INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE
GENEVA

Studies and Reports
Series A
No. 10

October 2Vh Í920.

The British Government and the Miners'
Federation of Great Britain.

THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE TRIPLE INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE.
On the 22nd September, 1920, an important Conference look
place between the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Triple Industrial Alliance (consisting of miners, railwaymen and
transport workers) in connection with the claims of the Miners'
Federation of Great Britain.
The claims of the miners were originally formulated at, their
Annual Conference which commenced on the &th July. These
claims were as follows :
That the price of household coal be reduced by l4/2d per ton '.
That wages be increased If- a shift for men, If- for youths
and -/9d for boys.

On 26//i July, the Government definitely declined to concede
these claims.
On 1st September, a ballot of the miners declared in favour of
a strike by 606,782 voles to 238,865. Strike notices were handed in
' to terminate in all districts not later than 25lh September.
The President of the Board of Trade, Sir Robert Home, invited the miners' executive to meet him on 9lh September " in order to avoid any misunderstandings as to our respective points
of view."
A verbatim report of the proceedings of this Conference was
published in the Studies and Reports of the International Labour
Office, Series A. N° 5.
1
On 12th May 1920, the British Government raised the controlled
nrir-o a£ ""Mjsehold coal by 14/2d per ton.

ILO-SR/ AIO
ENGL
COP. 1

I II II II HI 1 1 III i II

')

As a result of this Conference, the miners put forward the
following modified proposals.
(a)

That the Government should concede forthwith the advance in
wages of 2s. per shift.
(b) That the Government agree that the increased wages costs, consequent upon this application being conceded, should not be put
upon the price of home-consumed coal.
(c) That a competent and representative tribunal be appointed to
inquire into, and to determine whether, in view of the financial
position of the industry, a reduction in the price of domestic coal
should take place, and, if so, to what extent.
(d)

That a competent committee should be established to inquire into
the cause of declining output, and to make recommendations with
a view to rectifying same.
(e) That full enquiry should be instituted into the wage system now
prevailing in the industry, with a view to granting up-to-date
standards of wages for both piece-workers and time or dag-workers.

Negotiations took place on these proposals between the President
of the Board of Trade and the Executive of the Miners' Federation,
on the I6//1, llth and 20lh September. It was found impossible
to reach an agreement owing to the miners' rejection of the Governments' offer of an impartial Court of Enquiry to decide the
wage claim, and the Governments' refusal to consider the miners'
demand for an immediate increase in wages. On the 21sl September,
a Delegate Conference of the Miners' Federation endorsed the
policy of the Executive, and a delegate conference of the Triple
Alliance, held on the 22nd September, supported the miners.
On 4he 22nd September, in response io a request from the Triple
Alliance, the Prime Minister met their leaders. A verbatim report
of the proceedings of the Conference which look place, together with
subsequent explanatory correspondence between the Prime Minister
and the Executive of the Miners' Federation is given below.
*

*

*

As a result of this Conference, further consideration was given
to the matter by the Triple Alliance on the 23rd September and
by a second delegate meeting of the Miners' Federation on the
same day. On the 24th September, a further conference took place
between the Prime Minister and the miners and this resulted in
the agreement of the miners to postpone strike notices for one
week with a view to exploring the possibility of a settlement along
the lines of the proposal of the Government that any increase in
wages should depend on output. Accordingly, a series of negotiations
look place at the Board of Trade on the 25lh, 27th, 28th, and
2Qih September, between the Executive of the Miners' Federation
and a Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain,
(the coal owners' association). At the conclusion of the meeting
on the 29th September, it was announced that no agreement could

— 3—
be reached with regard to the datum line on the basis of which the
wages increases should be calculated. The coal owners offered to
make this datum line 242,000,000 tons, i.e. a figure midway
between the output of the March quarter and the June quarter,
but the miners wished the datum line to be the ascertained output
for the September quarter. Both the Executive of the Miners'
Federation and the Committee of the coal owners reported the
failure of the negotiations to the Government.
A National Delegate Conference of the Miners' Federation
considered the situation on the 30th September. On the 1st October
a Conference look place between the Prime Minister, representatives
of the Miners' Federation and representatives of the Mining
Association of Great Britain. At this Conference a revised proposal
was made by the coal owners, according to which the datum line
was fixed at 240,000,000 tons to carry an immediate increase
of 1/- per day, with increments of 6d. per shift for each additional 4,000,000 tons until a total increment of 3/- should be
reached when production attained 256,000,000 tons. A further
Delegate Conference of the Miners' Federation, held on the 1st
October, decided to lake a fresh ballot of their members on this
proposal and to postpone strike notices until the 16//i October,
while the ballot was being taken.
On the 14th October, the National Delegate Conference of the
Miners' Federation reassembled to consider the result of the ballot.
The figures were as follows :
For the owners' offer
Against
Majority against

181,428.
635,098.
453,670.

The Executive recommended to the Conference "that in face
of the ballot vote, the strike notices be allowed to expire on Saturday".
This recommendation was approved by the National Delegate
Conference, which decided to intimate the results of the ballot
and the decision of the Conference to the Prime Minister. This
was accordingly done. The Prime Minister in his reply, expressed
his great regret at the intimation of the Federation and repealed
the two possible remedies which the Government had suggested,
i.e. that the claim to an increase in wages should be referred to
an impartial tribunal, or in the second place, that increases
in wages should be secured by giving the country once more the
measure of output which the mines yielded in the first quarter
of the year.
On the 15th October, the Delegate Conference of the Miners
reassembled and it was decided to inform the districts by telegram
to cease work in and about the coal mines on the 16th October,
subject to the condition that certain men should continue at work
for the purpose of keeping the mines in order. The strike accoringly began on the 16lh October.

— 4 —
Mr. Lloyd George was accompanied by Mr. Bonar Law, Sir
Robert H o m e (President of the Board of Trade), Mr. W. C.
Bridgeman, M.P. (Secretary of Mines), Mr. A. R. Duncan (Coal
Controller), and Sir D. J . Shackleton (Joint Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry of Labour).
The representatives of the Triple Alliance included members
of the Executive Committee of t h e Miners' Federation, headed
by Mr. R. Smillie (president) and Mr. F r a n k Hodges (secretary),
with Mr. J. H. Thomas, M. P . and Mr. C. T. Cramp (National
Union of Railwaymen), and Mr. H . Gosling and Mr. R. Williams
(Transport Workers' Federation.)
The

P R I M E MINISTER

: Well, Mr. Smillie.

Mr. SMILLIE : I have to apologise, Mr. Prime Minister, for
the size of our deputation, and also for the short notice we gave
you asking you t o receive us, as t h e m a t t e r was urgent. I feel
sure t h a t you have followed very closely t h e typed and printed
reports of the proceedings.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Yes, I have read the discussions, you
m a y take it, with very close attention, and I have also had a
personal report from Sir Robert H o m e . I have read very carefully w h a t has been said on both sides.
Mr. S M I L L I E : T h a t will shorten very much w h a t we have
to say to you.'
The

P R I M E MINISTER :

Yes.

Mr. S M I L L I E : We want to press upon you, if we possibly can,
the great need which exists for this increase in'wages being conceded t o the miners if t h e y are to be maintained a t anything
like the standard of life in which you yourself, I think, would
desire to see t h e m living. Y'ou are aware from t h e nature of
our communication to you when we requested you to meet this
deputation, t h a t it is the outcome of a joint meeting between
the representatives of t h e railway workers, of the transport
workers, and of the miners. Those three bodies are so interlinked together t h a t if there is a stoppage in one branch of these
industries it affects very speedily the other trades. On t h a t
account we are more closely connected together t h a n t h e ordinary trade unions of the country. At a conference held to-day,
at which those three bodies were fully represented, it was considered t h a t we should ask you to receive a deputation in order
t h a t we might urge upon you the desirability of conceding t h e
claim for wages. There are other matters, as you are aware,
which have been p u t before Sir Robert H o m e in addition t o
t h e increase in wages—other m a t t e r s which, from t h e national
point of view, are quite as important as t h e increase in wages
itself is to the miners, t h a t is, t h a t question of o u t p u t and t h e
merging of wages, etc. But the question of the increase in wages is
the one we chiefly desire to see you about to-night. The confe-

— o —

rence thought it wise to request representatives of the railwaymen and of the transport workers to come here to-night
with the executive of the miners in order to say a few words
to you on this matter, and I have been requested to ask Mr. Thomas, of the National Union of Railwaymen, to say a few words,
and also Mr. Gosling. I do not want to prolong my statement in
view of the fact that you know everything I could say on this
matter.
The PRIME MINISTER : Yes, I have followed it very closely. I
have your case, and I have Sir Robert Home's reply.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS : Well, Mr. Prime Minister. I am going to
deal with the matter from the standpoint of 500,000 railwaymen,
who, unless there is a settlement, must automatically be affected ; and no apology is needed for saying that the railwaymen
are anxious, and naturally so, to avert a crisis if possible. Twelve
months ago to-day, curiously enough, at this very moment—
5.30—you and I were engaged across this table in trying to
prevent a strike that became operative on the Friday night. A
more remarkable thing is that what I would call the fateful
interview was just twelve months ago to-day at this very hour
at which we are now meeting you. We naturally have clearly in
mind all the circumstances of that strike and its consequences. I
first want to put this to you, that if the miners strike we shall
be affected. No one has paid tribute to the comradeship of the
working classes more than you. You have understood it and
appreciated it, and you would be the first to realise that in a
great working class movement, where hundreds of thousands of
tnen will be automatically thrown out of work, if those men feel
that the cause- for which they are throwm out is a cause that
ought to have been allowed to take place, and that the miners
have a good case and are justified in their claim, it requires no
persuasion from me and. no argument to tell you, who know
human nature so well, that the natural, instinctive feeling would
be for these men to rally to the support of their comrades.
And, therefore, sir, I want to put to you why they believe that
there ought to be a settlement. The issue is not limitedto wages,
and we cannot help but note with satisfaction that, as a result of
the negotiations conducted by Sir Robert Home and the Executive of the Miners' Federation, in spite of the disagreement on
the one point, it is satisfactory to note the measure of agreement
that exists with a view to dealing with the future of the industry ;
and therefore I am limiting myself, as I say, obviously and
exclusively, to why the railwaymen feel that you have net offered the miners a fair deal. In the first place they understand
the public point of view of saying :" If the miners have a good
case, why do not they go to a tribunal " ? They quite understand <
that argument ; but the railwaymen answer that argument by
submitting two propositions to you. In the first place, the Government having taken over, so far as control is concerned, both

— 6

-

the mines and the railways, became the direct employers of
the men. When we first met the railway companies, following
the taking over by the Government, even prior to- your Government, and since your Government came into being, the railway
companies' representatives made it clear as a basis of discussion
that they were there only acting for the Government, and in
every interview that ever took place, and every negotiation
up to the very last negotiations, it was clearly laid down that
the Government were the employers. That position was recognised by you with the miners. In March of this year, following
the Sankey award, you had before you the claim of the miners.
You had in mind what the Sankey Commission had recommended
and what the Sankey Commission gave, and with all the available data at your disposal then you came to a decision and
conceded a certain amount to the miners, directly and as a
Government. And therefore we put it to you, sir, that there is
no justification, in our judgment, for at this stage departing
from that procedure. I am dealing now exclusively with procedure.
Then I come to the claim in itself, and I put, again from the
raiiwaymens' point of view, two definite proposals. In the first
place, the admitted Government figures show 161 per cent.
increase in the cost of living. That is exclusive of a very large
item that must be shown in this month's figures : first, the increased railway fares, which amount on workmen's tickets in
some cases to as much as 3s. 6d. to 5s. per week, and which,
because of the date of their operation, will only be shown in
the next month's figures, and not this ; and secondly, because
of the increased house rent, which again becomes operative
in this month, and is not shown. Butleaving outthose two items?
and dealing with the 161 per cent, as it is, the admitted figures
of the Board of Trade show that the average increased wages
to the miners are 155 per cent. ; and included in that 155 per
cent, is a 30 per cent, disputed figure. On the one side it is said
that that 30 per cent.—and anyone reading the terms of reference, I respectfully suggest, would also draw that conclusion
from it—was given by the Sankey Commission to raise the 1914
economic standard ot the miner. But let us assume that it is
a disputed figure, and make any allowance you like for it.
You did, in March, with the knowledge of that Commission's
recommendation in your mind, directly concede a certain advance to the miners ; and from the day that that advance was
conceded, leaving out the two items that I have mentioned,.
and dealing exclusively with the Board of Trade returns of
161 per cent., there is an admitted increase in the cost of living
of 131 per cent. Now that, sir, in our judgment, clearly establishes
a claim for an improvement of at least 2s. per day in the wage
of the miners of this country. I am not going to argue the
importance of their employment. You know it as well as I do.
You know the mortality, and I am not going to say anything
about it, and I go beyond that.—

