رسائل وأوراق بخصوص السكة الحديدية العابرة لبلاد فارس والسكك الحديدية الأخرى في بلاد فارس [و‎‎١‎٧‎٧] (٤٤٢/٣٥٣)

277
Coal Mines
[25 May 1914] {Northumberland) Bill. 278
to go out on strike. The leaders of the men
who had approached me about this Bill
instantly called a mass meeting at which
they spoke strongly, pointing out that the
strike was a breach of good faith and moving
a resolution to return to work. That reso
lution was carried unanimously, and every
man returned to work after the pit had
been stopped one day. The men who
addressed this mass meeting had to exert
the greatest courage in face of the angry
crowd, which they ultimately succeeded
in leading. 1 hat is an instance of how, by
discussing these troubles and not turning
our backs upon them, we have already
begun to exercise an influence upon the
disputes between employer and employed
which is bound to militate in favour of
that which all patriotic, public-spirited
people want to do—namely, to bring
employers and employed more closely
together.
It has been said that you are not going
the right way to bring employers and
employed closely together if you perpetu
ally promote Acts of Parliament to deal
with their relations the one to the other.
I believe there is a great deal in that
contention. I am not at all sure that
many of us do not agree with a fine old
Tory whom we all remember in the House
of Commons, the late Mr. James Lowther,
who said that all legislation is bad and
that some legislation is worse than other ; ‘
and, of course, I agree that to try and
legislate between employer and employed
is not at all an ideal means of bringing
them together. In former times, when there
was a direct personal touch between
employer and employed, legislation was,
perhaps, not necessary. But now, owing
to reasons which I will not go into or
criticise, employers and employed do not
know one another; and now that large
business concerns have got into the hands
of companies and personal contact has been
lost, we are obliged in Parliament to try
to regulate these affairs. This Bill is not
a very ambitious piece of legislation. It
is not modern legislation. All modern
legislation means that you take something
from somebody by main force, particularly
from your political opponents if you can,
and employ a large army of officials in
order to do it. This Bill does not do that.
It merely seeks to regulate the hours in
mines in such a way that those who are
engaged in working in them shall have
a decent and a dignified existence. That
is all that this Bill attempts to do. I dare
say I shall be told that if this kind of
legislation is persisted in, particularly this
Bill, it will wreck the industry by reducing
the output.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY:
Hear, hear.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE:
The remarkable thing is that in the case
of those collieries which are now under
the three-shift system the output of coal
is less than it was when they were worked
under the two-shift system. Therefore it
seems that a return to the two-shift system
would at least be desirable from the point
of view of those who desire as large an
output of coal as can possibly be got.
After all, I do not wish to be thought to
lecture either employers or employed in
this matter. But am I not right in saying
that the success of your business and the
amount of your output must in a very large
degree depend upon the willingness of your
workers ? If you have men working for
you who feel that they are being unjustly
treated and that they are not getting the
conditions to which, rightly or wrongly—
I think quite rightly—they say they are
entitled, then it must appear to any one,
even though he is not an expert, that
you are limiting the finest asset that you
have got, and that is the natural will to
do the best one possibly can.
I noticed the other day that Lord Joicey,
who has given notice to move the rejection
of this Bill, was interviewed with regard
to the Bill. He was asked whether he knew
why I had brought it forward in the House
of Lords, and I was pained to see that bis
Lordship told the reporter that I had
brought it forward for the sake of votes.
Now, what can he mean by that ? I am
thankful to say that I do not now repre
sent a constituency—I believe that the
noble Lord himself is equally thankful that
he does not represent a constituency—
and what I can possibly have to do with
getting votes in this respect I cannot
imagine. I have no constituency. I do
not understand the noble Lord’s statement
at all. We have not got an elected House
of Lords yet, and, even if we had, I certainly
should not stand for Newcastle, for I should
not be asked to go there. No, my Lords ;
I am bringing this Bill forward because it
involves a great principle, because the
natural means of getting these matters
attended to—that is, by going straight to