Mr. THOMAS:

I do not know. There may have been some Government officials but the power was taken by this House of Commons, and committees were set up and they were responsible to the Government. At all events I am not concerned for the moment in arguing whether Government officials were the best or not. The fact remains that this was not private enterprise. It was the Government. The Government said "we will do this ourselves," and they appointed, as any Government could do and would do, some people to go on with the detailed work. The most remarkable result is this. Take the ordinary man buying a suit of clothes in 1915 and take the same man buying a suit of clothes in 1918. No one will deny that there was at least 100 per cent. increase in the price of the suit of clothes in 1918 as compared with 1914. But by the Government's action in buying this wool wholesale, they were able to clothe the last 100,000 troops cheaper than the first 100,000 in 1914. These facts not only cannot be disputed, but I submit that they are the basis for the claim that I am now making. We all want to encourage Dominion and Colonial food growing and to encourage trade within the Empire. We all want to see our people benefiting in all parts of the Empire, and surely if there is a practical way of doing it—a way by which both the producer and the consumer can benefit from the action—I submit that it is a legitimate matter for discussion. That is all I propose to say on What I call the Dominion side of the question. I have not spoken, I hope, in a controversial sense. I hope I have put to the right hon. Gentleman some practical and concrete proposals that legitimately ought to be the subject of discussion at the forthcoming conference.

I propose now to turn very briefly to ask him why, when dealing with the two Committees that I set up after consultation with representatives of all parties in the House, why he found it necessary to abolish both the Southborough and the Islington Committees. I know he has repeatedly said that it was because the Mission of the Under-Secretary dispensed with the necessity for their job. I do not agree. I took the view, and I hope it is a view that will be continued by all Governments, that in Colonial matters the delicacy and difficulty that surround the Colonial Office are such that we should, as far as possible, try to follow the policy of the Foreign Office and not make it a party issue. There was no Committee of any sort set up without representatives of all parties being invited to sit on it. I was advised that, in getting together these two Committees, not only was I obtaining the services of practical men, but they would be able to get information that would be invaluable in days to come. To my amazement, within a month of the change of Government, I was told that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to abolish these Committees. I submit that, unless there is very strong and sufficient reason for his action— which I do not admit—to depart in that way from a policy and tradition of non-party character is, to say the least, something that we ought to deprecate. I want to ask him whether he still believes that there is no necessity for these or some other Committees to study and give effect to the many difficult questions that he has to deal with from time to time.

I also want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position at the moment with regard to the labour conditions in the Gold Coast mines. When I saw a return, I was not only staggered, but I believe there could be no Member in this House other than shocked to find the number of people that were daily going to a living death. The figures for the Gold Coast were terrible. It is quite true that they were natives, but that is not an argument against something being done. I felt that there was a moral responsibility, and the result was that I stopped the recruiting. I said, "There are to be no more of these natives going down under these conditions," and I sent a special Commissioner to investigate the whole situation, and a rather alarming report he gave. It was a deplorable report, a report that was a disgrace, and I want to know what is the position at this moment. What is the change? Is the same system in operation? What effect is being given to the Report, and are steps being taken to get periodical visits of this kind? I am convinced, from the figures and the extaordinary state of affairs then existing, that, instead of waiting till someone's attention is drawn to this terrible mortality—