§ Mr. WALSHI beg to move, in page 1. line 9, to leave out the word "Where."
I am moving this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend to enable a general discussion to take place on the question whether the definite responsibility of taking the initiative in the preparation of schemes of amalgamation or absorption ought not to be placed on the Board of Trade. We had a long discussion on this point in Committee upstairs, and I do not propose to detain the House more than two or three minutes in restating the arguments. The Royal Commission, in their Report, spoke of a growing reluctance on the part of owners of large colliery undertakings to amalgamate. It was stated that there had been large amalgamations in the past, but that the number of them was becoming fewer, that there was a distinct disinclination to amalgamate. We believe that if amalgamation is left to the initiative of the owners of the undertakings, amalgamation on any decent scale will not be brought about for a very long time to come. I am not going to say a word as to the inefficiency or the efficiency of the mining industry at the present time. I believe everyone possessing direct knowledge of the industry will admit that there are very many cases in which nothing but the best results could ensue from amalgamation, but a thousand and one interests which animate humanity prevent these amalgamations from taking place. To use a common phrase, what is everybody's business is nobody's business. While the Bill provides that compulsion can be exercised by the Board of Trade at a later stage, we do not believe that that will be sufficient.
1640 Already the Board of Trade has a tremendous amount of information in its possession. While that is true of almost every Department of the Board's activities, it is particularly true of the Mines Department. In Committee upstairs I described the information in possession of that Department as encyclopædic. There is no information in connection with the mining industry, either on the commercial, the industrial, the legal or the social side, that is not already in the possession of the Department. I believe myself that a definite responsibility ought to be placed upon the Mines Department of the Board of Trade to promote these amalgamations and utilise the information already to hand, and after satisfying themselves with the information in their possession that amalgamation could be effected and was desirable, they ought to proceed to take the responsibility of preparing schemes themselves. There is no class of information which they lack. They have inspectors, and they are in possession of the very kind of information which it is necessary the Department should possess to make their action effective. We think if the initiative is left to the responsibility of the owners of the undertakings amalgamation on any effective scale will not be affected for a long time. We believe that very little good can result on the lines of the present Bill, but we do believe that the initiative should be placed on a State Department, and if that is done the benefit would be very much greater than it can possibly be on the lines laid down in the Bill.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThe subject raised by the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) was discussed very fully in Committee. I rise to say a few words because there is an Amendment standing in my name, and in the names of three other right hon. Gentlemen, which we pressed 1641 very strongly indeed upstairs, and which we believe would have improved the Bill, and made the voluntary working of the system initiated by the Bill more successful on the whole—in page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
(3) (a) In default of initiative by any owner of such an undertaking the Board of Trade shall at any time after this Act has been in operation for twelve months have power itself to prepare and refer to the Railway and Canal Commission a scheme for the amalgamation of any two or more such undertakings for any one or more of the above-mentioned purposes, and such scheme may be either total or partial;(b) Upon such scheme being referred to it, the Railway and Canal Commission shall give such directions for notification by the Board of Trade to all owners of such undertakings likely to be affected thereby, and such opportunity for objection as it thinks expedient and fair, and if any one or more of the said owners is willing to enter into the said scheme the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall thereupon become applicable. Provided that—
- (i) the Commission shall endeavour to bring together the owners so notified in order if possible to secure their voluntary assent to the said scheme as proposed by the Board of Trade, or subject to such modifications as may be agreed or as may be directed by the Commission;
- (ii) if the said owners all refuse or fail voluntarily to enter into the said scheme the Commission may, if they think fit, direct the Board of Trade to publish the same together with the reasons of the Commission for thinking that the same is in the national interest, and the Board of Trade shall thereupon publish the same by laying the said scheme and reasons before Parliament or in such other manner as the Commission may direct;
- (iii) if, after a period of not less than six months from the date of such publication, no one of the said owners intimates that he is willing to be treated as an owner applying for an Absorption Order within the meaning of this Section it shall, for a further period of six months, be open to the Commission to receive through the Board of Trade and to consider an application from any other person to be treated as if he were an absorbing company within the meaning of this Section, but the Commission shall not grant an order in favour of any such other person until they have given the owners of the undertakings in question such further opportunity of themselves applying for an order as to the Commission may seem fit.