— 7 —

The PRIME MINISTER : That is put with very great lorce
and eloquence by Mr. Smillie in a speech which he delivered.
Mr. THOMAS : You know it, and therefore I am going to
conclude by saying that first I appreciate, and the whole of
my colleagues here appreciate, that the issue is so serious that
the Government are to be commended on availing themselves
of every opportunity of meeting anybody. We appreciate to
the full that from the point of view of the Miners' Executive
and from your point of view, neither dignity nor pride is interfering in the negotiations. I say quite seriously, as one who
believes, that if this strike takes place no one can say what
the consequences will be. No man breathing can say what it
may lead to. But you and I—you especially—do know this,
that if the strike takes place, whatever the result, the financial
strain to this country is so serious at this moment that a strike
with all the consequences that may follow may easily mean
the breaking-point. There is no one in this room, either on your
side or ours, who wants a strike for sinking's sake. There is no
one on the side of the miners, certainly no one amongst the
raihvaymen or the transport workers, that does not view the
whole situation with horror ; but equally you know the working
classes sufficiently well, and you know the miners sufficiently
..well, that they are entitled to say : "Unless justice is done
to us, then we must resort to the only power we possess." We
want to avoid it. I.believe, sir, in the next few hours it is the
solemn obligation both of your side and ours to find a bridge,
if it is possible. The people of this country will not allow a îy
small matter to stay in the way, and I would only urge you to
remember, in conclusion, that the railwaymen, who are working
classes themselves, who will be the first to suffer, who know
all the consequences that might—must— arise, feel that they
are only doing their duty in urging you in this eleventh hour
to recognise the justice of the case. We submit that the 2s.
claim is established. We believe that there is an unanswerable
case for i t ; and it.is because we want you to recognise those
facts and those circumstances that I, on behalf of the railwaymen,
urge you, as I say, in the next few hours, to feel with us, as
you do feel, the gravity xtf the situation, and concede what
we believe to be a demand that may not only settle this dispute,
but what is far more important, that if we are to re-establish
the. credit of the country, if we are to try and make up the great
losses of the country, there is only one thing will do it. and that
is a re-establishment of confidence in every industry, and especially the mining industry. If you had a fight and you were to
win, that would not solve the problem. You would have your
men embittered ; you would have them enraged ; and they
would go back not with a feeling of doing their best, but merely
waiting the opportunity again to assert their rights. It is because
I believe you have an opportunity now of purchasing by jus-

-

8 —

tice the goodwill of the miners of this country that we, the
railwayrnen, urge their claim before you to-day.
Mr. GOSLING : I have a very few words to add, Mr. Prime
Minister, because for the same reasons Mr. Thomas put forward
we believe this concession should be made. We shall be involved
whether we like it or not. But the main reason that I and my colleagues are here is to prove to you that we are in full sympathy
with the miners and believe that they are right. We feel that
they proved their case, long ago at the Sankey Commission,
and that they ought not to be called upon to prove it over
and again before it is accepted as being correct. If they have
proved their case the only point now is what are the additions
to be made to their wages. Again we feel, judging by our own
experience" and by what has been decided to be fair, that they
have made out their case. For those reasons, and because we
shall be so seriously involved, I am asking you on behalf of
the Transport Workers* Federation to make this concession
to them, and to let the other matters that can be adjusted in
another way be dealt with in the way that both sides feel would
be best. But on the question of wages pure and simple we have
no doubt in our minds that the miners are entitled to what
they are asking for. I do ask you, for the transport workers,
to make that concession and let us get on with our work.
Mr. SMILLIE : I do not think there is anyone else to speak.
The PIUME MINISTER : Mr. Smillie and gentlemen, I agree
with all that has been said about the seriousness of the prospect
if the miners cannot see their way to accept an arrangement
which the Government, acting on behalf of the public, think
it their duty to propose. A stoppage in the mines is as serious
a stoppage as you could conceive of in any industry, because,
as Mr. Thomas very well said, it affects not merely the railwaymen and transport workers, but it affects every other
industry in the country. Here we are considering—and to a
certain extent it is an advantage to be able to do so, because
it removes certain prejudices—a difference of opinion not
between employers and workmen, between Capital and Labour,
but a difference of opinion between the public as represented
by the Government as a whole and a section of the community—
a section of the community which is entitled, and no one better
entitled, to every consideration at the hands of their fellowcitizens throughout the land. But they also will admit that the
rest of the community is entitled to a fair consideration of their
interests in this great problem, and it is from that point of
view that we have approached it.
Sir Robert Horne has with very great patience and care
gone into a thorough examination of the various suggestions
which have been put forward, and we have acted upon his
advice, with which we are fully in accord. Mr. Bonar i.aw and

— 9—
I more especially have been in very close contact with him
during the negotiations. We have read all the reports, and
the case has been presented with singular ability on both sides.
We have also had the advantage of constant conferences with
Sir Robert Home. You know as well as I do how anxious he has
been to find a way out of this difficulty. Now let us see what the
position is. I shall now confine myself to the wages demand which
has been put forward, and I must take note of some of the argu
ments advanced by Mr. Thomas. His claim, as I understand it,
is that the miners have not had an advance which corresponds
to the increased cost of living. There we are completely at issue
with Mr. Thomas and with the miners' representatives. We
cannot accept that statement. 1 will only give just one or two
arguments on the other side ; but let me at once say, there
being an issue, and a very clear and a very de finite issue, between
the Government and the miners' representatives upon that
very important claim, I should have thought it was just the
case where an impartial tribunal could investigate the facts.
I will come to that later on.
WThat are the facts ? You will correct me if I am wrong.
The increased cost of living was one of the items of examination
by the Sankey Commission. Well, I looked into that, and this
is what I find. Here is an extract from the report which was
signed by Mr. Smillie, by Mr. Frank Hodges, and by Mr. Herbert
Smith, and by others as well who were in complete sympathy
with them : "But the miners ask not merely that their money
wages should be adjusted to the cost of living so as to prevent
any retrogression in their standard of life, but also that an
advance in that standard should be conceded." There the two
claims are put forward--the two claims referred to by Mr.
Thomas, namely, a claim for an increase in their wages on the
ground of the increase in the cost of living, and also a claim in
respect of the improved standard of life. Then they go on to
say : "We find this request a reasonable one"-- that is the
finding, I think, of the Commission—" in view not only of the
circumstances of the miners' vocation, but also of the advance
in the standard of life which has been secured by some other
organised sections of the wage earners as compared with five
years ago." That was the finding. That is an extract from
Mr. Smillie, Mr. Frank Hodges, and Mr. Herbert Smith's report.
Then the Commission reported in favour of an increase of 2s.
per shift. That was accepted by the miners. Now, I start there.
At that time the increased cost of living was represented by 12Ü
per cent.
Mr. FRANK HODGES : I think you will find that is an incorrect
figure. The increase in the cost of food was 120 per cent.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : Mr. Hodges and I have had this
controversy already. He says 115 per cent. ; I say 120 per
cent.

— 10 —
Mr. F R A X K H O D G E S : You will find it in the very document
you are quoting from.
The PRIMP; M I N I S T E R : It does not make any substantial
difference to the argument whether it is 115 or 120 per cent.
If it all turned on the difference betwen 115 or 120 per cent.,
I agree that would be serious, b u t it does not.
Mr. F R A N K H O D G E S : But it would be just as well to be correct
on t h a t point.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Very well. Now it is 161 per cent.
I say the difference is 41 points. Mr. Hodges says it is a difference
of 46 points. W h a t does t h a t mean ? We have had this out a t
the railway inquiry. I took part in those negotiations, as Mr.
Thomas has reminded the deputation. Ultimately we agreed
upon a scale. We were not quite sure at that time whether the
cost of living would go up or whether it would go down. There
were some indications t h a t it might go down. B u t so much
depended on the exchanges and on foreign harvests, things
over which we have no control, t h a t no man at t h a t m o m e n t
could prognosticate the trend of events. B u t it was decided t h a t
we should have some sort of test figure, and it was agreed t h a t
if it went up there should be a rise of a shilling per week for
every five points. That was agreed to between the railwaymen
and the Government. Upon my figure of 120 per cent., t h a t
would represent to the miners an increase of 8s. per week. Upon
Mr. Hodges' figure, it would represent 9s. a week. As a m a t t e r
of fact, since the Sankey Beport, the miners have received
advances amounting to 12s. That is why I say it is really not
very material whether the figures is 115 or 120 per cent.
Mr. F R A N K H O D G E S : I do not wish unnecessarily to correct
you, Mr. Prime Minister, b u t we have not had an advance of
12s. since the Sankey award. 10s. is the most t h a t can be said.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Well, here are figures which are in
dispute. You challenge some of the figures which are given by
the Government. The first figure you challenge does not make
a substantial difference, nor does this. If you say it is 10s. you
arc still 2s. to the good upon my standard figure, and you are
Is. to the good on your own, because it wrould be 9s. on your
showing. It is ¡Ss on mine. The advances on m y showing are Í2s. ;
on yours they are 10s. If you take your very best figures, you
are Is. to the good. I do not w a n t to enter into a question of
the comparison between the case of the miners and the case
of the railwaymen, but it is relevant—very relevant. They had
a much lower wage standard t h a n the miners had. In our part
of the world they were paid 16s. to 18s. a week for platelayers
for very heavy work and very dangerous work. There was nothing
comparable to t h a t with the miners. So they had a greater leeway
to make up in t h a t respect. W h y am I saying t h a t ? In order

— l i to come t o the next point : t h a t t h e miner on an average since
the war has obtained an increase of 55s. 9d. in his weekly wage;
t h e railwaymen have h a d an increase of 47s. 3 ^ d , although
they start from an incomparably lower point. There was nothing
in t h e case of the miners which was comparable to t h e wages
paid to platelayers.
I was one of t h e first t o admit t h a t t h e wages which were
paid to some of t h e railwaymen were a perfect scandal. I said
it before t h e war, I said i t during t h e war, and I said it when
I had t h e pleasure of meeting the railwaymen and t h e transport
workers here on Nov. 2 in t h e railway strike.. They both received
a reduction of hours in addition to t h e increase in wages. The
railwaymen worked forty-eight hours per week ; the miners
worked 4.9 shifts per week of seven hours a day.
Mr.

SMILLIE

: Do you call it seven hours ?

Mr. B O N A R L A W : Underground.

Mr.

SMILLIE

: Do you call i t seven hours?

Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : I know there is a cjuestion of winding
time, and so on, which has got to be considered.
Mr.

SMILLIE

: Mr. Lloyd George would not accept t h a t .

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I will leave out t h e seven hours. I
do n o t w a n t anything which is challenged.
Mr.

SMILLIE

: It is a most serious matter.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I will leave it out. I do not w a n t
anything which is disputed.
Mr. S M I L L I E : T h a t cannot be disputed, because it is in t h e
Home Office records.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Leave it out then. The miners work
4.9 shifts per week. I am just saying t h a t when it is suggested
by a railwaymen's representative t h a t we are doing something
which is really outrageously unfair to the miners I want t o
point out t o him w h a t the position is in reference to t h e railways.
Mr.
The

SMILLIE

: W h a t is t h e number of shifts on t h e railways ?

PRIME MINISTER :

Six.

