When the hon. Member who has just sat down was speaking about masters loving their servants and servants loving their masters, I thought we had departed from the stage of master and servant to-day. We want the employer and the workman to treat each other as human beings, and to associate together for the common good of the people. Both are there for one purpose. The employer is not there for the purposes of his health, or for recreation, or for pleasure, and neither. is the workman. They are both there for the severe necessity of getting that which is necessary for the maintenance of life and home, so that we want both to co-operate. In reference to the Bill which is named the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Bill, there are some pre-war practices which we should like to see buried for ever, but the spirit and principle of the Bill are embodied in a pledge that was given and which must be redeemed, and consequently this Bill is but the fulfilment of an agreement honourably entered into, and must be given back to those who surrendered privileges at the outbreak of war. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches that have been made, and it strikes me that some of the speakers seemed to think that the Bill is intended to drive women out of employment. Nothing of the kind; but I think it is intended primarily to prevent women becoming competitors in industry with men. I am sure we have all been proud of the loyal response the women made to the appeal of the nation to enter into industry and to give the assistance that was necessary for carrying on the work of the nation to help us to win the War, and there is no doubt about it that the assistance rendered by the women at that period did materially assist the nation to win the War. But it was understood and clearly expressed, and it is clearly understood today, that the women who entered into certain occupations entered into them under the stress of circumstances, to fill up a gap that had been created, but not to remain permanently in that industry. I have looked upon women in certain branches of industry with horror and dismay, and have felt it was a crying shame that there was a need for them to remain there. I have seen them working in our docks, in our large factories, and in our gas works, as well as in our munition factories, and no one for a moment would think that these women would have a right to remain in industry of that kind, and so I think I am right and justified in saying that the purpose of the Bill is, not to drive women out of industry, but it simply means this, that the practices that do exist, the privileges that were existing prior to the War, whatever they were, however they existed, according to the agreements and customs and conditions that did exist in these various factories, shall be restored to exactly the same position as they were. Some of us, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Captain O'Grady) explained, ought to object to the Bill—but we do not. We are directly concerned in it; but we should be dishonourable men if we fought against it, because it is the fulfilment of an agreement entered into. We must admit to-day that women have been imported into industry, and when it comes to the test of who shall be employed as the breadwinner of the home, whether it shall be the man or the woman, there can be no question or doubt that the man must be the toiler and the woman must attend to her own duties, but it is not driving women out of industry in the sense that we have heard to-day, so that we can rest our minds in peace on that issue and not be alarmed. The House can be assured of this—that if there was any serious opposition to this Bill it would come from the women's organisation itself, and we have not yet known of a complaint lodged or any opposition to this Bill, because we all realise that it is the fulfilment of an obligation.

In regard to restriction of output, I have been for thirty years a trade union official, and it is what we would call a general union. I think I am about as mixed up an organiser of trade unions as possible, because I deal with so many trades. But I have heard the argument of the restriction of output used so often and the comparison of different countries has been so often made, to prove that the British workman was either lazy, or neglecting his duty, or unable to compete with the workman in other countries, that I would like to say a few words on that point. When you read statistics and returns on paper you are sometimes puzzled and wonder how it all comes about. I will give an illustration. I am concerned now in the finishing department of the tinplate industry which, as hon. Members know, is a very old-fashioned industry, and after the McKinley Law was passed and the industry was established in the United States we used to have terrible comparisons made which used to confuse us very much, but some years ago I had the opportunity of travelling through the United States and I had the privilege of investigating many industries with which I had been directly concerned, and I soon solved the problem. The industries in the United States had started where we had finished.

Very frequently the facilities for carrying on industry were so efficient and so complete that the only marvel to me was that the comparison was not more striking. You had this illustration. A man tinning plates in this country could not produce-more than thirty boxes in eight hours, whereas in the United States in certain works a man produced eighty boxes in the same time. It was a problem to me, because I knew men had gone out from this country to work there after the passing of the McKinley Act. I got into one of those large tinplate works which I had heard so often talked about. What did I find? The same man who had worked in South Wales, with precisely the same type of machine, precisely the same method of working, the same material, working for eight hours under exactly the same conditions, though he could not turn out more than thirty boxes in eight hours in South Wales, in Transylvania he could turn out eighty boxes. It seemed a bit of a puzzle, but I soon solved the problem. The employer on this side was working his machine as slowly as possible, because he thought it paid him to do so. I am not going to enter into technicalities and trade secrets. When he reads my speech he will know exactly what I am talking about. Out there the machine was running as fast as they could run it. In this country the machine was going about seven revolutions a minute; out there it was going about twenty-one revolutions a minute, the result being that at the end of eight hours the machine on this side turned out thirty boxes and that on the other side eighty boxes, of course with a proportionate increase of wages. That solved that problem at once, and when the workmen here talked this matter over they said, "Give us speed, and you will get the output. Set your machine going quickly, and you will get your plates turned out." There have been improvements since then, of course, but at that time you could not alter it.

There are other industries I could quote, which I saw during that tour throughout the United States, which afford comparisons. Instead of men having to carry heavy loads long distances, material having to be taken to one end and back again, and there being much overlapping. I have seen the whole factory out there arranged in such a way that the process started at one end and finished at the other. Of course, we are blamed for that. Let me say that I have had the opportunity of travelling through the United States and of travelling a good deal through the Continent of Europe. I went about with one determination, and that was to discover everything that was worth knowing, and to see for myself. I came back with the firm conclusion in my mind that the British workman, given the same facilities, the same opportunity, the same machinery, and the same incentive, is equal to any other man throughout the world. I have never been ashamed of the British workman, but I have often been ashamed of the British employers who have not encouraged the British workman to give of his best. I have seen manual workers in our own factories with an inventive genius who, in working their machines, could see where improvements could be made. I have known of cases where such improvements have been pointed out, and I myself have heard the employer say, "I am paid for the brain work in this factory; you go on with your job," and so it has never been encouraged. I hope that the Whitley Councils and the works committees that are being formed, and in which I, as well as other of my colleagues, have taken an active interest, will remove that barrier which has existed between the employer and the employéand will enable them to consult together, and realise that it is to their mutual advantage to get the best that can be got out of the machinery in the interest of all concerned.

Though I say that we welcome the Bill, because it will be the fulfilment of a pledge given, there is one difficulty probably with which we have got to contend. This Bill is not going to remove all our difficulties by any means. There are difficulties enough to meet to-day. There is the difficulty of the employment of the returned soldier, who may not be quite so-efficient to-day as he was before the War. Any man who has passed through the tragedy of the War, the hardships and the suffering, the horrors of the trenches, and the difficulties of an arduous campaign, can never be as efficient as he was before he entered into that terrible War. We have all seen the marked change in them. We have realised the difference in their physique and appearance, and we know that for years to come those men cannot be—and possibly never will be in many cases—as efficient workmen as they were before they entered the War. There must be consideration shown to them, and their condition must be taken into account. We must see that a man of that sort is not put upon the scrap heap, or thrown aside as a worked out machine. The employer who has kept open a man's job must realise the possibility of the man not being so efficient, and due consideration must be shown to him, and he must be helped to return to the normal stats of health again. Therefore, I say that this Bill is not going to remove all the difficulties. It may create some more difficulties, but it must be introduced, and I hope the House will accept it and pass it, because it is the fulfilment of a pledge given to the trade unions of this country, who have looked forward to it, anticipate it, and welcome it.