member for Merthyr told the House the other day that it was a lockout and not a strike. I will not raise the question because I do not think, at this stage of the dispute it is really a very important matter. In my view, this dispute cannot be alleged to be a strike in any sense detrimental to the interests of the men, nor can it be alleged to be a lock-out in any sense offensive or detrimental to the interests of the employer. What has taken place is what, under the circumstances, was inevitable, an actual cssation of work. Now, Sir, what happened then? First of all some members of the Sliding Scale Committee attempted in their zeal to continue operations, but they forgot apparently that their power as members of the Sliding Scale Committee was at an end. They attempted to make a temporary arrangement to carry on the work of the collieries up to 9th April, and some of the men went on working beyond 1st April, but for the most part the 90,000 men came out on 1st April or the next day. Well, I have not the slightest doubt that the issues between the two parties in this great dispute were by no means clear. Some of the workmen and some of their leaders were in favour of continuing the sliding scale arrangement with modifications. Some of them were in favour of continuing the sliding scale arrangement if a provision were introduced for either what is called an absolute minimum or a relative minimum wage; but undoubtedly, so far as I can gather from the sources of information open to me, the great majority of the men were in favour of terminating the sliding scale arrangement altogether, and of introducing a new system of adjusting the wages between themselves and their employers. There was, on their side, therefore, a certain indefiniteness of opinion, and I venture to put it to the House that this indefiniteness is not to be wondered at when you come to think that you have 90,000 men to deal with, and 90,000 men were discussing the question under circumstances of peculiar difficulty to themselves. It is very difficult to get so large a body of men to see eye to eye upon any question, and essentially so upon a question which absolutely concerns the whole future conditions of their employment. Well, I wish to point out that, so far as these men are concerned, their action shows that the majority were agreed that the sliding scale had not resulted in a fair wage, when operating over a considerable period, as has been the case during the time since the great dispute of 1875, when the system came into vogue. This dissatisfaction on the part of the men was not any new thing. Last year was not the first time that they have given notice to terminate the sliding scale—they gave notice several times before, I am informed—but after discussion, and relying upon the advice of the members of the Sliding Scale Committee, the difficulty had been tided over. The decision to terminate the sliding scale arrangement on 1st April of this year was not arrived at in panic or in passion on the part of the men. It was given after anxious consideration, and under the belief that they were in the right, and that it was not by any means the best arrangement for this particular industry. On the other hand, the attitude of the masters was perfectly clear and definite. Here, I think I must say that, before 11th April, they had told the men that they were willing to continue the sliding scale system, and on 11th April, they issued at all the collieries concerned in this particular district, a notice on the sliding scale basis which specified the terms on which they were willing to continue operations, and allow the men to come in. Now, Sir, I think under these circumstances there is a certain definite step leading towards peace. It is a great thing to get any person engaged in a dispute of this kind, or of any kind, to say what his line of action is to be, what his demand is, in case it goes to arbitration. Now, the difficulty on the part of the men on April 11th, when the employers published this notice, was aggravated by the fact that the powers of the old sliding scale committee had ceased. By the termination of the sliding scale system, and by the operation of the notice, both masters and men who were on the sliding scale committee had lost any power of acting on behalf of those they had hitherto represented. They had only got such moral influence as they might have in consequence of their past action. Well, Sir, a discussion took place, and as a result of the discussion, as a result of the poll, as to which my honourable Friend on my left (the Member for the Rhondda Division) can speak with much more authority than I can, these 90,000 men have entrusted their cause to 16 gentlemen—16 representatives in whom they have confidence—and I think I am absolutely accurate in saying that the terms upon which this provisional committee, as it is called, have been elected, give them ample powers to carry on any reasonable negotiations for a settlement of this great dispute. Well, that being the case, I say that the creation of this provisional committee has distinctly advanced the prospects of peace in regard to this dispute. You have now two parties clearly emerging from the dispute. You have, on the one side, the emergency committee of the Coal Owners' Association, as to whose powers there can be no doubt whatever; and you have on the other side a provisional committee of 16, consisting of 11 members of the old sliding scale committee, together with five men added in order to secure a better and a greater representation of the conditions of the work of the men. Well, Sir, they having been appointed, I will speak in a word or two of what has taken place subsequently. The secretary of the provisional committee—Mr. Miles—wrote to the secretary of the Coal Owners' Association that the committee had been informed that they had full power, and that they were willing to meet the emergency committee of the association for discussion. On May 31st the two bodies met. Now I am not going into all that took place there. It would take a long time to state the various point urged on the one side and the other at the three or four conferences that took place between the provisional committee and the emergency committee; but, in substance, what has taken place is this: the provisional committee put forward a demand for an immediate advance of 10 per cent., to continue in force to the 31st of December, 1898. That, of course, has reference to the termination of the immediate dispute, without prejudice to the main difference between the parties, in order that the masters and men might come together and go to work at once. Secondly—and this was the principal demand—the men demanded that in the meantime a conciliation board should be formed to regulate the general wages rate, the board to be composed of an equal number of representatives of employers and employed, with an arbitrator mutually agreed upon to decide in the event of the respective representatives failing to agree, the conciliation board to continue in force until June 20, 1899, and then to be determinable by a six months' notice. Now the effect of that proposal on the part of the men was, of course, to terminate the sliding scale arrangement in the sense of its being an automatic arrangement for a settlement of wages by reference to the selling price of coal. Whether that is right or wrong is one of those questions which ought to be put to an impartial person who can inquire into all the circumstances of the case, and see what has happened in the past; at any rate, this is a clear and definite statement on the part of this newly authorised committee, that they want to get rid of the sliding scale system as an automatic way of settling wages, and seek the appointment of a Conciliation Board. Now to these proposals the employers replied that they regretted that circumstances necessitated their again declining the men a 10 per cent. advance, but they were still prepared to continue the working of the collieries upon the terms set forth on the 11th of April, by which the men were entitled to an advance of 3.16 per cent. above the wages paid in the month of March, 1898; secondly, they said that a permanent joint board, consisting of an equal number of employers and employed, should be established, with an automatic arrangement for wages being controlled by the selling price obtained from time to time, according to the scale agreed upon, and also that the same board should settle differences arising hereafter in the same way as the joint committee formerly did; thirdly, they declined to alter their previously- expressed views, and to adopt the proposal to grant an arbitrator; fourthly, that the above terms were subject to a satisfactory agreement being arrived at for a term of four years, and determinable afterwards by a six months' notice on either side, to be given by the 1st of July or the 1st of January, the whole agreement to be on the basis of the terms settled on 11th of April last. Now I want to point out that two very definite steps have just been taken. First of all, as I have already said, the provisional committee are entitled to act on behalf of the men, the emergency committee are entitled to act on behalf of the employers; but you have not only got the two parties authorised and influential enough, as I believe, to carry out any award made by any arbitrator, but you have this further step—you have denned the issues. I am perfectly certain that anyone who has been concerned in arbitration—and I have been concerned as arbitrator in disputes in this particular district—will unhesitatingly say that it is a very definite step towards peace when you get the issues clearly put forward. That is the position here. Well, Sir, these steps having been taken, and these circumstances being extremely hopeful circumstances, there was an unfortunate interruption, if I may call it so, to the course of affairs, as they were proceeding under the direction of the leaders of both sides. I refer, of course, to the despatch of military troops in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. I have not sufficient information to say whether the action of the justices in this matter was or was not proper. The justices are men whom I have known, and before whom I have practised, and they appear to me to be as competent a set of justices as in any other county, and I have no doubt there was some intimation which led them to take the action which resulted in the despatch of a very considerable number of additional troops to this district. But, Sir, I am not going to attack the local authorities, nor am I certainly going to attack the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to this matter; my only reference to the matter arises from a consideration of the question of how to bring these parties together and to terminate this dispute. I do not expect the Home Secretary to take upon himself the responsibility of contradicting the opinion formed by those on the spot who have the charge of the preservation of the peace, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not think that even in alluding to this matter I am making any suggestion against the exercise of the authority with which he is entrusted; but, Sir, notwithstanding that, the action of the local authority in asking for more troops has undoubtedly had an irritating effect upon the men. But whether that is right or wrong, whether the men have felt themselves irritated or insulted by the action of the authorities, is not the question: I am simply asking the House to consider a question of fact. These men, who have been out for 12 weeks, did not, as I have pointed out, act hastily. They feel that the very fact that the justices of the county asked for more troops, and that more troops have been sent, is an insult to them in their character as citizens. They have put forward a definite statement, and have in every way met their employers. They have, in their opinion, met their employers as controversialists in the fairest possible way in which the matter can be carried on under the circumstances, and they deny that the district in which they have lived, most of them for many years, is in any sense disturbed. I should like to point out to the House that the majority of these men—I am talking of the 90,000 men who are out—had been living in the district for many years, and I think my honourable Friends will bear me out when I say that the occupation that they carry on is in many cases an hereditary pursuit. There are families in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire who for three or four generations have been carrying on this business, and thousands of those 90,000 men are responsible ratepayers. They own, either as freeholders or lessees, the houses in which they live, they have built the chapels in which they worship, and they have paid—I do not suppose they could do so now—the expense of carrying on their religious organisations. Let me give you an instance to show the character of the men concerned. Only two years ago, when the question of building a national college was concerned, these men actually subscribed £800 towards the building fund, and before the county council of Glamorganshire or Monmouthshire had taken any action whatever these men had founded scholarships and exhibitions to enable the more brilliant and the more capable of their children to go to this national institution. Now, that is the class of men that you are dealing with. Of course, I cannot set up a very high character for every one of those 90,000 men, but the bulk of the men who are now standing side by side, and who are backing up their leaders engaged in this dispute, are responsible ratepayers of this country, and have raised a reasonable question for decision. Now, Sir, these men not only look upon the action of the authorities in bringing the military into the county as a kind of slur upon their character as law-abiding citizens, but they resent it as being a move on the part of the employers. They think it shows that the Government are taking sides in this quarrel. They do not understand the fine distinctions we have to draw in this House between the authority of the Home Secretary and of the justices, and I am bound to say that the action of the justices, unless it was absolutely necessary, which I do not believe, was about the most ill-advised step that could be taken in the interests of peace. Notwithstanding that, I do not think the situation is entirely unhopeful. As I have already said, the two great steps towards peace which have been taken in order to find out who are irresponsible for the negotiations on both sides now enable me to ask one or two questions of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I refer in my Motion to the Conciliation Act of 1896, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that four distinct powers are given to the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. In the first place, he may inquire into the cause and circumstances of the difference; in the second place, he may take such steps as may seem expedient to him for the purpose of enabling the parties to the difference to meet together, but that I pass by, because I do not think it is relevant to the present case; in the third place—and there is distinct relevancy to the present matter here—paragraph (c), sub-section 1 of section 2, says the President of the Board of Trade may—