Mr. S M I L L I E : T h a t is six days against 4.9 days. The railw a y m a n has six days wages against 4.9 days' wages.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Six days' wages and earning an increase
of 47s. Sy2à. for six days' work. T h a t is w h a t t h e railwaymen
have got for their six days— an increase of 47s. 3 %d. The
increase in t h e case of t h e miner is 59s. 9d. for 4.9 shifts. T h a t is
t h e point which I want t o make. The average earnings of all

-

12 —

classes in the mining industry are £226 per annum. That takes
the very last quarter, where 1 believe there were a good many
holidays : £ 226 per annum. They were £ 82 before the war.
That was the average before the war. This is an average of all
the people that work in the coalfield, including women and
boys. We are here to represent the public, and I must put the
case from the point of view of the public. The wages are higher,
the hours are less, and the output is considerably less. It is
no use pretending that it is not very unfortunate, that every
increase of wages has been followed by a decrease in the output
until this last quarter it has touched a point which I think is
its lowest, certainly per man per shift. I had the figures worked
out a moment ago. In June, 1914, the output of a man per shift
was 21 cwt. ; in August, 1920, it was 15 y2 cwt., and that at an
enormously increased expense.
Now what are the proposals of the Government ? We challenge the figures which have been put forward. WTe say that
upon the increased cost of living there is no case, because the
increased cost of living has been more than met by the advances.
Your case is that it has not been met. I have given you the reason
why we think that there is a margin in the advances which
have been given over and above the increased percentage in
the cost of living, applying the railway scale, a scale which was
discussed very carefully and which was accepted by a body
of men, nearly 500,000 workmen, and who are here presenting
the case to-day. Mr. Thomas accepted that.
Mr. THOMAS : I will answer that.
The PRIME MINISTER : What do we say about that ? Is nothing
to be done except that each man should be sure of his own mind
and that this should be settled by brute force ? We cannot
possibly give way without an injustice to the public. WTe say
that the claim has not been made out, and that if we were to
concede the claim we should be doing something we are not
justified in doing as trustees of the public. On the other hand,
you say you are trustees of the miners, and you are not justified in giving way upon your view of the facts. In every civilised
country of the world there is only one way of settling disputes
of that kind, and that is by means of an impartial tribunal.
The old barbaric method was force. We are painfully and
laboriously trying to get away from that method of international
force—not very successfully, I am afraid ; but we have tried
all sorts of expedients in order to try and reach something
which is more in conformity with common sense and humanity
than a mere resort to brute force, starvation all round, holding
up the industries of the country on one side, throwing millions
of people out of employment, bringing the country, as Mr.
Thomas puts it, to the brink of bankruptcy. You may say, on
your side, "depriving the miners of their means of maintaining themselves. " Are there no other sources of common sense
adequate to the settlement of a dispute of this kind, where two

— 13 —
people take different views as to figures, as to facts, and to
t h e claim which is p u t forward ? All I can say is t h a t a tribunal
which has been accepted b y Mr. Thomas, who now p u t s forward t h e claim for t h e miners, a tribunal which has been accepted by Mr. Gosling and Mr. Williams...
Mr.

GOSLING

The P R I M E
wages ?

: Not on wages, on conditions.
MINISTER

: Have

Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : The

not you h a d a tribunal on

t r a n s p o r t workers

go regularly

to t h e Industrial Court on wages. W e can ask Sir David Shackleton.
Mr. GOSLING : When did they go last ?
Sir D A V I D
fixed b y it.

SHACKLETON

: They are working now on wages

Mr. GOSLING : The transport workers ?
Sir D A V I D SHACKLETON :

Yes.

Mr. W I L L I A M S : A section, yes.

The

PRIME MINISTER

: T h a t is w h a t I mean.

Mr. W I L L I A M S : B u t t h e classic case of t h e Shaw report is
not comparable at all.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : N o t so much as that, b u t there is an
actual tribunal set up in t h e agreement between t h e railwaymen
and t h e Government by which disputes of this kind are settled.
I was struck by w h a t Mr. Smillie said. He put. it as if it were an
offence or an insult t o t h e miners t o suggest an impartial tribunal. Mr. Thomas gave two reasons why a tribunal could not
be accepted. One was because t h e Government are employers. A
very good reason why there ought to be an impartial tribunal. T h e y
have all t h e resources of t h e State behind them, and they do not
w a n t merely to use these in order to place upon a section of t h e
community—whether it is weak or strong makes no difference—
something which is not just in itself. T h a t is why t h e Governm e n t say : " L e t us refer it t o an impartial tribunal." If you had
said to us : " T h e tribunal you suggest is not impartial", that
is a thing for discussion. If you suggest : " W e do not think
t h a t this tribunal can be impartial, for such a n d such a reason ",
t h a t is a m a t t e r we can discuss. B u t to say when there is a dispute, and when you come to a n impasse where there is nothing
b u t on one side a feeling t h a t i t would not be just to give way,
and on the other side an equal resolve not to abandon t h e claim,
each thinking himself just, I know of no method t h a t civilisation has ever devised except t h a t of asking an impartial
person to come and decide between them. I do not know of
a n y other means of doing it, and t h a t is the suggestion which
we make. You say m y figures are wrong ; I say your figures are
wrong. Very well, let someone settle it between us. T h a t is all

— 14 —
I say. I think t h a t is something t h a t will commend itself to t h e
common sense of the people as a whole. Mr. Thomas said there
is great comradeship in t h e working classes. Of course there is,
and rightly so ; I know it, and I am delighted t h a t i t should be
so. B u t he went on to say t h a t if t h e y think t h e miners' claim
is just, they will rally to their support. If they think t h e miners'
claim just, they ought to rally t o their support; b u t if they think
the miners' claim unjust, not only ought not they to rally t o
their support ; they ought to rally t o t h e support of t h e comm u n i t y of which they form the greater p a r t and in whose prosperity they have t h e deepest interest. You are asking 500,000
railwaymen to sacrifice themselves on a refusal of something
which the. railwaymen's leaders have advised t h e m to accept.
I do not think that is any question of comradeship. I t is not t r u e
comradeship to back anybody u p in an unjust claim.
Mr. THOMAS : If it is unjust.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : If it is not unjust, there is a means
of deciding it. I do not w a n t to beg t h e question. If there is a
tribunal, Sir Robert H o m e will p u t t h e case forward, and he
will say, "These arc our figures." Mr. Smillie will do t h e same
thing. The tribunal may say, " Y o u are wrong." They m a y say
t h a t to us. We will then say : "Very well, there is an end of
i t . " Well, Mr. Hodges seems to think t h a t is a most amusing
thing. I do not think it is in t h e least. It is w h a t he would have
to do in his own private affairs if anyone did not do justice t o
him, and I have not the faintest doubt he would seek t h e defence
of t h e courts of this country.
Mr. H O D G E S : B u t then you claim t o be both t h e judge and
t h e advocate.
The P R I M E MINISTER : No, certainly not. W h y ?

Mr. H O D G E S : Because t h e Government has made up its
mind t h e claim was unjust.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I beg your pardon.
Mr.

HODGES

The

PRIME MINISTER

Mr.

HODGES:

: You said so.
: I did not, Mr. Hodges.

" T h e case is not m a d e o u t , " you said.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Either I have not p u t m y case very
clearly, or you have not apprehended it. I said, " W e say your
case is not a just one. You say on t h e other hand it is." I say
when two people disagree upon a m a t t e r of fact and figures
and t h e justice of a claim, there is only one way of settling
it, and t h a t is b y an impartial tribunal, b u t in t h a t impartial
tribunal surely t h e public have a right to be represented, and
to have their case stated.
.Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : I think Mr. Hodges t h o u g h t you were
suggesting t h a t I should be a member of t h e tribunal.

— 15 —
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : No, I do not suggest t h a t a t all. I
said you put forward the case. Who else would p u t forward the
case '? Someone from the department would put forward the
case on behalf of the public, b u t the tribunal would be no more
under the control of Sir Robert H o m e t h a n the judges of the
High Court, are. Well, t h a t is what I have to say upon t h a t point.
Then there is another advantage in this. It does avoid t h e very
invidious position into which we have been driven owing to
t h e conditions which have arisen since, of a Government negotiating direct between the masters and the men. I think it is a
very undesirable position into which either a Government Departm e n t or workmen could be put—very undesirable, and a tribunal
of t h a t kind would avert t h a t most undesirable position. Well,
Sir Robert has put forward an alternative suggestion, t h a t you
should t r y and settle this dispute by making an arrangement
which would have reference to t h e output of the miners, and t h a t
there should be a discussion between the employers and the
workmen—.
Mr. SMILLIE : Who are the employers ?

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I mean between the miners and t h e
colliery owners.
Mr. SMILLIE : The Government are not the mine owners nor
t h e employers.
The

PRIME MINISTER

Mr.

SMILLIE

: No, they are not the mine owners.

: Nor t h e employers.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : With a Government official present,
with a view to arranging an increase of wages on the basis of
increased output.
Now let me quite calmly put to you what there is to be said
for that. I think it is generally adrnitted t h a t the o u t p u t is
unsatisfactory. It is admitted by the miners, and, in fact, it
is part of their case, t h a t it is unsatisfactory—a part of their
case in other directions, t h a t the output of the mines is very
unsatisfactory and could be increased. It is admitted certainly
by the colliery proprietors, and it is felt very seriously by the
country. The miners say it cannot be increased without t h e cooperation of the employers and the managers. Well, I quite
agree t h a t it ought to be done by co-operation amongst all
those who are engaged in this great and vital industry. The low
o u t p u t has a very disastrous effect on the industry. W h a t wTas
it before the war ? It was over 287,000,000 tons before the war.
A t the rate of production which we witnessed during t h e last
three months, it would be about 232,000,000 tons. Well, t h a t
*is a very disastrous reduction in an output which is essential
t o the life of the community. It is productive of unemployment.
W e are constantly hearing from the dock labourers how they are
being thrown out of work because there is no coal for export.

— 16

-

Mr. W I L L I A M S : You know the reason of that, surely, for this
past few months ?
Mr.

SMILLIE

: You do not p u t t h a t on to the miners, surely ?

The PRIME M I N I S T E R : If you will just wait a m o m e n t I will
tell you the point of that. I am not making any charge against
the miners or the mine owners; b u t it is with a view to a proposal which Sir Robert has developed. I t is not an indictment
of anyone, b u t it is a suggestion for a way out of the difficulty.
There is no doubt at all t h a t you have less coal available for
export, and if you have less coal available for export you m u s t
have less work for the dock labourers and for t h e railwaymen.
Railwaymen have suffered in South Wales, and have been thrown
out of work because there is less coal for export. You will agree :
the requires no argument at all. In addition, other industries have
suffered as well. Then there are the complaints we are receiving
from abroad especially from our Allies in France and in Italy, as t o
how they are suffering from the fact t h a t we are unable to supply
t h e m with adequate coal for their industries.
Mr.

SMILLIE

The

PRIME MINISTER

Sir
The
Spa.

: F r o m France ?

R O B E R T FIORNE

: Yes, I think from France.

: Yes, certainly.

PRIME MINISTER

: They intended raising it last time a t

Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : Yes, it was raised at

Spa.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is my recollection, and at Boulogne also. Yes, certainly France and Italy are pressed very
hard. Signor Giolitti told me how very seriously they were suffering in consequence of the fact t h a t they had not adequate coal
supplies, and I told him t h a t in this country we were also suffering from the fact that our o u t p u t was down so very considerably. I need not point out to you what a difference it makes in
the cost of living. Having to send the ships out in ballast means
t h a t you have to pay double freightage for the carriage of food
and raw material into this country, instead of the coal very often,
as it did, paying the cost of the voyage. Therefore, it is in t h e
interests of every class t h a t the production should be increased,
and it would be worth the country's while to increase the miners' remuneration as an incentive to the increase in the output— (Hear, hear)—so t h a t if the output were increased t h e
miners would benefit by it, the other industries in the country
would benefit by it, the whole of the community would benefit
by it in a reduction in the cost of living, and our Allies would
benefit by it. I should have thought it was worth while, before »
you embarked upon a serious struggle of this kind, to consider
whether you cannot secure an increase in the miners' wages
along a road which would benefit not merely them, b u t every

— 17 —
other class of the community. A mere conflict on putting
forward a demand which you refuse to submit to a tribunal
would provoke great bitterness, and you must not imagine
that that will be a class bitterness. There will be workmen who
will be as bitter, and much bitterer, than any capitalist you
can pick on, if, as the result of a stoppage of this kind, there is
unemployment and suffering and privation because the miners
refuse to submit their case to a tribunal. On the other hand, if
you seek an improvement in the condition of the miners along
the road of increased output, you will get your increased wages
inevitably. Every investigation which I have made into that—
I have made some independently of the departments, amongst
some of those who know the mines of the country—I met
someone, I think it was from Yorkshire, the other day, who
said he had absolutely no doubt that if there AA'ere a good understanding, complete co-operation, between the miners and
the colliery proprietors throughout the country—no doubt, certain suggestions might be made on both sides for, say, improvement in the machinery and certain improvement in organisation—you would increase your output, and that would bring
the necessary increase in wages.
Mr.