And provided also that an order under paragraph (iii) hereof shall not become operative until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament confirming the same.1642 It is quite clear that the operation of the voluntary side of the Bill will take some little time to get into working order, but the Mines Department conceded upstairs an obligation to make a report at the end of two years instead of the original proposal of three years in order that the country may know earlier than three years how the system provided by the Bill operates during the first two years. The Mines Department are satisfied that the working of the Bill voluntarily under Clause 1, with the addition of some compulsion under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, will be successful, and they are also satisfied that there will not be the inactivity which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and to guard against that the Amendment I have referred to was devised. I am prepared to act upon that view, and let the Bill have a clear run on the lines upon which it now stands. For these reasons, I shall not press the Amendment which stands in my name. To-day is Friday, and we are very near the end of the Session. An arrangement has been made to get the Report stage of this Bill by seven o'clock on Tuesday, and therefore I do not feel justified a present, in view of the very definite decision of the Government that the Amendment standing in my name is not needed, in pressing it at this stage. I would like to remind those who were not on the Committee that during the Committee stage upstairs the Secretary for War said:If it is then found that the compulsory powers of the Bill have not been sufficiently made use of, or that the procedure is in any way defective, or that some further assistance is required, it will be easy for Parliament at that time, having regard to the experience that will have been gained of the three years' working of this Clause, to pass any legislation that may be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th June, 1926; col. 43.]That period is now two years, and in view of that definite indication on the part of the Government that at the end of two years they will be prepared to take action on the lines of the Amendment which stands in my name, and the necessity of a considerable period elapsing before any action could be taken under the provisions of the Bill, I do not propose to move it, and I ask the House to get on with the Bill in order that what is a valuable reform of the mining industry may become law at the earliest possible date.
§ Mr. HARNEYI do not quite go so far as the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down in accommodating myself to expedite this Bill. Although I cannot say that I am willing to withdraw the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and myself, I am quite willing to make the remarks on this Amendment which were intended for my own proposal, and when my own Amendment is reached I shall move it formally. In that way I go halfway in the same direction as the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott). Of course, it is common ground that further grouping of mines is advisable and that has been recognised by the Government, the Sankey Commission, and the Samuel Commission. The Labour party would go the whole hog, but the Members of my party have made up their minds to nail their colours to the Report mast. There is a difference between what I propose in my particular Amendment and what the Bill proposes, and what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool proposes. The Bill proposes amalgamation, but confines it entirely to the initiative of the owners.
I propose amalgamation extending the initiative to the State. My proposal would permit amalgamation on the initiative of the owners, the State, or even the men themselves. I do not really think that at this stage in our coal industry development we can consistently exclude the men, not only from having a say but a very strong say, in all matters for the carrying on of the industry. Under the National Agreements of 1921 and 1924, they now occupy the position of partners. They are as much interested as the owners in seeing that only profitable mines are worked, and are made to give the best results, since they share in the proportion of 87 to 13 in the profits. Anyone who has mixed among miners, as I have had the advantage of doing, since I represent a mining constituency, must be struck with the acumen and the shrewd knowledge displayed by the miners themselves of the geographical, geological and commercial considerations that enter into the working of a mine. Provision is made, in a Clause 1644 introduced by the Government, whereby their views can be representatively expressed by the Pit Committee. It would be a very great pity if the Bill goes through Parliament providing for amalgamations—especially if extended to amalgamations at the instance of the State—but excluding the possibility of the men themselves initiating amalgamations. That is the reason, therefore, why I put forward my Amendment.
One of the great grievances that has caused the men in this present crisis to adopt such a stubborn and unfriendly attitude is not so much the material loss that they may have to suffer, as the fact that they are satisfied that they are being excluded from any say in the carrying on of an industry, the success of which is what they have to rely upon for their own living. They ask why they should not get now what all agree they are entitled to on the basis of even of subsistence. They say they do not get it because the mines do not pay, but that they have nothing to do with the question whether they pay or not. They have no word in regulating their combinations, in saying where the pits shall he sunk in seeing that the distance the men have to walk is shortened. They say that they are excluded from all those things, but that they believe that, by removing some of those handicaps to profits, they could get higher wages. Their grievance to-day, therefore, is that, because the mines do not pay through the lack of knowledge or skill on the part of somebody else they have to bear the burden of that inefficiency. Quite apart from its other uses, this Amendment would be of great advantage as—to use an expression which I hate—a psychological gesture, by saying to those men that we are giving them an equal say with the owners in initiating these groups.