"On the application of employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of the means available for conciliation in the district or trade, and the circumstances of the case, appoint a person or persons to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation."

Then there is the power, "on the application of both parties to the difference," to appoint an arbitrator. In respect of that, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether, in case the Provisional Committee should think it expedient to invite the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator, he will bring his power to bear upon the employers to assent to the appointment of some responsible citizen to take upon himself the burden of deciding all matters in dispute. I have had my say, and I will only add that in times of stress and suffering the workmen of this country naturally look to the House of Commons for some mention of their grievances. The men who are now engaged in this strike ask for the sympathy of their representatives in this House, and for the intervention, if that is possible, of the Government. I believe the discussion of this matter will do great good; it will strengthen the hands of the men, who are ready to resume negotiations in a reasonable spirit; and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will indicate firmly and clearly his desire to exercise the power he possesses at the earliest possible moment. It is in this spirit, and in this hope, that I move the adjournment of the House.

I beg to second the Motion. I do not think any apology is due to the House for calling its attention to this matter, because it is a question of the utmost gravity, and amounts, in fact, to a serious national concern. I agree with my honourable Friend the Member for the Swansea District, and assure the Government that the Motion we are now making is not made in any spirit of condemnation for the past, but in the full belief that the time has now arrived when something should be done, and in the hope and expectation that something will be done by the Government to bring to an end this terrible struggle, which has already wrought such mischief, and is causing increasing misery and distress, loss and destruction, in a whole province, every day it lasts. The right honourable Gentleman who presides over the Board of Trade knows perfectly well the importance of the situation. A deputation waited upon the right honourable Gentleman as long ago as 9th May, and on that occasion he described the crisis in the following words—

"It is to all intents and purposes a national calamity when a dispute of this kind occurs and when so many men are laid idle in an industry in which the country is so deeply interested."

These are not the words of exaggeration; and that being the situation, it is for the employers to accede to what we now believe is the wish of the men—namely, that there should be intervention on the part of the Board of Trade to bring this deplorable dispute to an end. The honourable Member for the Swansea District has referred to the number of men—nearly 100,000—who are affected by the strike in South Wales and Monmouthshire; but, if we regard the matter from the point of view of the families, there are at least half a million of people dependent upon this struggle coming to an end at an early date. The output of the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal field is 35,000,000 tons per annum, and the gravity of the situation will be at once seen when I mention that the Association of Coalmasters, who are concerned in this dispute, control about 85 per cent. of this output. Therefore you have a stoppage of about 30,000,000 tons per annum in one coal field in the United Kingdom. Moreover, several industries are affected by this stoppage, The honourable Member for the Swansea District has told the House that the wretchedness and misery which prevail at Barry and Cardiff amongst the people whose industry and employment depend upon the carrying on of the collieries cannot well be exaggerated. In a small circle surrounding Cardiff there are 7,000 men employed as coal trimmers and in other employments connected with the shipping of coal who are out of work, and the loss of wages has been estimated in that district alone at not less than £12,000 per week. I am not going into all the details traversed by the honourable Member for the Swansea District—the exhaustive statement of the honourable Member renders that unnecessary—but we ought to remember, and I beg the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to remember, that this lock-out has lasted for 12 weeks. There has not been such a stoppage of work-in South Wales for over 20 years. In 1874 there was a great strike covering the whole coal field. It lasted, unfortunately, 18 weeks; but at that time there were only 20,000 colliers in the whole of the coal fields, whereas there are now 130,000, and a calculation was made by so very careful a man as the late Lord Aberdare that the loss of wages in the 1874 strike amounted to £3,000,000. Compare that with the immense number of men now employed, and it would not be an over-estimate to say that the loss in wages already amounted to something nearer £10,000,000. We ask now that the Government should do what they can to bring this struggle to an end. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has intimated, in answer to a question put to him from this side of the House, that he would not be unwilling to intervene if he were approached by both parties to this dispute, and if he thought his intervention would be of advantage. I trust I am not stating the views of the right honourable Gentleman unfairly or inadequately. Now, Sir, so far as I have been able to observe, there have been many indications on the part of the men that they are willing to allow the matter in dispute between them and their employers to be determined by the Board of Trade. The masters, on the other hand, have not, up till now, exhibited any desire for Government intervention. The accusation of the masters is, as I understand it, that the stoppage of work is a strike and not a lock-out, and that it was brought about by the conduct of the men in giving a certain notice. I desire to avoid controversial matter, but it is important, as we are now the mouthpiece in this House more of the men than of the masters, that we should give reasons why we make this application for intervention to the Government. It is important also that we should point out that the accusation of the masters that the strike was brought about by the men is a statement made in error. The masters' statement is contained in their manifesto, and is as follows—

"In consequence of the workmen having given notice to terminate the sliding scale agreement, the employers were subsequently obliged to give notice for terminating contracts concurrently with the workmen's notice, so that the stoppage is entirely due to the action of the workmen. The trouble has been entirely brought about by the workmen giving six months' notice to put an end to the sliding scale agreement, which has secured peace and regular work in the district for 22 years, and taking no steps for about four months to negotiate for a new agreement."

