The hon.  Member for Dulwich[11]—­himself a convinced protectionist, with a tariff with 1,200 articles in its schedules in his coat-tail pocket—­has given us a delightful lecture on the importance of cheapness of production.  Think of the poor consumer!  Think of the importance to our industries of cheapness of production!  We on this side are great admirers of cheapness of production.  We have reminded the hon. gentleman of it often; but why should cheapness of production always be achieved at the expense of the human factor?  The hon. gentleman spoke with anxiety of the possibility of a rise in miners’ wages as a consequence of this Bill.  Has he considered the relation of miners’ wages to the selling prices of coal?  At the pit’s mouth the underground-workers’ wages are only 60 per cent. of the selling price of coal.  Free on board on the Tyne, the proportion is only 38 per cent.  As coal is sold here in the south of England the proportion of wages is less than one-fifth of the whole price.  Is it not clear that there are other factors at least which require consideration before you decide to deal with the human factor, which first attracts the attention of the hon. gentleman?

What about mining royalties?  In all this talk about the importance of cheap coal to our industries and to the poor consumer we have had no mention of mining royalties.  No.  We never mention that.  Yet, will the House believe it, it is estimated that mining royalties impose a toll of 6 per cent., calculated on the price of coal at the pit’s mouth, or considerably more than half the total diminished production which could result from this humane Act of labour legislation.

But we are asked:  “Why stop here?  Why don’t your arguments apply elsewhere?” and we are told of people whose conditions of life are worse than some of those of coal-miners.  Why stop here?  Who ever said we would stop here?  I welcome and support this measure, not only for its own sake, but much more because it is, I believe, simply the precursor of the general movement which is in progress all over the world, and in other industries besides this, towards reconciling the conditions of labour with the well-ascertained laws of science and health.  If we are told that because we support this measure we shall be inflicting an injury or injustice on other classes of the population, I say there is a great solidarity among all classes of manual labourers.  I believe that when they consider this matter they will see that all legitimate interests are in harmony, that no one class can obtain permanent advantage by undue strain on another, and that in the end their turn will come for shorter hours, and will come the sooner because they have aided others to obtain that which they desire themselves.