3.0 P.M
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that his Bill carries out broadly the views of the Commission. It really does not on this very point. How far does this Bill go towards the Report of the Commission? The Bill says, in effect, "If the owner moves, but only if the owner moves, can anything be done." If the owner moves, it is true he can move against another owner, and he can bring that other owner ultimately before the Railway and Canal Commis- 1645 sion, where a decision can be given that will be binding on the other owner; but the owner must first move. What do the Commission say? The Report says:
Can we rely that those amalgamations which are desirable will come about by the action of the industry itself? Here the experience of more recent years has not been encouraging. The process of fusion appears to have come almost to a standstill…. But this process of natural absorption can also not be relied upon to effect, of itself, all that is needed. If nothing more were done than to leave economic forces to work themselves out, it would probably he found 20 years from now that over a large proportion of the area the same conditions as those of to-day would still be prevailing.My reading of this Bill is that, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, the owner is not bound by a single force that does not exist at this moment to set about amalgamation, and, therefore—if my Amendment be not carried I would be very glad to support the Amendment that the State should now step in—I do press upon the Government to make this system of amalgamation harmonious. There are three parties equally interested in seeing that mines are properly worked. There are the owners, whom the Bill allows to move. There is the State, on behalf of the whole community. Let it move. There are the unfortunate miners themselves—why should not they be allowed to move? If a mine is unprofitable, it means at most the loss of money to the shareholders, but it means the loss of livelihood to the miners. Instead of being put last in the list of those who may initiate, they ought to be put first in the list. I therefore press the Government, when my Amendment is formally moved, to accept it.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI shall not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken on the general question as to how far compulsion is included in this Bill, but I would like to bring the House back to the question which is under discussion. We had a considerable discussion on this Amendment in Committee, and I do not propose to speak at any great length, but I should like to remind the House that the Amendment suggests that the system to be adopted should be that the Board of Trade should provide a scheme for unifying under single ownership and control. That, as the hon. and learned gentleman who has just 1646 spoken says, means unification. Although he was ready enough to quote the Royal Commission's Report, he will admit that that was a system definitely and completely turned down by the Royal Commission. I do not think that any scheme of that sort would be accepted. It would entirely revolutionise the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give a chance of voluntary amalgamation by removing the obstacles that at present exist. We are doing that. When that has been done, if it be found after a certain period of time that amalgamations are not going ahead, and the Government consider that an expediting process is required, then a duty rests upon them to take action. In any case, this House would never accept this suggestion of unifying under single ownership and control. It is another form of our old friend nationalisation, which we have always rejectel.
§ Mr. LAWSONI support this Amendment because I do not agree for a moment that the owners intend to amalgamate, nor do I believe that anyone else who knows anything about the situation thinks for a moment that they intend any amalgamation on any scale at all. If one took the statements by the Government, and particularly by the coal-owners' spokesmen in the Committee, one could demonstrate that these people have made it quite clear to the country that they are not intending for a moment to improve the organisation or to rely upon the improvement of organisation for the lessening of costs and the gaining of markets. The whole of the circumstances in which we are discussing this Bill are the best proof of that. We are discussing it quite calmly here, in an atmosphere which seems to be terrifically unreal, while this ghastly conflict is going on, and when the owners have made up their minds, and the Government have made up their minds, that they are going, as they say, to fight to a finish. Let them understand this, that those among us who have sometimes been counted rather moderate will say to them that, if it is a finish that the owners desire, it is for us only the beginning and the continuation of the conflict.
The owners say that what they are going to do is to get down to the economic basis. "The economic basis" is a very nice term for taking it out of the standard of life of the great mass of the workers. Having 1647 got the reductions of wages they contemplate, having got, as they think they will get, the increase of hours that they want, having got district arrangements, and all the other things for which there is a common desire among the owners and among Members of the Government also—having got all these things, they are not intending to rely upon increased organisation, but they are going, if I may use an ordinary word that the man in-the-street uses, to get it out of the very vitals and guts of the workers, and they are going to rely rather upon that than upon any reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman quoted what the Report says, but the Commission only arrived at that conclusion very reluctantly. They asked:
Is the initiative of the industry itself sufficient?And they said that it is not. They added:The experience of more recent years has not been encouraging. The process of fusion seems to have come almost to a standstill.They go on to say why—There are undoubtedly serious obstacles, which in individual cases hinder fusion"—and they ask:Which of the old concerns is to be predominant in the new combination? Which of the directors and managers are to be displaced? What is the valuation to be put upon each of the properties? How much above its market value at the moment are the promoters of the new scheme ready to pay to the owners of an adjacent colliery, rather than surrender the completeness of their project?All these are vital matters for consideration by the people who own the individual collieries. The truth is that, as has been stated in this Debate, it is not a question for discussing whether amalgamation is necessary or not. If it were, we could bring forward a fund of material. Every man, whether miner or independent citizen, who has considered this project, as well as the Commission itself, agrees that there is very great need for amalgamation and for improving the organisation for economic purposes, but the Commissioners themselves say that there is not the initiative in the industry itself to-day. What is the answer? Anyone who is in the industry knows it is quite true that there are so many obvious things that coalowners ought to do, but will not do because they affect their particular interests, because there are family 1648 interests, because of the things mentioned in the, Report, which I say are obvious but which they absolutely refuse to do.I have known men from a colliery that was closed go elsewhere and try to discover a beautiful seam of coal of very high quality. They failed and then I have known the same men go to the next door colliery, belonging to another company, working round about the boundaries of that same coal which they had discovered from the other side, the coal being in a position to be got at the shafts, while they dared not touch that coal because it belonged to another company, and really was geographically part of the colliery that was working. Instance after instance of that description can be given, and the Commissioners themselves were satisfied. We do know that there are these prejudices, that there is this lack of business foresight, this concern to fall back upon reduced wages or increased hours or a lower standard of life—anything sooner than get down to the drastic reorganisation of the industry.