SMILME : How

?

Mr. HERRERT SMITH : That is what I want to know.
The PRIME MINISTER : If you increase the output, and if
you get an arrangement by which the increased output shall
represent an increase in wages.
Mr. BONAR LAW : He wants you to make it clear that there
will not be a decrease in wages because of a bigger output, but
that there will be additional wages in consequence of a bigger
output.
The PRIME MINISTER : Yes.

Mr. SMILLIE : You have the money now, and you refuse to
give it to them.
The PRIME MINISTER : Oh, no !

Mr. SMILLIE : Yes, you have.
A DELEGATE : You will only have more money, that is all.
The PRIME MINISTER : As Mr. Bonar Law put it, it would
be an automatic increase. You might have an index figure and
say, take it at that ; everything beyond that would represent
an increase of so much to the. miners of the country.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : It is a rate of wages.
The PRIME MINISTER : Yes. It would work out at a substantial
increase in the miners' wages if you bring up the output to what
some of you in the House of Commons have suggested it could
be brought up to by greater co-operation between those who
are concerned in the working of the mines. It would represent

— 18 —
a substantial increase. Now, all I ask you is this : Before you
plunge the miners and the railwaymen and the transport workers, and before you plunge the millions of other workmen in
this country who are engaged in industries dependent entirely
upon the coal trade—before you plunge the country into this
disastrous internecine war—I would ask you to consider carefully these two alternative suggestions. The first is that, where
there is a difference of opinion between us as to facts and as
to figures, it shall be decided by an impartial tribunal—a tribunal whose impartiality you could not challenge. Or, in the
alternative, that you should consent to work out with the colliery
proprietors and the Government some scheme by which, in
return for an increased output, you could get an increase in
wages which 1 believe would work out at something better
than that which you demand, but which would in that case
give something in return to the country which would make
them feel that it was not merely an increase for which there
was no return to the country, which it was not justified in
giving upon the present basis, but something upon which the
country itself would feel that the Government would be completely justified in making arrangements with the miners.
I do not think we are asking anything which any fair-minded
man would consider to be unfair.
Mr. HODGES : Are you really putting the suggestion, when
dealing with that second alternative, that if the miners in conjunction with the owners and the representatives of the Government consider such a scheme for the future regulation of wages,
that follows after you have conceded their claim to the workmen
now ?
The PRIME MINISTER : Oh, no. I thought I made it quite
clear that is my alternative suggestion. My first suggestion is
that the 2s. should be referred to a tribunal. If that is rejected,
I propose as an alternative that there should be a scheme for
an advance which will correspond to the increase in the output.
But that is an alternative.
Mr. BONAR LAW : Let them have both.
The PRIME MINISTER : Yes, we would like the Industrial Court
and the other.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : Yes, I think I made that perfectly clear.
I do not think that Mr. Hodges misunderstands the position.
Mr. HODGES : I wanted to be quite sure what were the alternatives.
The PRIME MINISTER : I think I have now covered the whole
of the ground.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : Of course I made it plain that there
would be no delay in regard to the scheme of extra remuneration upon output—that it could be so arranged that it would

— 19 —
date from Oct. 1. T h a t I made perfectly plain. I also made i t
perfectly plain, in agreement, I think, with Mr. Smillie's views,
which were stated with great force, t h a t you were as sure in
your own minds as I was t h a t the increased o u t p u t could be
given, and accordingly t h a t with your co-operation there was
no doubt—it was inevitable in my view—that the increase of
wages would come under a system which would fully justify
it in everyone's mind.
Mr. SMILLIE : The increase in wages we are asking for now
is due, Mr. Lloyd George, and 1 have always said t h a t the first
thing to do was to find out the cause of the lessened output. I t
is not enough, for instance, for any person who is a layman
and does not understand mining, merely to get certain figures
and drawr certain deductions. For instance, there might be a
fall in the o u t p u t per person employed, and there might yet
be greater effort on the p a r t of the persons employed to speed
up output. (Hear, hear.) There might be a decreased o u t p u t
per person employed, with all the persons employed working
harder t h a n they did before; b u t anyone who does not know
t h e facts would say, "There you are ; there is t h e reduction
per person employed—per man, per day, or per person employed
per d a y . " As a m a t t e r of fact, t h e new methods of mining, t h e
new methods of screening coal and washing coal, wThere you
t u r n your collieries into factories on the surface and employ
forty or fifty or sixty people on the surface for the same output,
inevitably reduce the amount per day per person employed.
B u t many people say, "There you are ; now the output is steadily
going down." Where you are not opening up new collieries,
as you have not been doing, and the other collieries are getting
further and further away from the pit b o t t o m —
Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : But,

Mr.

Smillie—

Mr. SMILLIE : B u t this is very interesting. (Hear, hear.) It
ought not to be glossed over. I have given you one reason which
might account—
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : But, you see, Mr. Smillie, I could
not argue with you who know about mines. I am ignorant and
limited in t h a t respect ; b u t a t the same time you m u s t remember
t h a t the miners are working a less number of shifts per man
than before.
Mr. W I N S T O N E : W h y

?

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is exactly what I want you t o
discuss. All I am suggesting is this— not t h a t I or anybody
who knows nothing about mines should fix up a scheme of this
kind, b u t t h a t the colliery proprietors and the miners' representatives, with the D e p a r t m e n t of the Coal Controller represented, should discuss this thing together, and they should
be the people who understand it. T h a t is all I ask. I do not suggest
I should p u t u p a scheme of t h a t kind. I would not dream of
doing it.

— 20 —
Mr. SMILLIE : But I think in a matter of this kind you would
desire to know if there is any point such as that. I venture to
say we cannot keep up the same output per person employed
if you continue to work old collieries, going further and further
away from the pit bottom, and neglect, as we have been forced
to do, the development of new collieries, of which we had to
stop the sinking— they have not been opened out as they would
have been. Then the tonnage from them per person employed
would have been enormously higher than the average at the
present time. I do not say that accounts entirely for the decrease
in output.
The PRIME MINISTER : That is what I was going to come to.
Mr. SMILLIE : But we are as anxious as you are to increase
output. I put this to Sir Bobert Home, and I think he admits it.
You can only get output from the mines providing you have
goodwill and the desire to increase it.
The PRIME MINISTER: I agree.
Mr. SMILLIE: YOU can only get it that way. You cannot
possibly have goodwill on a matter of this kind, in which we
say that since July last our people have required an increase
in wages to keep theii homes as you would like to see them kept.
You cannot have goodwill and a desire for the greatest possible
output, which we would require of any joint committee set
up ; and the people to do it would be the miners and the mine
owners, provided they had the goodwill to come together for
the purpose of finding out the cause and remedying it. It cannot
be done unless they come with that spirit. I suppose the vast.
majority of the employers would be desirous of approaching it
in that spirit. Many of them will not be, for reasons which are
well known to them, and fairly well known to us. But we are
desirous of doing that. We are desirous of increasing output.
I believe from—
The PRIME MINISTER : And you believe it can de done ?
Mr. SMILLIE : I do.

The PRIME MINISTER: Y'es, well, that is what I mean. I am
not for the moment disputing your argument there; but I would
rather deal with something where we are in agreement, and you
agree, I know, Mr. Smillie, that a considerable increase could
be effected in the output.
Mr. SMILLIE : I feel there could be a considerable increase.
The PRIME MINISTER : Well, now, all we want is this.
Mr. SMILLIE : But our own men cannot live on wind until
the increase is secured.
Mr. BONAR LAW : It will apply from Oct. 1.
Mr. SMILLIE : You cannot do it in a week or a fortnight. We
will have to get together as speedily as possible.

— 21 —
The PRIME MINISTER: It is no use talking about living on
wind, Mr. Smillie. I am not prejudging your claim, but at the
same time, you see, the figures which I am given show in comparison with the railwaymen, the miners' wages are very, very
substantial. They are not wind.
Mr. SMILLIE: It is not to be said that we cannot reply to
those figures. We must have it on the notes, because you have
made, quite honestly, I think, a very plausible statement
about earnings and comparisons, which we cannot allow to pass
by, or the public would think we have no reply to it.
Mr. HODGES : And which is in contradiction to your own
department's figures.
The PRIME MINISTER: I accompany that by the statement
that any figure which I have put forward I am prepared, on
behalf of the Government, to submit to an impartial tribunal.
You say, I understand, that you are not prepared to submit your
figures to an impartial tribunal.
Mr. SMILLIE : At least, we ought to have that on the notes.
The PRIME MINISTER : Oh, yes ; I am not objecting in the
least.
Mr. SMILLIE : Mr. Hodges would like to say a few words in
reply to you, sir.
Mr. HODGES : With regard to the figures about which you have
had a good deal to say this afternoon, Mr. Prime Minister, I
would like to point out how easy it is to make a statement which
is in direct contradiction to accepted facts—agreed facts. The
agreed facts when we met the Controller on this claim, and
which have subsequently been sent to the Press by Sir Robert
Home, are that the increase in wages of adult workmen over
eighteen years of age was 157 per cent. No one has contradicted,
up to this moment, the figure that the average increase is
155 per cent. Neither in our negotiations with the Controller,
nor in those with Sir Robert Home, has it been said that the
average increase per person employed has been in excess of
155 per cent.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : I said 157 per cent. You are right.
Mr. HODGES : Now let us come and look at it. Let us see how
the wages position is reflected by that agreed figure. But incidentally I should like to say that, the Coal Association took a
wage census for the first fortnight in June, and they were
surprised to find (and so were we) that the average wage per
hewer, per coal-getter, was less than we ourselves had calculated it to be. So that instead of having an average wage of
£1 Is. %y.¿á. per hewer, we found that their average that they
had obtained themselves for the very special purpose of propaganda—(hear, hear)—worked out at somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1 Os. 9d., as against our figure.