As far as I hare been able to follow the circumstances of the case, that is not an accurate statement of the cause of the difficulties. Undoubtedly, the men in giving notice six months before 1st April that they desired that the arrangement of the sliding scale which with variations, had continued for over 20 years should come to an end, were quite within their rights, because it was one of the terms between employers and men that either side might put an end to the arrangement upon giving six months' notice; and it has been thought by the men that they have not hitherto had as much as they are entitled to out of the profits of the important undertakings in which they are engaged. This is not the time, nor is this the occasion, to debate that question, but that was the opinion of a very large majority of colliers in South Wales. That being so, no one, I am sure, who is a fair-minded person will say that they were not within their rights in giving that notice. But, Sir, that was not a notice to terminate their work; that was not a notice the effect of which must necessarily be that the collieries should be closed; and the counter notice which was given by the employers was not in any sense rendered necessary by the notice given on behalf of the men. The employers—in order, I am afraid, to force the hands of the men in some measure—gave notice on the 28th February to terminate on the 31st March or 1st April their employment entirely. Therefore, the workmen had their contracts termi- nated by their employers, and one finds it difficult to understand how they could have gone on working unless a new arrangement was come to. I do not think it is necessary for me now to go in detail into what the demands of the men were at the commencement of the struggle, because the men, not on account of any want of faith in the justice of the demands they made, but in order, in some measure, to meet those who employed them, have made modifications in their demands; and I will, before I sit down, ask the House to allow me to state what the present demands of the men are, although I do not think it is necessary for me to say what they were at the commencement. But the answer made to the men by the masters was a mere negative, and has been a mere negative from the beginning. It is true the Emergency Committee who have been acting for the employers have always said and reiterated much more often than was necessary that they were prepared to discuss anything which the workmen had to lay before them. The workmen, through their Provisional Committee, headed by my honourable Friend behind me, have on various occasions stated to the masters the modifications in their demands which they are willing to make. But the reply of the masters has always been: We have put before you on the 11th April our terms, and those terms you must accept; those are the terms to which we adhere. It is necessary to consider for a moment what the terms are which are embodied in this counter notice which the employers gave, and which they posted up at most of the associated collieries on the 11th April, because those terms—apparently, like the laws of the Medes and Persians—are not to be altered, and it is important that the House should know what they are. First of all, the masters knew perfectly well that the men were dissatisfied with the sliding scale. The answer was—"a sliding scale we must have; we will not deal with you on any other terms than that you must agree to a sliding scale." And, curiously enough, not the same scale as the old one, but a much worse scale; so much worse that the men think that, rightly or wrongly, it was devised by the masters to help them to pay the additional expense which has been placed on them by the Compensation Act passed by the Government last year. By the new scale offered on the 11th April, whenever the selling price of coal, free on board at Cardiff, is under 11s., the terms are much less than they were last year; and it is when the price of coal is low that the sliding scale has operated hardly on the men. The men, when the price is high, benefit; the shoe pinches, of course, as everyone knows, when the price of coal is low. By this alternative sliding scale when the prices are below 11s. the scale is very much worse than the scale of 1893. Now, Sir, another provision of these terms is that with this sliding scale, which the masters say the men shall work under hereafter, there shall be audits at lengthened intervals. One of the complaints of the men under the old scale is that the audits have not been frequent enough. It is natural enough that the men, when they see the selling price of coal going up, should desire that their wages also should go up; but they do not feel the benefit for two months, and they have asked that the audits should be more frequent in future. Nevertheless, the proposal was to extend, not limit, the period within which the audit should be made, and to make the audits four-monthly audits, instead of two-monthly audits. Moreover, the masters say, and it seems to me a most unreasonable demand, that whatever arrangement we come to, that arrangement must continue for four years. Well, now, Sir, who can say, with the vicissitudes of trade and the other changes of circumstances in this important locality, it is fair to ask the men, and at a time when the men themselves are certainly dissatisfied with the present state of things, to agree that the new arrangement should be carried on for at least four years definitely? Sir, the final term in the counter terms of the masters is, and has been, and I am afraid will continue to be, a crux in the way of the men accepting any terms of this kind. The masters have, for the first time—almost for the first time, at any rate—insisted as part of the terms of employment of their workmen that the system which is known by the name of the discharge note system should prevail in the whole district. I will tell the House shortly what that discharge note system is. It has been conceived in order that when a workman has come, say, from a colliery where there is a strike or a lock-out and seeks employment at some other colliery in the coalfield, the employers in that colliery should know from what works the workman comes; and if a workman comes from a works where there has been a strike or a lock-out, there is at once a black mark put against that man, and there is no hope or chance of his obtaining any employment at all. The discharge note is insisted upon, for paragraph 12 of the masters' notice of the 11th April, to which I have referred, is as follows—

"No workman will be employed at this colliery without producing his discharge, or his last pay ticket from his last employment, and it is a condition of his employment that on his engagement his last discharge or pay ticket shall be given up by him to his employers."

There has been in these circumstances a deadlock. I have in some particulars expressed my opinion of the fairness of the demands on the one side and the demands that are made on the other. I do not desire to set myself up as a judge of them at all. The serious fact we have got to consider now in the House of Commons is that there is a complete deadlock between masters and men. What is to be done? The effect cannot be possibly exaggerated. Its effect upon the collieries of the district is tremendous. I will give the House just a few figures to illustrate the position. The quantity of coal shipped from Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, and Llanelly, both foreign and coastwise, during May, 1897, amounted to 1,719,022 tons; in the corresponding month of this year, May, 1898, that quantity fell to 495,929 tons, showing that in 1897 the quantity in tons of coal shipped at the four ports which I have named over that shipped in May last was 1,223,000 tons—practically a million and a quarter of tons shipped in one month more than in the corresponding period of this year. Just one other set of figures. Taking three railways which are local—the Barry, the Rhymney, and the Taff Vale—the traffic which those three railways have lost from the commencement of the strike up to the 7th June was as follows:—Barry, £44,235; Rhymney, £20,066; and Taff Vale, £80,001, making up a total on the three railways from 1st April to 6th June of £144,302. In addition to that, there was also a diminution of traffic on the Great Western Railway of about £62,000 in that period, and a great portion of that, as honourable Members are aware, was actually due to diminished coal traffic. There is also a very serious diversion in the market. People are discovering that for the special purposes for which South Wales coal has been sold there is other coal in other parts of the world which is said to be as good. There was a letter from Mr. Pyman Watson in the Western Mail of the 14th April, 1898, a short extract from which I will read. He wrote—

"We have the Roumanian contract. We offered 30,000 tons Newcastle coal to keep them going till the Welsh strike is over. They reply they have bought 30,000 tons of German coal for shipment at Rotterdam at a lower price."

On 20th May a contract of 80,000 tons for the Roumanian Government railways at £1 2s. 8d. a ton was lost to South Wales, and Germany supplied it at £1 a ton. On 1st June the Austrian Lloyd bought 25,000 tons of Australian coal for Trieste requirements. The Welsh coal displaced by German coal amounted in the month of May to 29,041 tons. That is a very serious matter, not merely for the workmen in the district, but an extremely serious matter also for the employers, the owners of collieries, and the owners of royalties. Moreover, we know perfectly well that these dislocations of markets, once they have taken place, are not so easily restored. Once you have customers driven away from a certain market it is a very difficult thing indeed to get them back into that same market again. Moreover, Sir, I must refer before I sit down to the danger which has threatened the peace and good order in the district. Now, my learned Friend who preceded me made some statements, without colour, and with every desire to be fair with regard to the importation of the military into the county of Glamorgan and the county of Monmouth. Sir, that is an extremely important matter. Fortunately, we are able to say in this House that there has been no rioting, that there has been no disturbance in the locality at all, which would justify the importation of the military. Reading from a newspaper which sides more with the employers than with the employed—that is why I have chosen it—reading from the Western Mail of 11th June, I find these words—

"It is full time that some definite steps were taken towards settlement for, in addition to the vast amount of suffering which the stoppage is causing not only to the colliers and their families, but to thousands of other workers who have no part in the struggle, there are ominous indications of trouble, and possibly violence, in certain parts of the district. It is a noteworthy fact that over 100,000 men in a small area have been idle for over 10 weeks, and yet there have been practically no offences against the law amongst the whole of them."

A few days later in the same newspaper I find this—

"In connection with all the allegations of seething lawlessness in the valleys, which, previous to the arrival of the military, only gave rise to a small hustling at which even the police laugh, and of which a half-witted lad is the only trophy, the authors seem to have been worked up to a striking degree of determination. Meantime the objects of all this lethal energy, the idle collier and his wife and children, dreamily delight in the gay pageant of military display and line the roads in good-humoured thousands when the troops march out."

Can anything be more eloquent as a protest against the importation of the military into these districts than the conduct of some of those workmen who are allowed by their fellow-workmen to continue work—the outside fitters and enginemen and other persons employed in the Albion Colliery? There, it appears, the military were stationed near where these men had been working, and the men said that they would not do another stroke of work until the military were removed, and the military were withdrawn, and the men went on working in peace, and without molestation, to keep the collieries safe and sound for the owners. I am not blaming the President of the Board of Trade or the Home Secretary for what has been done: they may not be responsible: but the men in these localities believe that the military were brought down by one side of the disputants, and that the importation of the military into the locality was due to the representations of the masters in the first instance, and that the object of it was to terrorise the men into terms of submission held out by the masters. I do not know how closely honourable Members of this House have been following this dispute and the amount of starvation it has entailed in South Wales. I will give one or two instances of the suffering that has taken place, not merely in those localities directly affected by the strike, but also in those shipping ports to which allusions have been made—

"From the 5th of May to the 22nd of June 42,504 persons were relieved, 6,735 gallons of soup and 14,054 loaves of bread being consumed at the Bute soup kitchen."

Now that indicates the suffering which had taken place in that locality; but, if I may trespass upon the attention of the House, I will read one or two typical cases—

"Many of the men are away 'on tramp,' looking for work, and the women have sold everything possible. Doleful tales are told about the manner in which the household goods have gone to the pawnbrokers. First the pictures and ornaments, then the furniture, even to the bedstead and the bedding; the plates and dishes and cups have gone one or two at a time for a few pence with which to buy bread; then they have been obliged to take away the very clothes. Only two days ago a woman went to the committee to appeal for help. She had sold her last chemise, and her only clothing was an old petticoat and an equally old dress, with a pair of boots and stockings; and she was only one of dozens that are known to be in a similar plight. A glance inside some of the houses shows how far this sort of work has gone, for there is nothing to be seen but the bare walls. Amongst the cases relieved by the committee are the following: A woman had been living with six children, all under eight years of age, upon the barest crusts. Everything she could sell went to the pawnbroker, and at last for two days all they had to eat were two raw cabbages. But this is not all the woman's sufferings. She had not paid her rent, and the bailiffs were sent to her house to distrain or evict."