We know the owners have set out for a definite policy in this terrible conflict, and we know the Government is behind the owners. We know exactly where they are going. They are going to take it out of the bodies and lives of the worker himself, and they do not intend for a moment to fall back upon the reorganisation of the industry along the lines of amalgamation. It is true they say they are reconsidering the matter in two years. We ask the House to say whether or not they are going not merely to compel the owners to amalgamate, in fact we are asking the House to say whether they are going to allow the owners to fall back upon the weapon of continued starvation even when the workers get back to work. I am very pleased to have had an opportunity of saying this, and of giving a warning that there is no doubt whatever amongst the workers' representatives on this side that when this is finished the most moderate among us will take steps to fan the sparks that are left until there is another flame. That is the logic of the line the owners are taking. That is the logic of the refusal of Amendments of this kind.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. If this Amendment is defeated, would it be competent for my hon. Friend 1649 and myself to move the Amendment in our name that comes later?—in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "coal," to the word "may," in line 13, and to insert thereof the words
the Minister of Mines, on the application of the owner of any undertaking consisting of or comprising coal mines, or on the representation of two-thirds of the miners working in any such undertaking, or on his own initiative.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhen the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House we arrived at an understanding to take a. general Debate on the first Amendment, followed by a Division only on the second one.
§ Mr. SPENCERIf we are not going to debate the other Amendments we ought to be given greater privilege with regard to this Amendment. If the arrangement is that we shall have a Debate and then take the Amendment I am prepared to submit to your ruling, but if that is your point of view, the Debate ought to be extended.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am sorry I was not in the House at the time, but do I understand you suggested that the speeches on the next Amendment should be made now and the Amendment should be moved without any discussion? If that he so, I shall be prepared to speak now.
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes, I think that was the understanding.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI support the Amendment, because the scheme of the Bill not merely falls far short of the Report of the Commission, but is absolutely different in kind. The Report of the Commission would effect amalgamation within something like a reasonable time. There is not guarantee under the provisions of this Bill that you will ever have any amalgamation at all. I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he thinks that in the course of the next two years we shall have any substantial amalgamation in the coalfields under this Bill. If not, it is a perfectly futile Bill and it comes to nothing. It is something that misleads the public into the belief that something is being done, where as a matter of fact nothing at all is being done. If the Government stood by their original declaration, the declaration of the Prime Minister that he was prepared to 1650 carry through the whole scheme of the Report, whether of selling agencies or of this particular scheme, we should be in a position to know exactly where we were. We should have had amalgamations, and we should have known things by now. It means that, first of all, we have to get two owners to agree upon a scheme. Then, there is a most elaborate process to go through, which may take any length of time. The owners will be fighting not merely against amalgamation, but they will each be fighting for terms. We who have had experience of Committees upstairs know what happens when a number of rival companies and rival counsel are fighting, not only to prevent a thing going through, but in order to get terms for themselves.
What will happen? In the end, terms will be given of such a character as to make the amalgamated concern a much bigger burden than the individual concern before, and the condition of the mining industry will be worse than it ever was. You will have capital watered, and you will have capital that represents no value, and you will have what simply represents, I do not want to use the word "blackmail," but a kind of pressure, which will be brought to bear upon those who are in favour of the amalgamation to induce them to pay terms which they would not have paid merely upon the value of the scheme, but merely in order to get rid of difficult and troublesome people, and in order to save time. Time here is the essence of the whole transaction. It is not merely that you have a great industrial strike or stoppage going on which has cost, according to some authorities, over £150,000,000. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend opposite that it has cost very much more. I have gone into the figures very carefully, and I am certain that the other is an estimate which is on the conservative side. I remember very well that when we had the stoppage in 1921 it was estimated that it cost £350,000,000. Of course, everything was exaggerated at that time, because it happened during the Coalition Government. Probably the cost was somewhere in between. The cost of the present stoppage is under-estimated. Every loss under a Conservative Government is under-estimated, whereas every loss under the Coalition Government is over-estimated. We can strike a happy 1651 or an unhappy mean between the figures, and I am certain that the loss will be very considerably more than the present conservative estimate.