— 22 —

Sir ROBERT HORNE : I do not know these figures.
Mr. HODGES : They have been published in the Press. •
Sir ROBERT HORNE : I am not accepting them.
Mr. HODGES : Well, as a matter of fact, we are content, on
these figures of wages, to be in harmony with the Controller's
Department. We have up to this moment received an increase
of 155 per cent. The cost of living is 161 per cent. We are 6
per cent, below the cost of living at this moment. In saying
that, Mr. Prime Minister, what have we got to admit ? That
the whole of the Sankey advance that we. secured for the raising
of the standard of life has disappeared, because the standard
of life is now 5 per cent, below our present wages.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : That is just what we do not admit,
because we take a totally different view.
Mr. HODGES : Excuse me, Sir Robert, I am not for the moment
disputing your contentions as to this or that feature of the
Sankey award. What I am saying as an arithmetical truth
is that if the cost of living stands at 161 per cent., and our
agreed average increase is 155, then we are below the cost of
living, and whatever advance the Sankey wage gave us has
disappeared. We are now asking for a 2s. increase. What does
that mean in our wage rates ? It would mean that our wage
rates would be increased by 184 per cent, if we add 30 per cent.
on to our present position. It is not quite 30 per cent, as a matter
of fact, because the 2s. increase only works out as Is. lOd. per
person on the average, so that our new average wage would
be 16s. 4%d. a shift. That would be the new average wage, which
is 184 per cent, above the pre-war level if this is conceded in its
entirety. Then, how do we stand ? We stand 23 per cent, above
the existing cost of living, and when translated into money it
means that on the average we would be at that moment Is.
5d. a day better off than we were in July, 1914, if we had the
advance. Now, Mr. Prime Minister, is that good enough ?
Whatever may have been the arrangement with regard to the
relation of wages to prices, is that good enough for men engaged
in an industry of the character of ours, the value of which
you know, the importance of which you know, and the danger
of which you know ? I say a wage which can only be reflected
in a pre-war standard of 7s. lOd. a shift by adding on this Is.
5d.to the 6s. 5d. is a wage that is unworthy of.the character of
our occupation and our value to the community. I would not
argue on that so much except for the fact that I know the
Government, if an analysis of the figures were raised, must
agree with us on these arithmetical calculations. It is a simple
thing to take the annual wage of 1914 as you have done, Mr.
Prime Minister, and multiply the general wage by four, and
then show by comparisons that we are somewhere near 175
per cent. If you are going to take the wage of 1914 you must

— 23 —
wait till t h e total wage is realised for 1920 before you can make
a t r u e comparison.
Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : Of course, this is taken on a very low
basis of output.
Mr. H O D G E S : It may be ; b u t we are in possession of information of which you do not approve, t h a t whilst t h e wage
m a y be a t a certain point for t h e quarter of June, it is true t h a t
you can have an increased wage with a lesser output if there
are more men engaged in the work of repairing and preparing
t h e collieries in comparison with t h e hewers engaged a t the
coal face. (Hear, hear.) T h a t is the most obvious thing, t h a t
any colliery manager would agree to in a moment.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Would you mind my asking you this ?
If you really have confidence in these figures, and you say you
have such confidence in t h e m t h a t you think you could persuade
the Government, why should not you apply to an impartial
tribunal ?
Mr. H O D G E S : I will tell you the reason, and this brings it
to t h e crux of the whole matter. These are your figures ; these
are your wage figures ; these are your cost of living figures.
The deductions are obvious. If they are your figures and we
are prepared t o accept them as being correct, how could we
expect to get from any tribunal other t h a n yourselves a verdict
in our favour when you yourselves have determined t h a t the
case is unjust ? How can it be done ? (Hear, Hear.)
The

PRIME MINISTER : Why

Mr.

HODGES

not

?

: I will tell you why I think it cannot be done.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Does t h a t mean t h a t whenever the
Crown goes to a Court, the Court always decides" in its favour ?
It is not the case in the least. The Courts are constantly deciding against t h e Crown.
Mr. H O D G E S : You say, Mr. Lloyd George, t h a t the Government represents the public.
The

PRIME MINISTER

: Naturally. Any Government must.

Mr. H O D G E S : Very well ; then if you represent the public,
how can you ask us, if you are the last word in t h e representation
of public opinion, to go to a subordinate authority which you
yourselves represent ? How can you ask us to go back to the
public if you say you represent the public ?
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Really, t h a t goes to the very root of
the whole judicial system. I never .heard such an argument.
Do you mean to say you cannot possibly bring a Government
before a Court of Justice because the Government represents the
judge and therefore is the superior authority ?
Mr.

HODGES:

T h a t is not the British Constitution.

— 24 —
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I agree it is not ; t h a t is w h a t I say. The
British Constitution is t h a t you can bring your action against
the Government, and a judicial tribunal is constantly settling
disputes between a subject and the authority of the Government—constantly ; every day.
Mr.

SMILLIE

: We do not disagree with the figures.

The

PRIME MINISTER

: T h a t is what I say.

Mr. SMILLIE : I say we do not disagree.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : We do. We really do n o t accept your
statement and your figures.
Mr. S M I L L I E : B u t they are your figures. Do you accept your
own figures ? We are putting forward no figures, b u t we are
asking you to accept your own.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : If they are our figures, I should have
t h o u g h t t h a t a tribunal would say at once, if Sir B o b e r t H o m e
or anybody goes there on his behalf and says these are the figures
of the Government. " D o you challenge t h e m ?" T h a t is a case
t o go to a tribunal upon. If you are so confident t h a t you have
got the Government's figures and t h a t those figures point t o
one inevitable conclusion, a tribunal could settle t h a t . B u t we
do not accept your statement of the case, and t h a t is why we
invite you to go to an impartial tribunal.
Sir B O B E R T H O R N E : I t depends how you look a t the figures
and the deductions you draw from them.
Mr. S M I L L I E : There, is one thing I would point out. Unless
you have done more than justice to the miners in March last,
you are d o i n g t h e m a great deal less t h a n justice now, because on
"the cost of living, if you gave a fair decision in March last, this
2s. t h a t we are asking for is due.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is the point in dispute, and t h a t
is a point we are perfectly prepared to submit to a fair tribunal.
You have not yet challenged the fairness of t h e tribunal.
Mr. H O D G E S : I think I have given a very clear and straightforward reason why we think you are t h e tribunal and why
you should decide. We are either right in your eyes or we are
wrong. Any figures t h a t can be submitted to the tribunal can
only be Government figures, because t h e Government is the
only instrument which can gather the statistics. You spoke
of our wage relations in the future. T h a t is an i m p o r t a n t thing to
us, Mr. Prime Minister—very important. I believe you have
heard me express a sincere desire for t h e future well-being of
this industry more t h a n once over this table-. B u t if you asked
me at this moment whether I thought t h a t t h a t scheme which
has been adumbrated by Sir Bobert is a scheme which would
give the effect t h a t we "all desire, I should say t h a t it would
w a n t a far greater and deeper analysis before I, and I believe
any member of m y Executive, could answer in the affirmative.

-

25 —

(Hear, hear.) Any scheme for the reorganisation of the industry,
as Mr. Smillie has said, must proceed upon the basis of goodwill.
To thrash out a scheme which puts us and the owners in a proper relation to the industry in future is going to take a long
time, but even if it does take a long time, it is worth doing.
(Hear, hear.) Such a conversation and such conferences as could
be held between now and Oct. 1 could not be rellected in output
for many months to corne. It is side by side with the wage
question. If you say "no," Sir Robert, what is the implication ?
Sir ROBERT HORNE : I do say "no," for this reason. You start
the year with a rate of production of 248,000,000 tons in the
quarter ; the next quarter the rate is 232,000,000 tons. The
third quarter, so far as we can estimate it up to the moment,
looks something very near the same—a little better, but still
low. I am perfectly certain that you have in your own hearts
the assurance that you can make the last quarter of the year
quite sufficient to get a considerable advance in wages based
upon output. I say that in complete confidence. There need
be no difficulty about deciding that it should start from Oct. 1.
Mr. HODGES : Well, if you know our trade sufficiently well,
Sir Robert, }rou will know, and you must know, that in the last
quarter or in the first quarter of any year our output, even in
the old days, always reached its maximum point.
Sir ROBERT HORNE : Exactly. Therefore you get a good
start.
Mr. HODGES : But regardless, Mr. Prime Minister, of any
special scheme in the nature of a premium upon output ; it is
regardless of that fact. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BONAR LAW : Does not that really mean that we are
giving you more wages without getting the increase ?
Mr. HODGES : No.

Mr. BONAR LAW : I am afraid it does mean that.
The PRIME MINISTER : Surely it depends on the datum line
entirely. If you put the datum line at the highest I agree with
you, it does not. If you put it somewhere near the lowest, it
would. It depends entirely on your datum line.
Mr. HODGES : Whilst it may result, upon an agreed scale,
in some additional funds being at the disposal of the trade out
of which additional wages can be paid, yet in that loose form
it cannot eradicate the real difficulties in the way of increased
output. You cannot dissociate what Mr. Smillie has said as
to the technical—and, if you like, political—-causes which
affect output from the trade by a wage adjustment. (Hear,
hear.) There must be something deeper and more fundamental
done before you can have a real decent reorganisationjof the
trade, even under the present systems of ownership. (Hear,
hear).

-

26 —

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : This is really rather important from
the point of view of what the miners would get immediately.
Sir Robert says t h a t the first quarter was a t the rate of 248
million tons, and last quarter was 232 million tons. You said
t h a t the last quarter of the year and the first reached the maximum.
Mr. HODGES : Generally reached the maximum.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Therefore the next quarter, I assume,
will reach the maximum.
Sir

ROBERT IIORNE

Mr.

BONAR L A W :

: We hope it may.

Taking past experience.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Yes, it would reach the maximum.
Supposing, therefore, you put your datum line at something
just lower than the maximum, you get an immediate increase.
Is it not a question rather of the d a t u m line ? T h a t is why I
say there is something to discuss.
Mr. H O D G E S : There is much more in it than the fixing of
the d a t u m line.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I agree, b u t I will tell you what there
is in fixing the datum line. W h a t there is in the fixing of the
d a t u m line is an answer to your point t h a t it would take months
before it would reach fruition. It would not take a quarter to
reach fruition if your d a t u m is fixed lower t h a n the average
m a x i m u m in the last quarter. It certainly would not.
Mr. H O D G E S : In point of fact, there are m a n y elements
connected with t h a t which cannot be arranged between now
and Oct. 1. Prices, values, owners' shares, workmen's shares,
Governmental shares are all m a t t e r s which have to be taken
into consideration, but we have expressed our willingness to
explore t h a t avenue or any avenue for the future reorganisation
of the industry. But t h a t particular avenue suggested by Sir
Robert is an avenue which at this moment does not appear
to us to be one t h a t could be explored to the end, and then
t h a t we should emerge with a better industry than we have
now. This is very important to us. After this wage claim is disposed of, if we had this present position met— and we can have
it met, Mr. Prime Minister, as you know, from the money in
t h e industry without increasing the price of coal to the consumer
a penny ; the money is there—even on the J u n e figures the
money is there, and it will be certainly there on the present
figures—the money is there now to. meet this application—the
industry can go on until ourselves and the owners arrive at
the best solution for the future working of the industry. We want
to arrive at t h a t best solution. We desire to do it, b u t in the
interim, if you could only just for a moment see our point of
view, here we are^with agreed data before us on both sides. If we
can get over this difficulty, and if you agree t h a t the 2s. the Is.

-

27

-

and t h e 9d. can be granted, you introduce into the industry
the correct temper for t h a t analysis and investigation and
reorganisation t h a t is so vital for us in the months that are
to come. The temper, the point of view, the psychology on the
workmen and owners is to me of fundamental importance.
I know you have heard us say it before.
The

P R I M E M I N I S T E R : YOU

said t h a t on the last advance.

Mr. H O D G E S : When you heard us say t h a t before, what
h a p p e n e d ? You put up the price of coal by l i s . 2d. a ton when
there was no real need for it (Hear, hear.) You did not consult
us about it. You further alienated us from our own industry
and from the control of the industry. Incidentally you gave
the owners the cue t h a t the time had come now for them,
without consulting us or without consulting you, for the internal rearrangement of the industry for t h e period of decontrol.
How could you expect from us t h a t co-operation when we
knew those facts. (Hear, hear.)
The

PRIME MINISTER:

I do not quite follow this.

Mr. S M I L L I E : It is very important t h a t you should explain
t h a t to the Prime Minister.
Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : We tried to get an Advisory Council
appointed with you before we. did this, b u t they would not
come in.
Mr. S M I L L I E : It is well t h a t this should be explained to you.
It is a most important question in connection with the coal
trade which Mr. Hodges is now on—a m a t t e r which we will
prove absolutely.
Mr. H O D G E S : I overheard you say, Mr. Prime Minister,
t h a t you have heard my statement before. You have heard
the statement before, it is true.
The

P R I M E MINISTER

: On the last advance.