And here I may say parenthetically that the only disturbances which have occurred, such as they are, have arisen from the fact that the arrears of rent have been enforced by the landlords in these places, while the people are suffering from staravation—

"A coal trimmer's wife is left at home with six children while the man is away looking for work. She has been ill and had had no food, when she applied on Thursday evening, since Sunday, and was suckling a child. In an almost similar case a woman was found with a baby only a few months old. The woman had had nothing to eat for two days, and for the same period the child had been sucking at an empty bottle, and all that it had received was some water."

To read these statements, which are not in any way exaggerated, is absolutely heartrending even to the most callous individual, and the whole situation may be summed up in the words of an individual who had no interest in the matter, but who simply went down to see what the situation really was. He summed it up in these words—

"It is the slow, pitiless, legal civilised murder of a whole province far more tragic than any battlefield."

And we know that many of the best of the workmen have been going about stone-breaking! And these are the best class of workmen employed in any industry which this country can show! I hope I am not prejudiced when I say that you cannot point to any body of men who are a finer and nobler set of men than these coal miners of South Wales and Monmouthshire. We desire that the present state of things should come to a speedy end. What is the attitude of the men? I am desirous of showing that the men are ready and willing to come to a settlement; nay, more than that, they implore the Government to step in and enforce a settlement. As long ago as last February they offered that the matters which could not be arranged by the representatives of both sides should be referred to an arbitrator. Again, on the 12th of April, a resolution was come to by the representatives of the men, and again the offer was made to submit the differences between them to an arbitrator. This offer was refused by the employers, and then again it was made by the men upon 26th April. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows perfectly well what steps have been taken and what has been dono in order to endeavour to bring the Government to do something in this matter. What the right honourable Gentleman is empowered to do was pointed out by my honourable Friend behind me. He cannot enforce an arbitration unless both parties consent, but he is not in consequence quite powerless. He has a right to hold an inquiry, and say to the employers and to his Government as well, "This is a matter of great national interest. Your ships cannot go on their way, and the time has come when, in the interests of commerce, the disputes between masters and men shall come to an end, and that they shall submit the matter to an arbitrator." We ask the right honourable Gentleman to intervene in the interests of commerce, of the public peace, and in the far higher and more sacred interests of humanity, to relieve the loss and suffering caused by the deadlock, the continuance of which will work untold mischief and disaster, and be an indelible blot on our civilisation.

The constituency which I have the honour to represent is very materially affected by the struggle so ably described by the two honourable Gentlemen who have just spoken. I venture to intervene for a few moments to show the House what has taken place. I desire, in the first place, to express my general concurrence with the views and facts that have been stated by them. I do not think that they have in any way exaggerated the unhappy situation as it now exists. No one can feel more strongly than I do how disastrous the present situation is, and how far-reaching its effects for evil may be. Still, at the same time, I cannot see how a discussion here can in any way assist legislation in a matter of this kind. I cannot see how the House can constitute itself a judge in labour disputes; nor how, by any resolution that we may pass, the House can intervene in a dispute between masters and men. Possibly if we did so we might do more harm than good, and any intervention on our part would be resented both by masters and men. At the same time, I should fail in my duty to the constituency that I represent if I were to disparage any action which the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade may have in contemplation to bring about the termination of this labour dispute. Indeed, I join with my honour- able Friends who have just spoken in asking him if the time has not arrived when he might successfully intervene, and do everything he can to bring about a satisfactory settlement. I do so, not only on behalf of those masters and men whom I represent in this House, and who are parties to the struggle about which we are speaking, but I do so also the more particularly on behalf of those men, women, and children who dwell in other than the colliery districts, who are no parties to the struggle, but who are dependent for their daily bread on the supply of coal that may be sent down to the seaports. I may say that my constituents have suffered more in this connection than those of any other division in South Wales. In Barry and Penarth, two towns which I have the honour to represent, there are no less than 3,000 adults and 5,000 children receiving daily relief from the soup kitchens. The local bodies have done all they can by instituting relief works to mitigate the distress. Voluntary subscriptions have also been freely given, but I very much fear that both these sources of assistance are rapidly becoming exhausted; and I cannot contemplate without feelings of extreme sympathy and of horror what may happen if this unhappy warfare is unduly prolonged. Now, Sir, the honourable Member for Mid Glamorgan has told us that in his opinion it is improper to import military forces into the coal fields of South Wales. I do not wish to say for one moment that the act was judicious or injudicious. I think I may claim to have had a certain amount of experience as to the employment of the military in aid of the civil power, and I unhesitatingly state from the experience I have gained that there are occasions when the presence of troops in a district does more harm than good, inasmuch as it acts as an irritant to the people of a district who may not possibly have contemplated any violence or any breach of the peace whatsoever. That is my experience. At the same time, I am bound to admit that there are occasions when it is absolutely essential that the military should be present, and when it might be impossible to get them there from another district, to take part in the prevention of violence or outrage, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the local authority in the district of which we are speaking only called upon the assistance of the military forces after having very care-fully considered the situation, and having come to the conclusion that it would be dangerous, in the interests of public peace and the welfare of the locality, not to have troops actually located in the district in which they might be required. I do not wish to enter into statistics such as have already been fully gone into by the mover and seconder of this Motion. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan stated that in his opinion the sliding-scale principle was a mistake.

No; I did not say that. I expressed no opinion at all.

In that case no doubt the argument must be wrong; because I do not think anything has done more to preserve peace and keep South Wales colliers from strikes than the principle of the sliding scale. I earnestly hope that in any arrangement that might be brought about in the future for the settlement of the dispute the sliding-scale principle will still be applied to the coal district of South Wales. My honourable and learned Friend found fault with the masters for insisting that there should be at least a four years' contract entered into. He pointed out the great danger that might arise from the diversion of our foreign market. In my opinion nothing could be more hurtful to our foreign market than that there should be an uncertainty as to the continuation of our industry at home; and unless we make it well known to our foreign customers that our contracts will be continued for a substantial time, like four years, I do not think we shall be very likely to obtain custom from them all. Sir, I do not wish to say any more. I feel most forcibly that the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should do whatever he possibly can to put an end to this unfortunate struggle. A more disastrous dispute I do not think has taken place in the Labour world in the present generation.

I am very glad the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down concurred practically with the Motion of my honourable and learned Friend behind me. But I cannot agree with him in the observation he made in the beginning of his remarks that this discussion would be of no use. Why, the object of this discussion is to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the expediency—indeed, the necessity—of taking some action. Now, if it were the object of this discussion to thrash out the merits of the dispute as between employers and employed, I should be in accord with the honourable and gallant Gentleman in that that would not be useful or expedient to discuss at the present moment. The Motion merely declares that the time has arrived when Her Majesty's Government, under the provision of the Conciliation Act, should take some action; and that, I think, is a very proper subject of discussion at the present moment, and I hope it will be successfully discussed. In that I hope we shall have the support of the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I do not go into any of the details of the misery and suffering and the loss which are being experienced in consequence of this unhappy dispute; they are too well known—they are known to every Member of this House. It is felt that it is not only a local disaster but that it is a great national evil; and in such a condition of things it is felt that it is clearly the duty of the Executive Government to exercise whatever powers they have, be they greater or be they less, to put an end to this great national evil. I am not going to blame the right honourable Gentleman for not having interfered earlier. As he knows, I took part in the deputation which came to him six weeks ago. We then all entertained the hope, and expressed the opinion that matters might come to an early settlement. That was six weeks ago, and that hope can no longer be entertained. Therefore, in my opinion at least, the time has come when the Government should exercise what powers they possess, whether they be successful or not—when they should fulfil their duty in at least making the attempt. We often hear it said that the Government cannot act unless both parties come together. We know that they have not done so; I have no authority at the present moment for saying that they are likely to do it. But that is not what Parliament contemplated in the Conciliation Act; it contemplated action where neither of the parties came to him in the first instance. Let us assume that at the present moment neither party is prepared to come and ask for the right honourable Gentleman's intervention. In the second clause of the Act power is given to the President of the Board of Trade to inquire into the causes and circumstances of a dispute. That is a power which the right honourable Gentleman possesses, quite irrespective of any action or solicitation from either party. It may be said that this might be useless at the present time. I do not think so. First of all I think the action of the Executive Government in coming forward would be an authoritative recognition of the national character of the evil. In the next place, it would give us an authentic account of the real position of the parties. You read in the newspapers, and you hear statements at meetings on the one side and the other, as to what is their true attitude, but at present we have no official account of the real character of the differences. We ought to have it, and the right honourable Gentleman might send down a fitting person, clothed with the authority of the Government, to make inquiry, and the employers would have to come forward and say what they demanded, and what they are prepared to do. On the other hand, the employees could place before that authority and the country what is the character of their demands; and I cannot help thinking that a thorough inquiry at the present moment under the authority of the Government would have some tendency at least to bring this dispute to an end. At all events, it ought to be tried. If it failed, then the failure would be deeply regretted; but here is a power given by Parliament to the Government which has not yet been tried. The object of the Motion, I think, is to urge on the right honourable Gentleman at least to try and exercise of this power. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right honourable Gentleman said—

"There was a provision of the Bill to which the Government attached considerable importance; it was the provision, which empowered the Board of Trade to intervene on their own initiative with the view of bringing the parties together, under a chairman to be mutually agreed upon, or, failing that, fixed by the Board of Trade."

