COAL MINES' BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10590, 23 March 1912, Page 5

COAL MINES' BILL

SECOND READING CARRIED VIGOROUS BY MR BALFOUR. (Received Last Night, 9.45 o'clock.) LONDON, March 22. Tho Minimum Wage Bill was read a second time by 318 votes to 225. The Nationalists and Labourites voted with tho Government. The Hon. A. J. Balfour was welcomed by the Unionists with cheers, and counter Ministerial cheers and shouts of "Under which King?" Mr Balfour said the impression created by the opening debate was that neither on the Treasury benches nor elsewhero was anyone satisfied with the Government's solution, which held out no finality. It sanctioned a principle which would bo the precursor of perpetual future trouble. The country was never before faced with a peril of sucih a character and magnitude. It was a portentious spectacle of the organisation of action from within, in regard to the people's rights, wnich was threatening to paralyse the whoie community. Tho leaders were not tempering their power with any consideration or policy of mercy. No feudal Baron had exercised such power as the miners' leaders were exercising. He (Mr Balfour) was unable to understand how harmony could be preserved industrially, when agreements were allowed to be broken. The Government had deceived themselves, and the House was adducing argument based on abnormal places, which were not arguments for the minimum wage. The miners desired to compel the Parliament of a reluctant Government to adopt a principle which would render opposition universal. The application of the minimum wage system was impossible.

THE PREMIER REPLIES.

UNFAIR COMPARISONS. MINIMUM NOT EXTRAVAGANT. (Received Last Night, 11 o'clock.) ! -•^:-;.'".; : The Opposition, continued Mr Balfour, was compelled to test the opinion of the House of Commons, and at thie same time to do its best to secure the Government's policy, bad as it was, if the House approved. The Prime Minister, the Right Hon. H. H. Asquith, denied that the Government was responsible for the crisis, and had never yielded to pressure. The proposals of the Bill were identical with those offered to the miners and owners three weeks ago. While he would not say that the miners' representatives .-acted wisely and considerately, he challenged the likening to feudal Barons and comparisons with American trusts, as unfair. He a«ked the Opposition whether legislation was unnecessary. Mr Balfour had not produced an alternative, and only propounded barren negatives and impracticable platitudes. In the Scotisli and Welsh agreements, the masters and men had deliberately reserved the question of abnormal places for future consideration, and therefore it- was not reasonable to allow an agreement, to stand in the way of a settlement. The failure of the conference had compelled the Government .to obtain the jrarliaraentary sanction. The reasonableness of the Minimum Bill would be a means of escape from a crisis, without the Government sacrificing its primary duties to society. Ma- Enoch regretted that the Government "had to.legislate to settle, the dispute. The';. Federation had not asked for it. He realised that the Government would be lacking' in its duty if it did not grapple with the question. There was nothing criminal in asking for a minimum wage where men failed to earn, a proper wage through causes beyond the control of the miners. It was a most industrious insult to require ssaieguards. The. minimum sought was not extravagan.tr Sir Edward Grey said that the miners should not ask Parliament to include a schedule which was impossible, without exhaustive investigation. This was best left to the district Boards. H the Bill failed, -the strike would be prolonged. The Government would not neglect a means to secure coal, which'ought not to he withheld from'the nation.