Mr. H O D G E S : On t h e last advance. I have explained, and
I will t r y to explain, why it has not materialised. When the
last advance was granted, the Controller expressed a desire
t h a t we should co-operate with him and act again on an advisory
committee, and at the very moment when we were considering
the practicability of t h a t proposal, up went the price of coal,
and all the consequences t h a t have followed from t h a t have
largely tended to alienate us. T h a t proposal has been repeated
since 14s. 2d. was p u t on. It has been considered by u s ; b u t at
the moment when we give consideration to this proposal we
find ourselves in a position of being t h r u s t against our will
further and further from the real i n d u s t r y ; and the owners,
when the 14s. 2d. was p u t on, when the least remunerative colliery
was m a d e t o pay, when t h e y knew the greatest step in decontrol had been taken, felt convinced t h a t a little while from
now t h a t the poorest colliery could pay its way—or rather

— 28 —
the poorest district. They say : "We shall have de-control ;
prices are de-controlled—no, not. prices, distribution is decontrolled—the local control offices have disappeared ; we
have now got our district committees largely represented by
coalowners and coal factors. The next step is to complete decontrol and for that purpose we will buy timber, we will buy
stores, we will put in plant, we will do a thousand and one
things in preparation for the day when the control will be removed, and this invested capital will emerge in output and increased profit to us, subject only to the taxation of the ordinary
taxpayer." That is what the coalowners have done. We have
evidence, of a colliery yard that has never had a truck of timber
in it for the last year, but which in the month of June had
more, timber in it than would last for a year. Do you not see
that with these things going on co-operation is impossible ?
It is shown in the cost ; there is the practical demonstration
of it.
The PRIME MINISTER : Is not this an argument rather in
favour of Sir Robert Home's proposal that you should meet
and discuss this thing with the colliery owners, with a representative of the Coal Control in the chair ?
Mr. SMILLIE : It is as well you should know these things.
We know them.
Mr. HODGES : Prior to that, and as a pre-requisite of that,
we say to you, our economic position is worse than it was
when we started out before the war. We want that put right;
we want that adjusted as near as we can get it adjusted, and
the money is in the industry to pay for it. The consumer need
not pay. Then the road will be clear for us to try to reorganise
the industry as best we can along decent lines. That is our position, and I hope if I have, laid stress upon it it is due to the fact
that we feel it and know it to be the case.
Mr. SMILLIE: Mr. Prime Minister, allow me to say that you
looked over to Mr. Hodges and said that you had heard that
story before. That was when we were pleading for an advance
previously.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think it was the last two shillings.
It was the argument put by Mr. Hodges. Naturally, we want
increased output for the benefit of the coal trade of the Kingdom,
and it was put to us that it would produce such goodwill and
excellent feeling in the mines that we should get our increased
output.
Mr. SMILLIE: Do you remember two occasions during the
war when the Government appealed to the workmen and the
mine owners ? You made an appeal and Sir John Simon and
Mr. Asquith at one time. Would it be true to say that good
results followed that, and that there was an extraordinary
change as the result of that ? I know it is true.

The

PRIME MINISTER

29 —

: I take your word for it.

Mr. S M I L L I E : I know t h a t t h e men who pledged themselves
t o you a t t h a t time went out and cooperated and worked hard
and secured a higher output.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I felt certain they m e a n t to from w h a t
I saw of t h e m a t t h e time.
Mr. S M I L L I E : They secured a higher o u t p u t t h a n would
have been secured under normal conditions if t h a t had not
taken place. B u t we feel interested on output, because we
know, perhaps to a lesser degree than you, b u t we do recognise t h e
value of a higher o u t p u t to the nation, and it would be an enormous thing for Europe to get more coal than it is getting at the
present time. "We have had word sent to us from the colliery
owners—because in spite of all the talk there has been there is no
personal animus between ourselves and the colliery owners. T h a t
ought to be recognised. We have had word from the colliery owners
expressing t h e view t h a t this advance ought to be conceded,
and t h a t there ought to be—the name struck me as being
extraordinary—Committees of Goodwill set up in every colliery,
if t h a t were possible, with the desire to increase output. B u t
o u t p u t cannot be increased unless t h e employers are willing
to develop as much as they possibly can ; it m a y be to develop
portions of t h e mines t h a t are standing waiting. I had a letter
to-day about a colliery, as Mr. Hodges said, about the timber
stacks t h a t were there, and I have promised t h e Coal Controller
particulars about o u t p u t in Durham. 1 have asked his secretary
to be allowed to do so. All these things are keeping back output,
and the wages of m a n y of the miners are being lessened, brought
down a long way oil' w h a t is called t h e normal wage through
the failure to be able to get out the material. Our honour and
our credit are at stake. You cannot go very well to our
people and begin to reason with t h e m t h a t it is our business
to join with the present owners of the mines in finding out
first, I think within a very short time, whether o u t p u t could
begin to be increased if we were to meet together. I think steps
could be taken which would not require any colliery development
at t h e present time ; steps could be taken, if both sides mutually
agreed, t o have an improved o u t p u t immediately, b u t we cannot
wait for t h a t for our increased wages—that is the difficulty.
Suppose we get this increase in wages and set up such a board,
with the d a t u m line as you mention now, I take it if they were
producing more not only would they get higher wages on t h e
ton rate because they put out more, b u t the whole industry
would be entitled to a share in the increased o u t p u t of coal,
the day-wage men as well as t h e piece-workers, t h a t is if the
o u t p u t of coal was increasing by our mutual efforts, the employers and ourselves. T h a t is w h a t I took Sir R o b e r t H o m e to
mean. In the meantime the Government are getting a t t h e
present time out of the coal trade more t h a n sufficient to pay this

— 30 —
increase. We feel t h a t it is required to keep our people, and if
in return for t h a t it is possible for t h e coal trade to increase by
500,000 tons per month within a very short time, or to increase
b y 10,000,000 tons per year, if that could be done at a time when
we could export all t h a t increased out—putbecause you are providing now for your home supplies—if t h a t could be done a t a
time when all of t h a t could be exported, it would place the
Government, so long as they control prices, in a position to
substantially reward labour and to reward themselves. It is
not o u t p u t we came here about, b u t we are honestly willing—
all our Executive—to endeavour to increase t h e output of coal,
and it must and it can only be done if we meet the colliery
owners on the lines on which we previously met them, and say,
" N o w let us get hold of this thing and find out the cause of
t h e decrease, and begin to increase o u t p u t as quickly as we can. "
T h a t is the alternative to what m a y be a ruinous industrial
dispute ; ruinous it may be to everyone, because if the mines
close down for a fortnight or a m o n t h or six weeks it would be
absolutely impossible for months after they reopen again to
even get back to our present output. We recognise that.
The

PRIME MINISTER

: I agree. It is a serious matter.

Mr. S M I L L I E : We are really seriously anxious not to have
t h e mines in t h a t condition. With t h e mines as they are at present we believe the output can be substantially increased, and
you will have our assistance in getting t h a t output substantially
increased in order t h a t we may export coal, to enable us to
buy what we require in larger quantities from other people,
and at the same time incidentally help the districts of Europe
which require the coal during t h e coming winter.
Mr. THOMAS : Mr. Prime Minister, there has been so much
said in the latter part of t h e debate t h a t I do not feel disposed
to make any reply about the railwayman's position, except to
remind you t h a t when I was pleading the railwaymen's case and
arguing the miners', you made quite as eloquent a reference with
a difference, between the miners, and said I ought not to compare
them- with the railwaymen.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Since then the miners have got a 12s.
increase.
Mr. THOMAS : And therefore I am not disposed in the least
to say a word t h a t would get us from the latter p a r t of an interesting and vital factor in this controversy. You have heard
from the miners' side two things. You first of all started off,
Mr. Prime Minister, by saying the dispute and the difference
is between us—the Government and the miners. Mr. Hodges
replies by saying : We accept the Government figures. Now,
w h a t does t h a t demonstrate ? T h a t demonstrates t h a t all the
time you have been talking, in all the negotiations, you have got
t h e data and the material on which you could still settle this
difficult question. And in settling it, I will p u t this to you.

— 31 —
J u s t imagine t h e talk of 10,000,000 tons n o t only meeting t h e
increase, b u t what is more t h a n t h a t , paving the way to a much
bigger question of t h e future. Now, sir, I would suggest this
course to you. We are not a negotiating committee, as Mr. Smillie intimated to you. We are only here to point out to you w h a t
you know all too well, the terrible result t h a t will arise unless there
is a settlement of t h a t dispute ; b u t I cannot leave it without
making this suggestion. I make it without any knowledge of
t h e miners, and without any responsibility, b u t I do say t h a t
you have indicated here to-day t h a t you could' go on negotiating this m a t t e r without any independent tribunal a t all.
You have got t h e material, and you have all t h e facts, as you
have shown. You have answered point by point t h e case p u t ,
which clearly proves, and indeed not only proves, b u t you in
t h e past have done it. In March you did it with t h e available
material. You have the material now, and without saying a
word merely of a debating character, I could say much on t h e
railwaymen's case. I no not want to say it, because I prefer
not debating points, b u t to see whether it is possible to get
agreed. I submit you know the case yourself, and have the m a t e rial to answer t h e miners, and they have proved, when asking
for the 2s.—they have proved it by your figures, and not anyone
else's.
Mr. SMILLIE:. Will you concede this advance in wages, and
let us get with the employers, and anyone Sir Robert m a y
appoint, and let us get into harness within the next week or fortnight, and in six weeks' or two months' time call us together
again and let us go into t h e results ?
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t simply means, Mr. Smillie, t h a t
if we concede all you ask, you are prepared to discuss t h e rest.
Mr. THOMAS : J u s t listen to this proposal, now. Mr. Smillie
is going beyond t h a t .
Mr. SMILLIE : We have always been willing to discuss the
rest. You seem to doubt, Sir Robert and yourself ; Mr. Bonar
Taw and, I think, all those connected with t h e Government feel
t h a t every increase in wages they give results in a reduction
of output. There is no reason why there should be a reduction
in output.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I t has followed. I do not say t h a t they
are necessarily correlated, b u t as a m a t t e r of fact every increase
in wages has been followed by a decrease in output up to t h e
present.
Mr.
Sir
Mr.

HARTSHORN

: That is not quite true.

ROBERT H O R N E :
HARTSHORN

All the recent ones, I think.

: The last one I agree.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I meant t h e last two or three. I mean
recent outputs.

— 32 —
Mr. H O D G E S : You could go back twenty years, Mr. Lloyd
George, and you can find a fall in output per man through
those t w e n t y years, quite irrespective of wages.
The

P R I M E MINISTER

: I am referring to the recent increases.

Sir R O R E R T H O R N E : I have always said t h a t we are willing
to hear any additional arguments t h a t could be p u t forward,
because m y mind has always been open, as Mr. Smillie says,
and I w a n t to appreciate everything. If any further conferences,
such as Mr. Thomas suggests, are going to do any good, I am
at the disposal of the Miners' Federation. B u t we cannot talk
very long now, because your notices are there and we cannot talk
after a strike is declared. It could only be done if notices were
suspended.
Mr. BRACE : Mr. Smillie is putting to you, as I understand,
this proposal for t h e purpose of trying to find a common ground
for the advance in wages and an increase in output.
The P R I M E M I N I S T F R : H e says t h a t there should be an immediate advance of 2s.
Mr.

BRACE

: I think t h a t is where you made a mistake.

Mr. S M I L L I E : I suggested this to t h e Prime Minister and Mr.
Bonar Law. He is doutbtful whether or not any effort would
be made, or really whether any effort t h a t might be made would
have results. I feel there would be if the employers—and I
think the employers probably will—meet us in the spirit we
will meet them in—and there are many employers, I believe,
who are as anxious t h a t these collieries should produce t h e
fullest possible output as we are, and they do not know the
facts. Well, they ought to know, and we ought to t r y to let
them know—it is possible t h a t m a n y employers could tell us
if we met them t h a t our men are not working as they ought
to do, and we would desire to know t h a t . We might be able
to p u t t h a t m a t t e r right. If you could see your way to give t h e
advance in wages, Sir R o b e r t suggested we could meet the
employers. I think we could meet them immediately. Let the
Coal Association of Great Britain appoint their people ; we will
appoint our people, and meet t h e m and begin to talk about
output and how to improve output. You could ask us to
meet you again, if in six weeks or two months there was not
a substantial increase in output, and you could ask us why.
We would then be in a position to give you an answer. I believe,
however, t h a t then you would have an increase in output.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Let ^us" be quite clear about this.
Does t h a t mean t h a t t h e 2s. is to be given without reference
to output, and t h a t at the end of six weeks you would be having
your 2s. increase the whole time whether t h e o u t p u t went up
or whether it went down, and the increase would have no reference a t all to output. Is t h a t it ?

— 33 Mr. S M I L L I E : Our position is t h a t we honestly believe t h a t
the cost of living will go up.
The

PRIME MINISTER:

T h a t is some fresh suggestion.