That is a power which has not yet been tried; it is a weapon in the armoury of the right honourable Gentleman; and one of the objects of this Motion is to urge him to use it. That is the real meaning of the Bill, and the preliminaries were provided with this object. The Bill was passed by the right honourable Gentleman himself, and it justifies him in acting upon his own initiative, and in trying, in his own words, to ascertain what are the differences between the parties, and endeavouring to assist them. That is exactly what we are asking the right honourable Gentleman to do in the first instance, and even if he had no success with either party an authoritative inquiry of this kind would assist him in endeavouring to arrive at an understanding. Well, Sir, that is the first step. Then, in subsection (c) of the Bill it is provided that—

"On the application of the employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of moans available for conciliation in the district or trade and the circumstances of the case,"

the Board of Trade may—

"appoint a person to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation."

Here, again, you do not want the consent of both parties. If either party were to come forward to ask the President of the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator he has the power to do so. Well, I imagine it may be quite possible, and I hope that it is even probable, that in the course of that inquiry one or other of the parties would come forward and ask the right honourable Gentleman to appoint a conciliator, and in that case he has the power to appoint such a person, and then it is provided that—

"If any person is so appointed to act as conciliator, he shall inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference by communication with the parties and otherwise shall endeavour to bring about a settlement of the difference, and shall report his proceedings to the Board of Trade."

Well, here are two methods, one of which requires no consent from anybody, and has for its object only to ascertain what is the actual position of the parties with regard to one another, what are the conditions of the trade, and what are the counter-claims on either side. If, as my honourable and learned Friends, who have more means of local knowledge than I can pretend to have upon this subject, are of opinion that it is not impossible that the right honourable Gentleman may have a request from one of the parties to intervene, then he can appoint a conciliator. I venture to say that in the situation in which we now find ourselves, there is no method or instrument with which he has been armed by Parliament which the right honourable Gentleman is not bound to employ for the purpose of bringing about a settlement. Sir, this discussion has been conducted, and I hope will be continued, in a most moderate and reasonable spirit; but I think we ought to urge upon the Government that they should come forward, and that we ought to help them in coming forward with the assurance that they will be supported by the opinion of the House of Commons, on both sides, in endeavouring to bring about a settlement.

No, no!

The right honourable Gentleman says "No, no!" but he has only just come in.

The right honourable Gentleman spoke of both sides having agreed to intervention.

I meant the majority on both sides, but I could never venture to speak for the right honourable Gentleman himself. I say that I hope both sides will desire to support and authorise the Government in coming forward and endeavouring to use all the means at their disposal to bring these parties together, and to bring to a conclusion this dispute which has produced such melancholy and disastrous results.

Sir, no one will, I am sure, complain for a moment of those honourable Members who are peculiarly interested in this matter for having brought forward this motion on a subject which is one of the most extreme importance, and one on which we should all be glad to think that we could see our way to bring about a settlement. I am sure that I need not say how entirely I sympathise with what has been said by honourable Gentlemen opposite with regard to the distress which undoubtedly does prevail in the district affected by this trade dispute. And, Sir, much as we may sympathise with all that has been said on that subject, our sympathy will probably be extended to a larger extent to those innocent sufferers who themselves have nothing whatever to do with this particular dispute, but who suffer as much, and perhaps more, from the continuance of the dispute than those who are actually and actively engaged in it. So far as the workmen are concerned, I am glad to think that there is not that great amount of distress which some people imagined, as they have, undoubtedly, in the course of their years of continuous employment, frugally, and properly, laid aside no inconsiderable amount of money. The honourable Gentleman who seconded this Motion spoke, I think, of the efforts which the workmen had made in a social direction, and we know that, as a matter of fact, they are undoubtedly in possession of more funds than was at one time supposed. That result goes to show both that they are frugal and saving, and also that they have had wages which have enabled them to be frugal and saving. But, Sir, those who are suffering most are people who are not directly engaged in the strike, but who are affected by it; and I am sure that there is no Minister and no individual Member of this House who would not gladly do everything that he could, and everything that lay in his power, to bring to an end a condition of things entailing so much suffering and distress. But there is the other consideration which the honourable Gentleman advanced—namely, that this is a matter of great concern to the public at large, and from every point of view. So far as I am concerned, and the Government of which I am a Member, I can assure honourable Gentlemen that if we do not do exactly what it is their desire we should do, although we may not propose as much as they say it is right we should do, it is not because we do not feel the extent of this calamity, or that we do not desire to move in the same direction as themselves, but because we believe that the end which we all desire to attain may be more effectually gained by the course which we intend to pursue. Both the mover and the seconder of the Motion entered into some amount of detail with regard to the questions in dispute. I do not think this House is a tribunal which can adequately discuss those questions, and therefore I hope it will excuse me if I do not go into the matters in dispute or attempt to draw any inference from the course of events which would not assist us in our deliberations, especially having regard to the fact that if I were to attempt to give a decision in the matter it might lead me to take up a position prejudicial to the duty which I may have to discharge in this matter. The right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very earnest appeal to the Government to use all the powers which are conferred upon them by the Conciliation Act for the purpose of putting an end to this dispute if possible. Now, Sir, I think it is advisable for me to say here that, in my view, the Conciliation Act was passed with a desire on the part of all those who took part in the discussion upon it that it should be simply a Conciliation Act, and should not be in any way taken as an Act meant to compel either one party or the other to settle their disputes in the manner suggested by the Act. In fact, my recollection is perfectly clear that on the discussion upon the Bill in the Grand Committee there was no one who spoke more strongly against turning the Conciliation Act into a Coercion Act than those Members who were representative of Labour in this House. I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for Battersea was one of those who most strongly deprecated that it should be in any way changed from what it was intended to be, namely, a Bill to enable the parties who were in difference to come to an agreement. Well, now, Sir, what has been my action in this matter? The right honourable Gentleman opposite spoke as if we had taken no action in the matter up to the present moment.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said there should be an inquiry as a public and official act, but I did not suggest that the right honourable Gentleman has, as he says, made private inquiries.

Yes, Sir; I will come to that in a moment. Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman appealed to me as to whether or not the Act could not be really put in force unless both parties were agreed. Well, I should be very sorry to limit the powers of the Act within those limits. I do not think it is necessary that both parties should agree, but I do think that it is extremely desirable, because, having regard to the fact that this is a Conciliation Act, there is not very much chance of its being worked successfully if one or the other party is determined to come to no other settlement than the one which they have put forward. The right honourable Gentleman has insisted that we ought to make a public inquiry. Now, Sir, there is nothing whatever in the Act, there is nothing which took place in the discussions in the House or in the discussion in the Committee, which at all pointed to this inquiry to which the right honourable Gentleman alluded as being a public inquiry. On the contrary, if it had ever been intended that this inquiry should be a public inquiry, certainly Parliament would have laid down some lines in the Act with regard to the mode in which the inquiry should be carried on, and the power which should be conferred upon the Board of Trade to carry out a public inquiry successfully. But there is nothing of the kind. Does the right honourable Gentleman advocate that witnesses should be summoned, that they should be put upon oath, that counsel should appear, and that witnesses should be compelled to attend? There were provisions in the Bill, as it was originally brought into this House, dealing with questions of arbitration, and giving to the Board of Trade power to summon witnesses, and so on, but that is all. Both in the House of Commons and in the Committee any idea of that kind was repudiated. There was never one single word said which would lead the House to suppose that the inquiry suggested was to be a public inquiry. But, Sir, of course there are other inquiries, and from a very early stage of this dispute inquiries were made, not once, but repeatedly. I myself sent down one of the ablest members of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade to South Wales, with a view of making inquiry as to the circumstances and the facts of the case, and also with a view of inquiry into the possibility of successful intervention in that early stage, and this gentleman saw the leaders on both sides of this dispute, and made his Report.

Who were the gentlemen whom he saw?

Well, Sir, I could not at once give the names, but he certainly saw one or other of those who were amongst the responsible leaders on the part of the men, and also those who were the leaders on the part of the masters. He saw on both sides those who were responsible men, and who were members of the organisation on either side.

Will that report be made public?