Time is the very essence of the transaction, and it is not merely that you should get an earlier settlement of a very desolating struggle, but that you must begin to put this basic industry upon a footing that will give confidence to trade, that it can go on in the future without any danger of more trouble. The restoration of confidence in industry means a good deal more than your £150,000,000. I would have expected the Government to take what remnant of courage they have still left in both hands, and undertake to bring in a real compulsory amalgamation scheme. I frankly confess that I prefer unification throughout the whole Kingdom, but if we cannot get unification, the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) would, I am sure, prefer a scheme like that, if he could not get his own, as the next best. Nobody that I have ever heard of wants the scheme of the Government, not even their own supporters. They are only supporting this scheme because it will do nothing. That is the kind of consolation they are giving each other: "This does not matter, it does not mean anything. Nor does it. They are perfectly right. There is no real compulsion here. I hope the Government will put in some measure of real compulsion within a reasonable time. This basic industry is on a totally different footing to all other industries except railways, and now is their opportunity. In the Amendment we have put down, we propose that initiation shall not be confined merely to the owners. Why should the miners be ruled out of an industry which to them is a matter of life and death? It is their living; they have committed the whole of their careers to it. They live there. That is more than you can say of a good many of the owners. The miners have committed their destinies to it; their own and their families. Is it too much to say that they have a direct interest in amalgamation? You have had three great strikes, in which the miners have suffered considerably, and they are suffering now. They have a direct interest in. seeing that this industry is put on a sound footing, and I suggest 1652 to the Government not merely that they should introduce the principle of compulsion, and see that it operates in something like reasonable time, but that they should give to the 1,200,000 miners whose living depends on it, the same interest as the few hundreds and thousands of owners and shareholders, who also have their interest in the industry. It is not a question of ruling them out; it is a question of excluding the whole of the miners, and for that reason we propose to move an Amendment giving to two-thirds of the miners in a district the right to initiate a scheme.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIn a short speech the right hon. Gentleman has managed to cram in a good many inaccuracies. Let me take some of them. He has spoken of the Amendment which is before the Committee, and also of the Amendment he is going to vote for presently. He has complained of the procedure, and he made one of his illustrative speeches. He says the owners will be fighting each other in order to save time; they will offer each other a great deal more than they are worth, the capital will be watered, indeed, that there will be blackmailing of each other in order to get the thing through. That he says, is the procedure provided by the Bill. But it is curious that his Amendment does not make any suggestion for altering the procedure. It is precisely the same, if his Amendment is accepted, as it is now in the Bill, there is not the slightest difference at all, except that two-thirds of the miners in a district can put the procedure into operation. There is exactly the same blackmail, the same kind of threat, the same amount of watering of capital, the same kind of action before the tribunal, all that clumsy procedure which is going to take so much time; all will be exactly the same, even if we pass the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He made another statement, that there is no real compulsion in this Bill, that it is going to do nothing, that no owner need amalgamate unless he likes.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSYes, that is the statement, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman has a follower not on his own benches but on the benches opposite.
§ Mr. HARDIECan the right hon. Gentleman show any single line in this Bill where there is a suggestion of a real reorganisation?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is precisely what I am going to show. I am going to show that there is very real compulsion in the Bill. Clause 1, Subsection (1), deals with voluntary amalgamation. Sub-section (2) deals with compulsory amalgamation.
§ Mr. HARDIEUnder what powers?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI will explain to the hon. Member if he will listen to me. I should have thought it was very well known by now, but as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that there is no real compulsion let me remind him of what the compulsion is. Any one corner or more owners of collieries may—
§ Mr. HARDIEYes, "may." Where is your compulsion then?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs it "shall" in the Amendment?
§ Mr. HARNEYWhat my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said was that there was as no real compulsion in the Bill, because the only person to do anything was the owner, and if he did not move there was not a line in the Bill to compel him to do so.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat was not the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who as a rule has no difficulty in defending himself.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMay I repeat my statement, which has been explained with great lucidity by my hon. and learned Friend? The case which I did make was that the miners' interests were certainly no less than, if not much greater than, those of the owners, and that unless the owners agreed you could not amalgamate. Therefore, I urged that the miner should have the same right -of initiation.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is a part of the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. I withdraw what I said if I misrepresented him. What he led me to suppose was that no owner would 1654 be forced to amalgamate. The proposal is very simple. The right hon. Gentleman has only to look at the top of page 2 where he will see that owners who are unwilling to agree to amalgamate or to the proposed terms of amalgamation can be absorbed compulsorily.
§ Mr. HARNEYBy other owners.
§ Mr. HARDIEBy what machinery?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSBy other owners.
§ Mr. HARDIEYes, that is it.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSBy other owners who produce a scheme. The case that the right hon. Gentleman was stating was that there was no compulsion in the Bill. Wherever it can be shown to be an economic thing to amalgamate, the only people who can originate a scheme are the owners. Wherever it can be shown that it is an uneconomic thing to do, that it is for the more efficient working of the mines to arrange an amalgamation, an amalgamation can be forced upon unwilling owners under a scheme.