Mr. S M I L L I E : W e believe t h a t you have the money in h a n d
to pay t h a t . W e believe t h a t if t h e employers and ourselves
approached this in the spirit in which we ought to approach
it, we can substantially increase output. I w a n t to p u t it to you
t h a t if we can increase output within t h e next two or three
m o n t h s by 1,000,000 tons, it far more t h a n pays anything you
are called upon to pay now.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is an argument, you see, in favour
of making t h e increase have reference to output. T h a t we can
justify to the public ; the other we simply could not. W e really
would have to t a k e our chance. We could not advise t h e public
to do it. If a tribunal decided t h a t it was just, then it is out
of our h a n d s ; b u t for u s t o advise t h e public t h a t t h e industry
ought to pay 2s. extra per day, without reference to o u t p u t
and without an investigation b y an impartial tribunal which
would decide t h e thing, t h a t we could not do. B u t if you t h i n k
t h a t it would be possible in discussion with t h e owners to formulate some scheme which would increase the output and,
b y t h a t means, increase the wages to t h e miners substantially,
then there is certainly only one way to do t h a t . There is no
time to do it in forty-eight hours. The only way to do t h a t is
to suspend the notices and have a meeting of t h a t kind to see
whether you could not formulate a scheme. If you found t h a t
a scheme could not be formulated, you could fall back upon t h e
present position, and, if you insist upon it, fight it out.
Mr. S M I L L I E : There will be no increase in wages until we meet
t h e employers and prove t h a t t h e o u t p u t has dropped or gone
up—is t h a t the position ?
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : No. T h a t a scheme should be formulated for an increase in wages which would have reference to an
increase in thé output.
Mr. B R A C E : W h a t you are suggesting i s t h a t we get 2s.; b u t
it is 2s. upon an output d a t u m line. Is t h a t w h a t vou are saying
to us ?
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : No. This is w h a t I am told by my
men—Mr. Smillie has reminded me t h a t I am a layman in this
matter, and of course I am.
Mr.

SMILLIE

: I did not mean it in t h a t sense.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : No, nothing could have been nicer t h a n
t h e way you p u t it ; I did not p u t it as subject of offence. B u t this
is w h a t I am informed—that it would be possible to formulate

— 34 —
a scheme which, taking into account all the things which Mr.
Smillie has said about new collieries not having been opened
and the difficulties which have been created by the war—it
would be possible to increase the o u t p u t to such an extent t h a t
t h e miners by a scheme o f t h a t kind would get their 2s. and the
public would get their increased output. Probably the miners
would get more out of a scheme of t h a t kind, b u t then t h e
public would get something.
Mr. V E R N O N HARTSHORN : Do
their 2s immediately ?

you mean they would get

The P R I M E MINISTER : Yes, if t h e o u t p u t were increased.
I quite agree t h a t it is entirely a question of what d a t u m line you
are going to fix. I would not dare to suggest a datum line; b u t
I am perfectly certain t h a t , within a reasonable datum line,
it would be possible for the miners t o earn their 2s. upon an increased output, and t h a t soon they could get a good deal more ;•
and all I suggest is t h a t the notices should be postponed. If
you only postpone them whilst you are having a preliminary
discussion upon the subject and if you find t h a t the scheme is
an impossible one, you can fall back upon your original position.
You are not abandoning t h a t position. Naturally, I contest
and I challenge t h a t position; b u t it is for you to decide, and
there is nothing to prevent your falling back on t h a t . W h y
do you not t r y an experiment of a preliminary meeting, a t any
rate, with the owners and the Coal Controller to see whether
you could not formulate a scheme which would satisfy the
community as a whole, and which would give the miner probably
more t h a n his 2s. upon an increased output, which is quite
within his capacity ?
Mr.

FINNEY

: There are piece-workers and day piece-workers.

The

PRIME MINISTER

Mr.

FINNEY

The

PRIME MINISTER

: Yes. But, you see—

: I want to p u t m y question, if you will allow me.
: I beg your pardon.

Mr. F I N N E Y : You are speaking of output all the time—the
miners are to get more by increasing t h e o u t p u t ?
The

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes.

Mr. F I N N E Y : Are you speaking of the output in bulk ? Or
are you speaking of the output as it applies to each individual
place V The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : In bulk. T h a t is the suggestion we
are putting forward. But t h a t is for examination. You might
have a preliminary examination in a week's time ; you would
know whether t h e thing were feasible or not, though I do not
say t h a t you could complete t h e scheme in a week. I think

— 35 —
Mr. Hodges is exaggerating the time it will take, b u t I agree
with him t h a t it would t a k e some time.
Mr.

HODGES

: I said to restore output—not the scheme.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I do not think it would take much
time to restore output up to a point where you could secure an
increased wage for the miner—and a substantial increase in
wage. B u t , at any rate, what h a r m is done if you suspend the
notices for, say, a week or a fortnight ? You get a preliminary
examination with the mine owners and the Coal Controller—or
a project of t h a t kind. You do not commit yourselves to it.
We do not ask you to commit yourselves to it; b u t we do ask
you to commit yourselves to a preliminary examination to
see whether it is feasible. Is t h a t too much to ask when it is
a question of plunging the community into this terrible disaster?
I do not think so.
Mr. S M I L L I E : Supposing t h a t
the employers and ourselves could
and t h a t we did mutually agree
happen ? Would t h e 2s. be given

next week it were found t h a t
mutually agree upon a scheme,
on some scheme, what would
to our people ?

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is a question entirely of the scheme
which you arrange with regard to output.
Mr. S M I L L I E : Mr. Lloyd George, we are asking for this 2s.
under existing circumstances, and t h e Government, I fear,
are losing the greatest chance t h a t they have ever had of increasing output. I do not know how t h e miners will look a t it,
b u t they would be largely willing to assist us in the m a t t e r ;
I believe we would be able to increase o u t p u t if there is goodwill,
b u t there cannot be goodwill in those circumstances.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I know. B u t there are always some
sorts of excuses which can be found. Mr. Hodges found some
which satisfied him.
Mr.

HODGES:

I hope t h e y satisfied you.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : No, they did not, for reasons into
which I do not w a n t to enter ; because if you enter into t h a t
kind of thing it takes us oil the point of discussion. There is,
however, a complete answer to t h a t . But, at any rate, you
become judges there in your own case. You come and say,
"Give us this advance, and we think we can give you an increased
o u t p u t . " W e find it goes down instead of going up. You say there
were reasons. There will always be reasons—there will always
be reasons. I have got here a list of the increases in wages.
They have been invariably followed by a decrease in output.
Now t h e public, whom we represent in this respect, I think will
expect us to say t h a t if there is an increase in wages it must
have some reference to t h e maintenance of the o u t p u t in t h e

— 36 —
mines. I believe you can formulate a scheme t h a t would be
satisfactory to the miners ; b u t at least it is not too much to
ask t h a t you should examine it, not whilst the whole industry of
the country is suspended, because then the conflict has started,
b u t t h a t it should be examined whilst work is going on in the.
mines. It is possible t h a t in the course of a week you could
make up your minds whether it is feasible. You might in a
week.
Mr. BONAR L A W : In other words, whether there is a practical
certainty t h a t you can get the increase b y this method.
The

PRIME MINISTER

: Yes, t h a t is it. T h a t is all.

Mr. SMILLIE : There is one thing—the miners cannot increase
output without the assistance of the employers.
The

P R I M E MINISTER

: T h a t I agree.

Mr. S M I L L I E : They have absolutely no control in any shape
or form. They m u s t simply go down and fill t u b s if they can
get the coal.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t I know ; t h a t I recognise ; and
t h a t is why I suggest t h a t you should meet the mine owners,
with the Coal Controller there. You make your case, and 3'ou
would say, " W e really cannot increase t h e o u t p u t here for
such and such reasons, which the mineowners are responsible
for." T h a t is a m a t t e r which could be investigated.
Mr. S M I L L I E : We might have given you a definite pledge,
and probably would have given you a definite pledge, t h a t
o u t p u t would be increased, if we had it in our power ; b u t we
have not. I asked you t o concede this increase of wages now,
and to call us together again if necessary, and say to us, "Look
here : I gave you this 2s., very much against our own desire to
give it, b u t I gave it believing t h a t you would begin now with
the employers and increase o u t p u t . " If we do not increase
output, or if we had not made efforts to increase output—if
we could do it ourselves without t h e assistance of the employers,
I would give you t h a t pledge in a moment ; b u t we might give
you a pledge t h a t we would increase output, and there might
be obstacles p u t in our way t h a t would mean a reduction of
output rather t h a n an increase in output. W i t h all the goodwill
in the world we could n o t do it.
A

DELEGATE]:

Hear, hear. W e could not give such a pledge.

Mr. B O N A R L A W : B u t you have a practical certainty t h a t
unless there is some trouble, there will be an increase. May I
p u t this point, sir ?
The

PRIME MINISTER

: Yes, please do, sir.

Mr. BoNAR L A W : F r o m w h a t Mr. Hodges said, supposing we
t a k e a datum line which is considerably below the. maximum
output of the first quarter, we are giving you t h e certainty of
some increase, some considerable increase, even though there
is no bigger increase of output t h a n would come in t h e normal
course. Well, it looks to me as if in doing t h a t we would ourselves
be open to t h e charge t h a t we were humbugging—that we were
giving the increase in one form, while telling the public we were
not giving it. B u t in reality I think we should be justified in
doing it, because we get the industry on t h e basis t h a t increase
of wages would depend upon output.
Mr. H A R T S H O R N : H O W far below t h e m a x i m u m do you
propose to get, Mr. Law ?
Mr. B O N A R L A W : T h a t is w h a t I say, Mr. Hartshorn. You know
t h a t it is true t h a t if t h a t principle were adopted you would
automatically get an increase, and our position in giving i t
to you would be justified because it is"for the first time getting
a relation between costs and output, which is worth while
making a concession for.*
Mr. HARTSHORN : B u t why do not you give us a definite answer
to t h e question which Mr. Hodges and Mr. Smillie have p u t t o
you ? Assuming an agreement were come to, do we get the 2s.
advance we are asking for ?
Mr. B O N A R
on output.
Mr.
paid ?

LAW

: I t will depend on output. I t must depend

HARTSHORN: DO

vou mean t h a t the 2s. would not be

Mr. B O N A R L A W : Sir R o b e r t H o m e has explained t h a t he
is quite willing to make it go back to Oct. 1—(remainder inaudible, the delegates talking amongst themselves).
Mr.
A

SMILLIE

DELEGATE

: Might I p u t it to you in this way—
: This is absolutely new ground.

Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : I think I stated it perhaps very badly—
a proposition of t h a t nature.
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : B u t if it is ground upon which there is
any chance of getting an understanding, it does not m a t t e r
whether it is new or old.
Mr. S M I L L I E : Sir Robert believes, and I think the d e p a r t m e n t
believes, thatif there were an arrangement by which o u t p u t could
be increased, wages would benefit to some extent on t h a t increase
in output. H e thinks t h a t would help to encourage output,
because there would be a reward—that is a national reward
to all the people for a higher output. Supposing it were suggested

— 38 —

to you that if you give this increase in wages, and we meet
the employers with Sir Robert Home, and fix a datum line at
whatever point we think would be reasonable and fair, you
would suggest that any increase of output above that datum
line ought to be taken as a fund from which some increase in
wages should begin. Supposing we say, if you give us the increase
in wages now we will co-operate with the employers, and when
that datum line is fixed we will not ask for a further increase
from the increased output until the value of this increase has
been taken out ?
Mr. BONAR LAWJ: It is a [different principle
you know.

altogether,

The PRIME MINISTER : Yes, that is a different principle.
Mr. THOMAS : Surely, Mr. Lloyd George, it shows that the
miners say to you—
The PRIME MINISTER : What is it ? It simply says: If you give
us 2s. now, we mean to ask for an increase by and by; but we won't
do it unless there is an increase in the output. But we say, on
the other hand, that this increase must have reference to the
output.
Mr. THOMAS : But, excuse me, you went beyond that, and
you said this : We will give an inducement to the miners towards
output.
The PRIME MINISTER : Why, what inducement ? According
to you, if the output remains exactly at this low figure of
230,000,000, the 2s. will still be paid.
Mr. BRACE : If you will [forgive]! me^Mr. Smillie has said this. If
you give the 2s., that should represent an outward datum line, as
our increase used to be represented through a price. We used
under our Conciliation Boards to arrange wages ; a certain wage
had as an equivalent a certain price, and what Mr. Smillie is
putting to you is this ,that if we get the 2s., then it shall represent—
he has not said it in that particular sense ; we are really exploring
to see if we can find a basis—it shall represent an equivalent
output datum line as our old equivalent price used to represent
a certain wage.
The PRIME MINISTER : Well, this is the point, Mr. Brace.
I am not putting this for argument, but for elucidation. Supposing the output is less than the datum line, would the miners
get that 2s. extra ?
Mr. BRACE : Less than the datum line ?
The PRIME MINISTER : Yes.