No, certainly not. The Report was made to me, and I beg to say here that if honourable Gentlemen wish to tie us down in regard to these inquiries, and in regard to our action under the Conciliation Act, they could not do more than demand that we should publish the result of all our inquiries. It is of the greatest importance that we should be able to send down and have confidential intercourse with those who are engaged in the matter, on both sides, for it is by those means that we can hope to bring about that peace which we should not be able to do if we published all the details of our inquiries.

Will the right honourable Gentleman publish the Report? We are asking now for a public inquiry.

I am informing the House as to the kind of inquiry which I think the Act points at, and the kind of inquiry we are making in this particular case, and the honourable Gentleman will perhaps gather that I am not favourable to a public inquiry. I do not think that a public inquiry would be at all advantageous; and I cannot, I am sorry to say, accept the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down that it would be at all likely to bring about a settlement of the dispute if we undertook the inquiry he points to—an inquiry which, I am satisfied, was not contemplated by the Act or by any of those who spoke on the subject. But then, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman says there is another power which we possess, and which we can exercise without the request of either one party or the other, namely, to bring the parties together. That is what we have been endeavouring to do. That was exactly the reason for the inquiry, because we found in the course of a very large number of disputes settled under the Act that the first thing we ought to aim at was to get the parties concerned together round a table for the purpose of discussing their differences. I have endeavoured to do that, and, although the suggestion I made, namely, that delegates should be appointed, and that there should be large consultative committees along with them, was not adopted; something else, which I think much better, was adopted. Although there was opposition on the part of the men to my proposal, a better system was ultimately arranged, and a committee was appointed, composed of masters and men, and they met together for the purpose of discussing the questions in dispute. Unfortunately, the discussions which have taken place have not resulted in progress being made up to the present. The masters have put forward their proposals, and the men theirs; and, although I understand the representatives of the men have been endowed with the plenary powers desired by the masters, they have only been endowed with plenary powers of a modified character—that is to say, they have plenary powers to settle the dispute, but plenary powers have not been conferred on them to discuss with the masters and set up terms other than those they were empowered to set up. Those are plenary powers to a certain extent, but not the full plenary powers necessary for the purpose of bringing to a satisfactory conclusion a discussion of this kind. I understand that the masters have been always perfectly ready to discuss with the representatives of the men any proposals they have put forward, but the men have not felt that they were authorised to discuss the propositions of the masters, and they have contented themselves with simply putting forward their own terms, and so matters have come to a deadlock.

I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Provisional Committee are not authorised to refer all matters in dispute to arbitration? I am told so.

I have not heard that that is so; but, of course, that is a matter which, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, I am not empowered under the Act to insist upon unless both parties come to me for the purpose. At present there is a joint committee; one side makes their proposal, and the other side theirs; there has been no real discussion, but there has been no separation of the committee, and, as far as I understand, matters are assuming within the last day or two a somewhat more favourable aspect. I do not know whether any honourable Gentleman, who can speak on behalf of the committee, will be able to confirm what has been stated to me on authority to-day—namely, that in several of the largest collieries the men have within the last few days met and passed a resolution requesting the provisional committee to take the necessary steps by a ballot of the workmen in the associated collieries on the question of negotiating with the employers on the basis of the scale determined on March 31st last, and some modifications of the employers' terms. I am told that resolution has been passed by several of the largest collieries, and that it was likely to be concurred in by several others. If that be the case, surely it would be in the last degree inexpedient that the Board of Trade should at a moment like this attempt any such intervention as that which has been shadowed by the right honourable Gentleman and other people. I certainly will not say that under certain circumstances it would not be my duty to intervene, but, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, I cannot appoint a conciliator without application from one or other of the two parties. Surely, if there has been this great desire to which honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House have given expression, on the part of the men to have some kind of intervention by the Board of Trade, why have they not applied to the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator? There has not been the smallest attempt or any suggestion of that kind. Question after question has been asked in the House of Commons on the subject, and I have stated in explicit terms that I cannot do anything of the kind without an application from one party or the other, and notwithstanding the fact that I have repeatedly pointed that out there has not been the least approach on the part of the representatives of the men for the purpose of having a conciliator appointed. It is quite true that county councils and other public authorities have made suggestions of that kind to me, but that did not bring the application within the Act; and I have been warned by some of the representatives of the men that any independent suggestion of that kind is not to be listened to, and that the only authorised persons to make such an application are the provisional committee, and no such application has come from them. I have been warned of that by an important member of the provisional committee of the workmen, and, therefore, if no step of that kind has been taken, pray put the blame where the blame ought to be, not on the President of the Board of Trade, who is unable to act without an application.

We are not blaming you.

Perhaps I ought not to use the word blame, but is is suggested that a certain course ought to have been taken, and I am pointing out that we could not take that course without being moved. So far as arbitration is concerned, of course, I know that cannot be undertaken without an application from both parties. Sir, I am afraid from the disposition which I have seen, that any intervention on the part of the Board of Trade, such as that suggested by the right honourable Gentleman, would not only not conduce to the termination of this unhappy dispute, but might prolong it; but, if the application to which I have alluded were made, it would, of course, be my bounden duty to give it full consideration under all the circumstances of the case, and it would require, I acknowledge, a very strong case on the other side to justify me in refusing any such application. But, Sir, I do not invite such an application at present, because, from the fact of the resolution, to which I have alluded, having been passed, and from other circumstances which have been brought to my knowledge, I believe the moment is unpropitious for any intervention by the Board of Trade. I, therefore, beg the House not to urge on the Government a course of action which may have the very opposite effect from that which they desire. At the same time, I am fully alive to my duties and responsibilities in this matter, and when I see a favourable opportunity of doing anything which can put an end to this unhappy dispute, I shall be only too ready and too glad to embrace it.

I am indeed somewhat surprised at the declaration made by the right honourable Gentleman with regard to an alleged inquiry, which he states has taken place with representatives of the employers and workmen in South Wales respecting the dispute now existing. I do not know that I have any claim, but being the oldest miners' representative in Wales at present, being the longest at it, being the representative of the largest organisation and chairman of the workmen's committee, and a Member of this House, I do not know I have any right to expect that this inquirer, whoever he was, should have seen me personally.

I think I ought to explain. The honourable Gentleman will remember that there was a period when he was not chairman of the committee, when someone else was substituted for him. I think it was at that time the inquiry was made.

Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will allow me to inform him that there was not a single day that I was not chairman of the committee, and, further, I am prepared to tell the right honourable Gentleman that my honourable colleague, who is now a member of the provisional committee, and who, during my absence from the chair, acted as chairman, was not seen by the inquirer. I am prepared to tell you that no member of the Provisional Committee has been seen by the gentleman sent by the Board of Trade. That being so, the right honourable Gentleman himself will see at once that that inquiry cannot be satisfactory, even to himself.

I am bound to say that I do not think the honourable Gentleman is correct. I adhere to what I have already stated, but if I find I was wrong, I will acknowledge it.

Will the right honourable Gentleman say who is the gentleman that was seen. We will then know whether he is a member of the Provisional Committee or not.

I have not got his name at present, but I will inform the honourable Gentleman in the course of the evening.