§ Mr. HARNEYIf an owner does not seek amalgmation, what power is there in the Bill to push him?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe owners have generally been accused of being money makers, who are always trying to make profits and who disregard everyone else. If an amalgamation is economic, if there is a profit to be made out of it, cannot you trust the owners to bring in a scheme in order that the economic amalgamation may be carried out? [Interruption.] Of course, I understand the object of those who moved the original Amendment. They want unification, whether there is a profit in it or not. They do not care about profit, because unification for them is a step towards nationalisation. They know that if you had all the mines of the country unified in one single holding the public would control it, and their Amendment upstairs said so, though the present Amendment does not. The Amendment upstairs asked for a unification scheme under public control, and they know if there was an amalgamation of that sort of all the mines in the country, no one could finance that business except the 1655 Government, and as soon as you got the Government financing it, you would have Government ownership and nationalisation, which is the real objective of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. WALSHOur Amendment upstairs did not ask for unification under public control, but for unification under single ownership—not public control at all.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI think the exact words were "under single ownership and control," and if you had all the mines of the country amalgamated under single ownership and control, there would be no case whatever against the Government coming into control, because, they alone could finance an undertaking of that sort. If the national finance was to be used in this way, it is quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman would immediately say that there ought to be national control. This is a subterfuge. It is an Amendment for nationalisation. It is contrary, in effect, to the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report was distinctly against nationalisation, and this Amendment is seven-eighths of the way towards nationalisation. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) should support it.
I quite understand that there is a separate case in regard to giving the miners a power of initiating, but you must consider how it is going to operate. It sounds like a reasonable proposition that you should allow miners to initiate schemes of amalgamation. Then you ask, "Amalgamation of what?" and the answer is, "Of the property of shareholders and private individuals." The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is that miners should be allowed to bring in schemes for the compulsory amalgamation of other people's property. It is a reasonable proposition that on an amalgamation scheme the miners should be entitled to be heard or, at any rate, that the Railway and Canal Commission should have the right to call them as witnesses and take evidence from them. That right is inserted in the Bill. In Committee I accepted a proposal made by hon. Members opposite, and it will be found in Clause 8 of the Bill as it stands now. That is right, but to ask that the miners should be allowed to bring in schemes of amalgamation is to ask for the impossible. 1656 Contemplate how it would work out. They would know nothing about the capitalisation or the liabilities of the companies to be amalgamated. They would know nothing about the financial arrangements which exist in any single company. How on earth could they bring in schemes of amalgamation? This is a very complicated matter, and I do not want to add to the difficulties; but if the miners themselves owned the collieries under their unions, if they took the risk of coal mining —[Interruption.]
§ Mr. GREENALLWho takes the risk now?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am talking of financial risks, and the hon. Gentleman need not attempt to misunderstand me. My meaning is perfectly apparent. If they take the financial risk and put their money into the collieries and become directors and shareholders, then they can bring in absorption schemes. If that scheme is a good one, the unwilling owners of adjoining collieries can be compelled to amalgamate under it. Hon. Members opposite have there the answer in their own hands to the question they ask. I hope the House will come to a decision on this Amendment now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is indifferent to me whether we discuss one Amendment or another, but there are many Amendments down that really deserve discussion, and I hope the House will come to a decision now.
§ Mr. SPENCERNothing could be more preposterous than the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman. When he talks about trade unions investing their money in collieries, he knows very well, or he ought to know before he makes such a statement, that they have no right whatever to invest their money in that direction.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)Does the hon. Member suggest that a trade union must not invest its money in public securities like any other investor? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SPENCERThey are not able to buy a coal mine.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNoise is not argument.