Mr. BRACE : Well, you give them the 2s. to start with.

*

— 39 —
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : So, if you are below t h e d a t u m line
you ge't t h e 2s. anyway ?
Mr.

BRACE

: Yes, b u t do n o t you see, sir—

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Then I do not see where the inducement
comes in. I t is out of t h e public.
Mr. B R A C E : You do get an undertaking.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Well, you know, I have not t h e faintest
doubt t h a t it is to be in all sincerity. Mr. Hodges gave it in all
sincerity here when there was an advance before of over 2s.—it
was 12s. a week, I think, which was given. The increased o u t p u t
was not realised, for reasons which are quite adequate t o Mr.
Hodges, b u t which are very disappointing to t h e public.
Mr.

BRACE

: This is rather new ground t o us.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I suggest, at any rate, t h a t you should
consider w h a t has been said.
Mr. H O D G E S : I do not think really t h a t t h e character of t h e
proposals t h a t you have p u t forward—you will pardon m y saying
this with all deference, b u t I have tried t o follow them t o t h e
best of m y ability, and I fail t o see anything like a clear, definite
series of proposals which will result in an improvement of
o u t p u t and an improvement of our wage position. It would have
to b e stated with much greater precision and in far greater detail
before we could judge as t o whether that was a process t h a t
could be adopted in our industry in anything like a permanent.
manner. W e want something t h a t we can have in t h e industry
and t h a t we can carry on with from year to year.
T h e P R I M E M I N I S T E R : Very well ; you can p u t t h e question
to us when you have discussed t h e m a t t e r amongst yourselves.
If there are any questions you would like t o p u t on detail
which would make the thing clearer t o you—I should not like
to answer them straight away, because naturally they m u s t be
answered by those wrho are technically competent to express
an opinion upon them—but, a t a n y rate, you p u t your questions,
and we will give our best consideration t o t h e m and let you
know.
Sir ROIÌF.BT H O R N E : There is one thing I should like t o say.
L e t us make a start upon this basis. It would be impossible
to reorganise t h e whole of t h e coal-mining industry within a
long time to come, b u t let us make a start. I have n o t a n y
doubt myself t h a t if I were a coal-owner or a coal-miner
approaching this problem a t t h e present time, I should certainly
find a w a y of fixing a point of output which would bring
certain advances, and certain points which would bring further
advances. I have no doubt a t all "that such a plan could b e

— 40 —
made at the present time which would be agreeable both to
ycu and to the coal-owners.
The
Sir

: And to the t h e public.

P R I M E MINISTER

ROBERT HORNE: TO

The
by it.

P R I M E MINISTER

the public, and to t h e whole world.

: Yes, the whole world would benefit

Sir R O B E R T H O R N E : Certainly it would. I have no doubt at
all t h a t t h a t could be achieved. It only requires, as it seems to
me, for you to sit down with the coal-owners in the spirit which
I have witnessed a t the various conferences t h a t I have held
in order to achieve this very desirable result.
Mr. H O D G E S : Of course, o u t p u t is not the only question.
After all, o u t p u t m u s t be relevant to values. (Hear, hear.) We
might raise o u t p u t by 10,000,000tons; b u t if we are notprotected
in values, how would t h a t improve the position ?
The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : T h a t is one of the questions which
could be considered.
Mr.

HODGES

: B u t they are fundamental.

The P R I M E M I N I S T E R : I agree. P u t alio, your questions, and
then we will give our best consideration to them.
Mr. H O D G E S : 1 was simply going t o say, Mr. Prime Minister,
that, as far as I can judge, t h e proposition, as it stands now, is
a proposition which cannot replace t h e application for t h e
advance for Avhich we are asking on figures which are agreed
between us. B u t w h a t it would do if this were disposed of—and
if this is not disposed of I cannot see how there can be peace—
(hear, hear)—whether you credit us with honesty or not—
The

PRIME MINISTER:

Nobody doubts t h a t .

Mr. H O D G E S : I mean, whether you credit our assertions as
being based on facts or not.
The

P R I M E MINISTER

: T h a t is a different thing.

Mr. H O D G E S : Then it does seem to us t h a t from the moment
when we get this out of the way, in our own interest—in the
interests of the large aggregation of men and women t h a t we repres e n t — w e must get down to it. Whatever obstacles arein the way
of the reorganisation of the industry, we m u s t seek to remove
them. It is an obligation upon u s ; b u t the pre-requisite is.the
removal of the existing anomaly t h a t our wages are less than the
increased cost of living.
Mr. G. B A R K E R : Leave it there. I t h i n k we have said enough
for to-night.
The

PRIME MINISTER

: Very well.

— 41 —
Mr. THOMAS : I just want to say one word. Sir
said something of which I took a note. When I
all the data, he answered by saying : "Yes ; so
concerned, we are prepared to continue." Now
quite clear whether he meant to continue to hear
the 2s.

Bobert Home
said you have
far as we are
I want to be
arguments for

Sir ROBERT HORNE : I said that 1 would always hear any
further arguments that had to be advanced upon any part, of
the claims, and I am always open to hear them.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues then withdrew, and
the delegates deliberated in private.

On the next day, the 23rrf September, the following letters passed
between the Prime Minister and the Executive of the Miners'
Federation.
10, Downing Street, S.W.,
Sept. 23, 1920.
Dear Mr. Smillie—On perusing the report of yesterday's
interview I gather the impression that while the miners' executive are not averse in principle to basing an increase of wages
on output, they have some difficulty in presenting to their
delegates a proposal which is at present, only in outline.
The Government have great hesitation in attempting to
make a detailed scheme for the reasons so well stated by Mr.
Smillie—that increased production depends not merely on the
miners, but on the co-operation of the owners with those who
work in the mines. On this ground the Government were, and
are, of opinion that the only satisfactory method of procedure
is for representatives of the owners and miners and the Coal
Department to sit down together and work out the details.
At the same time, I recognise the anxiety of your delegates to
know more than at present has been stated, and I add to what
I said yesterday the following explanations of what is in the
mind of the Government.
There will be fixed certain datum lines on which rates of
wages will be calculated in the following way. If output reaches
x tons wages will be increased by Is. per shift.
x plus y tons wages will be increased by 2s. per shift.
x plus y plus z tons wages will be increased by 3s. per shift.
If, after increases have been obtained, there are subsequent
diminutions of output, the increases will come off. It is impossible
for us now to say what figures would be represented by these

— 42 —

letters. These must obviously be arranged in conference between
representatives of the owners, miners, and the Mines Department,
but I think it will be apparent, looking to recent figures of output, that there is so much room for improvement that the miners
can make a certainty of increased pay. To give the scheme a
beginning, the figures of output for October will be taken, and
any increase in output will be remunerated according to the
arrangements set out above as from Oct. 1, payment being made
retrospectively. .
These, as you will understand, are only the general outlines
of a scheme which might come into effect for the next quarter.
There are many other factors which will require further determination for the purposes of a permanent scheme, but these
can be adjusted by yourselves and the owners in consultation
with the Mines Department.
The results of a coal strike would be so serious both for the
miners themselves and the whole country, that I am anxious
to make sure that it will not occur on any misunderstanding,
and if there is anything in this communication of which you
desire an explanation the Government will be glad to give it.—
Yours faithfully,
D. LLOYD GEORGE.

Miners' Federation of Great Britain,
55, Russell Square, W. C,
23rd September, 1920.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister—Your letter of even date, delivered by hand, was duly placed before our executive committee
to-day. We thank you for the additional information and for
the explanatory comment contained therein.
Our committee fully understood from their interviews with
both yourself and Sir Robert Home the nature of your proposals
for the future regulation of wages in our industry. We must
state, however, that the creation of a scheme for the permanent
regulation of wages is a question of such magnitude as demands
much thought and attention. Many meetings of the interests
concerned would be necessary and the consent of our membership
secured before any scheme could be adopted. Our executive
repeat their assurance to the Government that when the present
wage claim is disposed of they will be prepared to undertake
an inquiry into the whole wage system prevailing in the industry
with the view of putting it upon a modern basis, and which
will have to receive the approval of the men as a whole.
Yours faithfully,
ROBERT SMILLIE.
FRANK HODGES.

-

43 —

10, Downing Street, S.W.,
Sept. 23, 1920.

Dear Mr. Smillie—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter in reply to the communication which I sent you this
morning. Although a scheme for the permanent regulation
of wages in the coal industry might take a little time to arrange,
the proposal of the Government involved a plan which could
be made immediately operative, and would give to the miners
an increased rate of wages in return for an enlarged output,
which, as you yourself are confident, can be readily obtained.
The plan proposed would meet your "present wage claim,"
and in our belief would give to the miners great and permanent
advantages, whilst contributing to the prosperity of the community as a whole. If, however, you still reject this suggestion,
I would remind you that a peaceful method of settling the wage
claim is still open to you by a means similar to that which is
adopted by the Railwaymen and the majority of your colleagues
of the Triple Alliance.
Yours faithfully,
D. LLOYD GEORGE.

*

— 44—

Studies and Reports already issued :
(1) In English

and in French '

IN T H E R U H R D I S T R I C T . E n q u i r y by the
International Labour Office, end of May 1920. (Series B
No 1, issued on September 1st 1920.)
S T A F F R E G U L A T I O N ON T H E F R E N C H R A I L W A Y S . (Series D No 1,
issued on September 4th 1920.)
COAL P R O D U C T I O N

T H E CONSUMERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES I N 1919
AND S W E D E N ) .

(DENMARK

(Series H No 1, issued on September 8th 1920.)

T H E D I S P U T E I N THE M E T A L INDUSTRY I N ITALY. — T R A D E
U N I O N CONTROL OF T H E INDUSTRY (issued on September

24th 1920.)
SEVENTH

CONGRESS OF T H E B E L G I A N

CO-OPERATIVE O F F I C E .

(Séries H No 2, issued on September 25th 1920.)
T H E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPANISH W O R K E R S ' ORGANISATIONS. (Series A No 1, issued on September 25th 1920.)
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF W O R K E R S IN T H E F O O D AND
D R I N K T R A D E S . (Series A No 4, issued on October 11th 1920.)

(Series A No 7, issued

T H E M I N E R S ' INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS.

on October 19th 1920.)
THE

INTERNATIONAL L A B O U R

ORGANISATION. (Series A No

8,

issued on October 29th 1920.)
T H E INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS O F METAL W O R K E R S .

(Series A

No 9 issued on October 22th 1920.)
(2) In English
ANNUAL

MEETING

OF

THE

TRADE

only

1

UNION

CONGRESS

1920.

(Series A No 3, issued on October 4th 1920.)
T H E B R I T I S H GOVERNMENT AND T H E M I N E R S ' F E D E R A T I O N OF
G R E A T B R I T A I N . (Series A N o 5, issued on October 13th 1920.)

(3) In French only

1

DOCUMENTS RELATIFS AUX P R O J E T S D'ORGANISATION I N T E R NATIONALE POUR LA RÉPARTITION DES MATIÈRES P R E M I È R E S
o u DES D E N R É E S A L I M E N T A I R E S . (Series B No 2, issued on

October 5th 1920.)

•

L E CONGRÈS D E L ' I N T E R N A T I O N A L E OUVRIÈRE E T SOCIALISTE.

(Series A No 6, issued on October 14th 1920.)
1
In cases where the English or French text of a Report has not yet
been published, it will be issued at a later date.