It is well known in South Wales that the workmen asked for something in the way of improvement—they asked that the scale be improved from 8¾ per cent. per ton to 10 per cent. They also asked that any question at issue arising out of the agreement where the committee had failed to agree, that that question only should be placed before an umpire. That was rejected by the employers. Some very important points which we felt justly belonged to us were under discussion, but for the sake of peace we modified our demands, and we asked then, knowing that the workmen had been suffering, that an umpire should be appointed to decide the question at issue—to decide where we failed. The employers refused. Was there ever a body of men who could do more? All they wanted in having an umpire was that a peaceable state of things should continue—that they should have justice from the umpire when they failed to get it otherwise. We do not ask that that gentleman should be there to continually interfere; all we asked was that someone should be appointed where we failed to settle a point of disagreement. Again, we suggested an alternative; where a disagreement arose we asked the employers if they would allow the right honourable Gentleman himself to appoint a gentleman to come down to decide. We asked the employers to adopt that mode. All we wanted was justice in order that we would have peace. We want peace, but that peace must be with justice. Without saying a word running down employers—I don't believe in running down employers; it has never been my habit; I believe you can get more from gentlemen by honourable ways than by bullying; but I say this, the workmen, of South Wales have not received the justice which has been given to workmen in other parts of the country. The men have been blamed for not moving towards the employers. But we have moved; we have been making modification after modification in our demands; you have all the elements to secure peace in the district, and we ought to have some consideration for the employers in order to perpetuate peace with justice. If this House thoroughly understood the question it would come to the conclusion that it is very little we are asking. It is asking for a minimum of 21½ per cent. by means of a minimum, of 10s. on coal. We have already 12½ per cent., and I must say this, that my experience of late years is that unless we have a minimum wage or the scheme which has been proposed to regulate the prices of coal, I am afraid we will be done away with. With regard to that, I hope that something will be done in order to bring that distressful and painful situation to an end. Look at it from the point of view of your own sons and daughters wanting for bread! You cannot contemplate it without fear. I do not know why it is that the workmen are continually blamed for not moving. With the fact before us that we are constantly moving towards the employers, still the employers stand in the same place. The workmen are held responsible for this dispute, but this should not be so. What we have asked as an alternative to this sliding scale is the means that are found useful, and I believe are fructifying, in other parts of the country. A board of conciliation is effective—and not only effective, but I believe it gives satisfaction to mine owners and workmen—in the northern part of this country. They are our only competitors in the steam coal market. If they can manage their affairs by such a means and be peaceful one with another, why are not such means as applicable to our affairs in South Wales? I do not know that an employer has the right of forcing upon a body of men a regulator of wages which they, for some reason or other, have lost faith in. I could go further than that. I think my honourable Friend will pardon me for making this addition, that in all probability, for a district that depends upon the demands of foreign trade to the extent that the South Wales district does depend—namely, about 75 per cent. of its production—some permanent arrangement must be agreed upon. But why should the employers keep us out of work—shall I say, see our little ones wanting for bread?—because we cannot at this moment see eye to eye with them with regard to this regulator? Why should they force upon us, against our will, a regulator of wages where it is possible to find another equally satisfactory? If not equally satisfactory, let them prove that it is not equally as satisfactory. I fear now, unless some other mode is given, the workmen of South Wales will always have a prejudice against the sliding scale; and by persistently saying that we can have no other regulator but the sliding scale, the employers themselves have prejudiced the very thing that they are desirous of preserving. I say again—unhappy and delicate as is my position here to-day, discussing this matter in public, because I hope to be one of the men again to negotiate on behalf of the workmen—that the allegations that the workmen are solely responsible for the state of things at present prevailing in Wales is not true. It is true that we gave notice on the 1st October to terminate the sliding scale as a wage regulator, but that did not of necessity terminate the contract with the colliery owners. More than that, when the employers informed us—informed a percentage of the workmen—that they were going to give this notice to terminate the contract, we implored, we begged them not to do it. We said it was unnecessary; that we could negotiate better when the men were working than when they were not. We almost went on our knees to ask the employers not to give this notice. More than that, we begged them to agree to put the auditors to work to make the audit. True, we had no legal right, according to the document, because the agreement would be expiring on the day that the award would be commencing, but still, the audit would be our guide; the audit would be the only thing which would tell us whether our demands were right or not. By the audit, if it were against us, we would have gone back to the men and probably induced them to reduce their demands. The employers persisted in refusing to put the audit on, and in giving us notice that we could not work unless we worked upon their terms. Though we gave notice to terminate the sliding scale, it was not we who gave notice to terminate the contract. We should not have left work but for the fact that the employers gave notice to terminate the contract, and refused to let us work unless we did so on their own terms. I am sorry to have to say here that they are responsible for the state of things in South Wales. However, our hope is that something will lie done. If we have been wrong, probably both sides have been somewhat wrong. As the old lady said, "I have never seen a quarrel yet but there is some wrong on both sides"; and there is some little wrong attaching to both sides here. However, let some angel come from somewhere; and if the Government can step in between us, let them come in and bring us out of this position that we are in, and whoever does so will have the grateful thanks of a very grateful nation.

I cannot quite agree with my honourable Friend who just addressed the House that the masters are entirely responsible for the present state of things in South Wales. Undoubtedly the notices given from both sides were very unfortunate, and led to misunderstanding and the unfortunate position we are now witnessing. There may have been some masters who advocated other measures with a view of increasing the price of coal and limiting the output, and so lead the men to expect advances that the colliery owners were not in a position to make. My honourable Friend who has just sat down thoroughly commands the respect both of the workmen and the masters, and I, as one who has known him for nearly 30 years, must congratulate him upon the successful way in which he has managed the men's association during the 22 years that he has been connected with it. It is a great thing for a leader to be able to say that he has been able to reconcile almost every dispute which has happened during that long period without having a strike. Possibly, had there not been this grave misunderstanding when, on the one hand, notice was given by the men to terminate the sliding scale, and on the other hand by the masters to terminate the contract, a better result would have been arrived at, and a great deal of the suffering that has taken place in South Wales would have been avoided. If, after what has fallen here to-day, the President of the Board of Trade could bring about a consultation between the leaders of the masters and men, with a view to terminating this strike, he would have done, not only for South Wales, but for the country generally, a great service. My honourable Friend, who knows the suffering that has taken place in South Wales, drew a very pathetic picture of it; but we have in South Wales, as in other parts of the country, distress among some classes, whether trade is good or bad. Although the South Wales workmen are excellent men, men who generally provide for a rainy day, among such a large number there are always a few improvident men who do not do so, and amongst that class of people, the lowest class, there always is, and always will be, great distress. I trust that this discussion to-day will lead to something being done to bring about a better understanding between masters and men, and so smooth over a dispute which undoubtedly is detrimental, not only to the men of South Wales, but to all the manufacturing interests throughout the country. Several of us have received a request to support those who have been thrown out of employment in consequence of this strike, but who are not actually interested in it—people whose works have stopped, and who cannot get other employment. I know that the men in South Wales would rather obtain what they need by working for it than by the charity of those better placed than themselves, and I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will take up this question, and I am sure that he will give to it his earnest attention.

I rise to support the motion by my honourable Friend the Member for Swansea. I agree with him that to have brought an army corps into one of the most loyal and law-abiding portions of the United Kingdom was most unjustifiable. One would have thought that the police force had enough on their hands already without adding to their troubles, but we find that the military were so disgusted at being sent upon such a fool's errand that they fought amongst themselves, and the police, whom they were intended to help, had to quell the disturbance. It is a gratifying fact that such warm and generous feeling prevails between the police and the people. Whatever else may have been brought out through this dispute, the generosity of all classes for those reduced to destitution is most remarkable; and it is only just to say that the police who, as was the case in the Pontypridd Division, volunteered to provide meals for the starving children of the town, are deserving of our gratitude. There are, in fact, fewer men in prison to-day than when the business of the country was unchecked. Possibly that may be in part accounted for by the compulsory practice of teetotalism. However much we condemn the unwarrantable action of those timid, panic-stricken authorities who called in the military, that is only as dust in the balance as compared with the other question, namely, the continuance of the terrible dispute now raging in the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan. After all, what is the difference that exists now in South Wales? We have heard the able speech—I was going to say the pathetic speech—of my honourable Friend the Member for Rhondda. I am sure that when the public knows the difference that exists between the employers and employed, they will be sur- prised that the men keep out even for a week. I have no hesitation in saying that if masters and men wished to settle this difference they could do so within a fortnight, by mutual concession and mutual forbearance. It seems that the great bone of contention between them is the matter of the retention of the sliding scale. Otherwise, I think they are all agreed as to principle. The masters say that they are prepared to accept the principle that the price of coal should govern wages. There is a point in regard to the men's demands with which I was struck. The men say they want a minimum; and I say they should have a minimum. We hear a good deal said about competition being one of the causes of this dispute, and there is a great deal to be said in support of that statement. I say there should be a price which no competition-should minimise in its relation to the wages of the men. As to the sliding scale, it is true that for twenty-two years they have succeeded in making it work; but when we are talking of the sliding scale we are apt to forget the able men who formerly put into practice the principles of the sliding scale. However, I trust, as in all these great struggles, which cause so much depression in trade, that something good will be the outcome. Why cannot both masters and men come together and come to an agreement? Let them meet in one body and discuss this question, and let them feel the full responsibility under which they lie one towards another. Then I trust a settlement will be the result, and these people, famous for their industry, will pursue their paths in peace.

I confess I looked forward to this Debate with some little apprehension, but so much moderation and good feeling has been shown on both sides that I sincerely trust it will tend to a termination of this unhappy dispute. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says you must give-the Board of Trade discretion as to the time to select. That is very important certainly, for if the time be ill-chosen any action might do more harm than good It is very little Use moving at all towards conciliation unless one of the two parties comes forward and asks for intervention. I am speaking now as the result of my own experience on the London Conciliation Board, of which I have been a member from the commencement. Our experience fully bears out the statements of the right honourable Gentleman. He has shown that he is willing, and, indeed, anxious, to put the Act in operation, and do everything in his power, but I think the House will feel that it is useless, and indeed he has no power, to appoint a conciliator unless he is asked to do so by one, at least, of the parties concerned. After what he has said, I hope the honourable Member opposite will withdraw his Motion.

I will endeavour in a few words, Sir, to address myself to what I understand to be the question before the House, namely, that the Board of Trade should intervene, and that the House, should say that the time has come for such intervention. We have from the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade one very valuable declaration. I understood him to say that it would be far from the possibilities to prevent him from putting into force the power he has under the third sub-section of the second section of the Conciliation Act, to appoint a conciliator by either party. Sir, I welcome that declaration. I gather from that that as soon as either party approaches him to appoint a conciliator he will do so. So far his declaration is satisfactory. I understood him to say—

What I did say was that if such an application were made it would require the strongest reasons on my part to justify me in refusing it.