§ Mr. SPENCERThe Registrar would call the trustees to account if they lost their money in an undertaking of that kind. Therefore, I think it is far beside the mark to argue in that way. In regard to the question of compulsion, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make out the case that there is a measure of compulsion in this Bill. I am not going to deny it, to a point. What you really get is this: You get an undertaking A, an undertaking B, and an undertaking C in a locality. If A desires amalgamation, it can take certain steps, and if the Board of Trade and other authorities that have to examine the schemes submitted are satisfied that it would be economically sound, they can compel the others either to amalgamate or to be absorbed, but the argument from this side is that if A, B, or C do not take any steps whatever, there is no power to bring about an amalgamation. Therefore, in view of what has been taking place during the last 9 or 10 years, I think it is a fair inference that the owners themselves will not take any steps whatever to bring about the amalgamation of mines. I would like to call attention to the serious position in regard to the mines and to recall some of the evidence given by Sir Richard Redmayne himself as far back as 1919. At that time he made this very remarkable statement:
Even under capitalist ownership, there is great possibility of improvement.It will be admitted on all sides that there is room for improvement from the points of view of the mechanical and of the administrative sides of the industry, and little or nothing has been done since 1919. What, then, is there to suggest that between now and 1929 there is anything going to be done? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, from the evidence before the Commission, that they contemplated very serious obstacles being placed in the way of amalgamation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has read out a lot of minor things which will prevent fusion taking place. The directors will want to know who is going to be the ruling body, what directors are going to be shunted, which general manager will remain, and who is to go, and a thousand and one little details of that sort will intervene to prevent amalgamations. Meanwhile, the industry is carrying on in many respects ill-equipped and inefficient, 1658 so far as working is concerned. Sir Richard Redmayne himself definitely stated that many improvements could be effected in the working of the industry, and if you have evidence of that unimpeachable character, how is it there is no disposition on the part of those who are financially interested to take steps to bring the industry up to a state of efficiency?May I read another authority which I read in Committee? I think this is a striking indictment against the inefficiency and lack of initiative within the industry as far as ownership is concerned. I quoted this before the Committee, and if I am not wearying the House, I would like to quote it again. This is what was said by a mining engineer, who delivered a lecture before the Metallurgical Congress, in London, in 1924:
In the majority of our collieries, the processes of getting the coal are very like those of 50 years ago, and the output per man has substantially declined. In no other important industry is the cost of labour so high a proportion of the total cost of production, nor is there any in which so little advance has been made in the methods of actual production, or in which so little advantage has been taken of mechanical aids to labour. Yet in no other important industry are the possibilities and opportunities of increased efficiency and improved economy in the methods of production so large as those presented at this time in coal-mining.What an indictment, that many of our methods are 50 years old! I venture to put to manufacturers here, and men associated with other forms of industry, that if they had carried on their industry like some sections of the mining industry have been carried on, taking out as large dividends as they could, and building up no reserve for re-equipment, they would not have been able to compete with foreign countries at the present time, and many of them would have had to go out of industry. It is simply because, in many respects there has not been paid that due regard to re-equipment of the mines which there ought to have been, that we are in the sorry plight we are in at the present time. The sooner that is recognised and realised, the better it is going to be for all of us. If it be possible along lines which have been indicated to take steps to put the industry upon a firm financial basis, they, surely, ought to be taken. The Commissioners contemplate, at best, that if you have got willing 1659 owners, it will take two or three years to do it, and if you have unwilling owners how long is it going to take? From the disposition of coal owners at the present time, we are led to the conclusion that there is little willingness to make drastic changes in the situation. If that be so, there ought to be a greater measure of compulsion in the Bill, so as to carry out what is admitted on all sides of the House, and in all quarters of the country, where you have men who speak with authority, that there is need for re-equip-
§ ment, and reorganisation of the industry. Unless the Government do it, it is not going to be done. The Commissioners point out that it is the duty of those in control of the legislative machinery to see that it is carried out. I suggest, even at this late hour, that the Government ought to bring in a far greater measure of compulsion to carry out the object which is so desirable and so essential to the success of the industry
§ Question put, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 108.
1661| Division No. 388.] | AYES. | [3.46 p.m.> |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Albery, Irving James | Cockerill, Brig-General Sir G. K. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bottle) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cope, Major William | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Couper, J. B. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Apsley, Lord | Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (lslingtn. N.) | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hilton, Cecil |
| Atkinson, C. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Balniel, Lord | Dalkeith, Earl of | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Daiziel, Sir Davison | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hopkins. J. W. W. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hopkinson. Sir A. (Eng. Universities) |
| Beamish, Captain T. P H. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald |
| Berry, Sir George | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney,N.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dixey, A. C. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Blundell, F. N. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) |
| Boothby. R. J. G. | Ellis, R. G. | Inskip Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Elveden, Viscount | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.- M.) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Jacob, A. E. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Everard, W. Lindsay | James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Falls. Sir Charles F. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Fanshawe, Commander G. D | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Flelden, E. B. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Finburgh, S. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gates, Percy | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Loder, J. de V. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lord, Walter Greaves- |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lougher, L. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Goff, Sir Park | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gower, Sir Robert | Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Grace, John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Campbell, E. T. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Cassels, J. D. | Greene. W. P. Crawford | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w E) | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Macintyre, Ian |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Gunston, Captain D. W. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hall, Capt. W. D'.A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel |
| Chllcoft, Sir Warden | Hammersley, S. S. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hanbury, C. | Malone. Major P. B. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Harland, A. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hartington, Marquess of | Margesson, Captain D |
| Clayton, G. C. | Harvey, G. (Lamboth, Kennington) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Meller, R. J. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Rover, Major L. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Morden, Col. W. Grant | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Murchison, C. K. | Rye, F. G. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Salmon, Major I. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Neville, R. J. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nicholson, D. (Westminster) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Sandon, Lord | Wells, S. R. |
| Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Savery, S. S. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Shepperson, E. W. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Simms, Dr, John M. (Co. Down) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Skelton, A. N. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Perring, Sir William George | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Philipson, Mabel | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Withers, John James |
| Ploelou, D. P. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pilcher, G. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Plidltch, Sir Philip | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Preston, William | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Raine, W. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Ramsden, E. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Styles, Captain H. Walter | |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Remer, J. R. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. |
| Rentoul, G. S | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Thomson. |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Templeton, W. P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Groves, T. | Purcell, A. A |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | Riley, Ben |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barnes, A. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barr, J. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Sexton, James |
| Batey, Joseph | Hardie, George D | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Harney, E. A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Bean, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smillie, Robert |
| Broad, F. A. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bromley, J. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snell, Harry |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, J. J (West Ham, Silvertown) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kelly, W. T. | Taylor, R A. |
| Coffins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lawson, John James | Thurtle, E. |
| Dennison, R. | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Duncan, C. | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dunnico, H. | Lowth, T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Lunn, William | Viant, S. P. |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Forrest, W. | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, J. C. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North) | Westwood, J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Coine) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Hayes. |
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "coal," to the word "may," in 1662 line 13, and to insert instead thereof the words
the Minister of Mines, on the application of the owner of any undertaking consisting 1663 of or comprising coal mines, or on the representation of two-thirds of the miners working in any such undertaking, or on his own initiative.This Amendment has already been referred to and I only wish to move it formally. I do not propose to make a speech, except that I want again to make it clear that it is an attempt to introduce the proposals of the Samuel Report into this Bill, with special emphasis on the fact that two-thirds of the miners in a
§ particular district should have a right to initiate a scheme. Of course, the initiation of the scheme is not the final stage, and the information is subject to revision by all sorts of authorities and the final say would be on the part of the authority.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 109
1665| Division No. 389.] | AYES. | [3.57 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Albery, Irving James | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Applin Colonel R. V. K. | Dalkeith Earl of | Howard, Captain Hon Donald |
| Apsley, Lord | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis |
| Atkinson, C. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Dixey, A. C. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jacob, A. E. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Elliot, Major Walter E. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Ellis, R. G. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Elveden, Viscount | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Berry, Sir George | Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Everard, W. Lindsay | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Falls, Sir Charles F. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Fielden, E. B. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Finburgh, S. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lord, Walter Greaves- |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lougher, L. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Ganzonl, Sir John | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gates, Percy | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Lumley, L. R. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Goff, Sir Park | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Brown, Brig,-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Gower, Sir Robert | Macintyre, Ian |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Grace, John | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w, E) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Grotrian, H. Brent | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Margesson, Capt. D. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meller, R. J. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hammersley, S. S. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hanbury, C. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Harland, A. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Morden, Col, W. Grant |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hartington, Marquess of | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Christle, J. A. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nall, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Churchill, Rt. Han. Winston Spencer | Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Neville, R. J. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Cockerill Brig-General Sir G. K. | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar, & Wh'by) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hills, Major John Walter | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Cope, Major William | Hilton, Cecil | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Cooper, J. B. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Penny, Frederick George |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Perring, Sir William George | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Shepperson, E. W. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Philipson, Mabel | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Pielou, D. P. | Skelton, A. N. | Wells, S. R. |
| pilcher, G. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Pilditch, Sir Philip | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine,C.) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Raine, W. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Ramsden, E. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Remer, J. R. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Rentoul, G. S. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Withers, John James |
| Rice, Sir Frederick | Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nalrn) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Ropner, Major L. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A. | Templeton, W. P. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Rye, F. G. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Salmon, Major I. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tinne, J. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sandeman, A. Stewart | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough | Thomson |
| Savery, S. S. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | |
| NOES | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | Riley, Ben |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barnes, A. | Hardie, George D. | Sexton, James |
| Barr. J. | Harney, E. A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Heyday, Arthur | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hayes, John Henry | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smillie, Robert |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Brad'ord, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snell, Harry |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, W. (West Hans, Plaistow) |
| Crawfurd. H. E. | Lawson, John James | Thurtle, E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dennison, R. | Lindley, F. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Duncan, C. | Lowth, T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lunn, William | viant, S. P. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Edwards, J. Hugh(Accrington) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Forrest, W. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Pails, John Henry | Windsor, Welter |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Greenall, T. | Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan) | |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Hamilton. |
| Groves. T. | Purcell, A. A. |
§ It being after Four of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee) stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Tuesday next, 27th July.
1666§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order N o. 3.
§ Adjourned at Seven Minutes after Four o'Clock until Monday next (26th July).