I do not find in the words of the Act that it only refers to a private inquiry. The House is aware that this is not so, because this is no new matter. It is arising constantly. It is well known that the Board of Trade have for many years past been in the habit of inquiring privately into these trade disputes. There never was any labour dispute in which the most trusted officer of the Board of Trade might not advantageously intervene by making private inquiry. The ordinary operations of the Labour Department often show that it is possible to have a special inquiry. Now, Sir, we do not want any statutory power to do what is needed here. The statutory power need only be invoked for the purpose of creating some new kind of inquiry—a kind of inquiry which the Board of Trade has not previously considered itself authorised to institute.

It was an interlocutory remark made on the Second Reading.

With all submission to the President of the Board of Trade, I think that no statutory power is required to make a private inquiry. We can all make private inquiries. It cannot be disputed certainly that something preliminary is needed to enable the Board of Trade to act. It could not possibly do so without proper authority—that is, in instituting a public inquiry. It must be in the knowledge of all honourable Members that these inquiries have been conducted, and conducted publicly, by Royal Commissions. It is not suggested that this should be an inquiry of that sort. What is wanted is two things. In the first place, someone should proceed at once to the spot who is capable to announce his purpose to the parties, and induce them to state their case before him—who should inquire into the merits in such a public manner as that there should be no question of the efficiency of it, or of the sufficiency of the information he receives, and so that everyone concerned would feel convinced that ample opportunity had been afforded of tendering the fullest information to him. I have no doubt, with the right honourable Gentleman, that there could be found a thoroughly competent man to perform the office. It would be known as a feature of the dispute that an official of the Board of Trade was making inquiry, and that persons in a position to do so would have full opportunity of stating to him the facts of the case. Then, Mr. Speaker, it is desirable that this inquiry should be published. What we want is a report of its proceedings. It would be of value to us in future similar troubles, and be of assistance in preserving the public peace. One of the greatest things required to be grasped in a dispute of this kind is that it interests the whole country; and we should endeavour to recognise that an arrangement is desirable in the interests of public welfare. I suppose there is not one of us outsiders who has listened to what has been said to us by honourable Members on both sides of the House who feels himself in a position to express an opinion on the merits. We have no sufficient evidence on which to form an opinion of the merits. What is now suggested would have the effect of putting everyone into an equable frame of mind; while the machinery of the Board of Trade would give the necessary weight to the inquiry of its nominee, and we should have the advantage of his official Report for future guidance. The right honourable Gentleman has not suggested that harm can come by it, and the information he obtains will help public opinion. His information, I say, will tend to bring the parties together, and to effect a mutual understanding. Against this scheme the President of the Board of Trade has alleged nothing suggestive that harm can possibly spring from it. The appeal that has been made here both by the mover and seconder of the Motion, and the honourable Member for Monmouthshire, as well as the last speaker, will, I trust, bear good fruit, as it is an appeal which comes from both sides of the House. I, therefore, submit that the right honourable Gentleman will be well advised, under the circumstances—where great public interests are at stake, where matters of the gravest importance to the Navy of this country are involved—where we hear of trade being diverted, and where we hear of great suffering being borne by innocent peoplei—if he sees that his Department does not stand on ceremony, nor be too particular, but goes forward strong and determined in the exercise of the powers it was intended it should use. If ever there was a case when the powers of this Act should be tested, this is that case, judging from what we have heard this evening. The State has strong interest in the abridgment of this dispute. The State has entrusted the Board of Trade with the duty of taking all proper steps to abridge it, and I do not think the right honourable Gentlemen can feel they have done all that the country expects unless they have taken advantage of the powers which, after a full discussion, after a long inquiry in 1886, Parliament entrusted to them.

There was a remark made by the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, and also one by the Leader of the Opposition, which, I think, ought not to be allowed to pass unchallenged. Both right honourable Gentlemen undertook to speak for both sides of the House in pressing the Board of Trade to appoint a conciliator under the Act.

May I point out to the honourable Gentleman that I did not affect to speak for both sides of the House, but that I said that honourable Members sitting on that side of the House joined in the appeal to the Board of Trade. I think I am entitled to say that honourable Members for Wales, without distinction of Party, have asked the President of the Board of Trade to act.

This being not a Welsh question in the ordinary sense of the term—this being a matter in connection with the Conciliation Act, which applies to the rest of the kingdom and not alone to Wales, I do not think it is a matter which Welsh Members are entitled by themselves to decide. What I was going to say was this—that, while I feel sure my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have the full support of his Party in doing his utmost to bring this unfortunate dispute to a termination by whatever judicious measures may commend themselves to his judgment, there is one thing I feel sure he will not have the support of his Party in, and that is the appointment of a conciliator under the Act, unless he has reason to believe that such an appointment will be welcome to both sides of the dispute. That I feel bound to say after what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman opposite, because injudicious interference or intervention in such a direction as I have indicated would be, I am sure, very widely disapproved of by a large section of the public, and would do a great deal more harm than good.

Sir, I think that if the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down bad listened to the whole of this Debate, as some of us have done, he would not have spoken so strongly. I venture to say that anyone who has listened to this Debate from beginning to end will feel that the time has come when something should be done in this matter, and that the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might wisely interfere. I think everyone will admit that the whole of the speeches have been most conciliatory. There is one feature that has struck me all through this Debate, and that is that, after all, no one has ventured to stand up and defend the action of the employers in every respect. Everyone who has listened to the speech of the honourable Member for Rhondda Valley will feel that he did his best to put his case in such a way that it should not widen the breach that now exists. From information that has come to my knowledge I venture to think there are a good many of the masters at this moment who would be only too thankful to find good reason for meeting the men and settling this matter. After all, we all know—and I speak as an employer—in all these matters, where masters are compelled to take definite, and it may be, apparently, hard, action, it is very difficult to keep altogether in line, after a certain time. There are those who sympathise with the difficulties of the men, and who are willing to be more conciliatory than others; and I do believe that at this juncture, especially after what has been said in the Debate this afternoon, that the President of the Board of Trade may be urged, may be appealed to, again and again, to see if something cannot be done. I could not, Mr. Speaker, give a silent vote in this matter, representing, as I do, one of the towns most cruelly interested in this struggle, where a large section of the inhabitants who are in no way responsible for the difficulty, but where to-day there is very acute suffering amongst thousands of the population. Therefore I do believe, especially after listening to this Debate, the time has come when something may be wisely and judiciously done.

Sir, I rise to press the Government to move in the matter— to induce one side or the other to apply to the Government for the appointment of a conciliator or arbitrator. I would put it earnestly to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—I would appeal to him to go further than he has done, and say that if he is applied to by one side or the other he will appoint a conciliator. I am glad to say several prominent members of the Provisional Committee have heard this Debate, and I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Provisional Committee, that if an intimation is given by the President of the Board of Trade that he will be willing, on application, to appoint a conciliator, an application will be immediately made to him for that appointment. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade has felt here to-day that a strong case has been made out for conciliation—for the appointment of a conciliator. Sir, I do not intend to prolong this Debate, but I do again ask that the President of the Board of Trade will get up in his place and say he will appoint a conciliator.

I am bound by the Act, if an application is made to me, to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, when that application is made. It is quite clear it would not be in accordance with the Act, or right or proper, that I should say beforehand what I should do if an application were made. I think the application ought to come first.

Sir, I think there is one phase of this Debate that has been lost sight of. It has reference to the employment of the military in the county of Glamorgan. No one deplores that necessity more than I do; but the mover of the Resolution stated that, unfortunately, there had been disturbances in consequence of the employment of the military. Now, Sir, he put the cart before the horse, because I hold in my hand the report of the Chief Constable of Glamorgan to the Standing Joint Committee made on the 13th of last June. I will not trouble the House by going into details, but you will find that the disturbances which took place on the 26th, 27th, and 28th May were the cause of the magistrates calling for the assistance of the military. On those occa- sions, unfortunately, riots did take place and they were the cause and not the consequence of the military being called in. The military were called in early in June, I believe. Since that time the peace, I believe, has been maintained it the county of Glamorgan. The result of those riots which took place then was that we were called upon to pay an indemnity of between £700 and £800 for damage done by the rioters. Now, Sir I make bold to say this for the character of the colliers in South Wales: I do not believe that the large majority of the colliers in South Wales were ever willing to riot or were responsible for these riots. There is always a turbulent element attaching to a dispute of this kind, especially with men who are starving; but it was not the married men, the quiet, law-abiding colliers of South Wales, but the turbulent element attaching to them, who were responsible for the riots. But since the military have been called in, at the instance of the magistrates, who are responsible for the peace of the county, there has been peace, and I trust peace will continue to remain. I think it only right on behalf of the character of the South Wales colliers that that statement should be made.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.