CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Agreement.)

HC Deb 27 November 1917 vol 99 cc1835-943

(1) The above-recited agreement of the twentieth day of July, nineteen hundred and seventeen, with all rights and powers conferred and all duties and obligations imposed thereby on the Controller of Coal Mines, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Board of Referees, or any other persons, are hereby confirmed, and the said agreement shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any udertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied, and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect.

(2) If any person without reasonable cause fails as and when so required to give a return or to furnish any information or to produce or give facilities for the inspection of any books, plans, or documents which, under the said agreement, he may be liable to give, furnish, or produce, or gives any information which is false in any material particular, or discloses or makes use of, for any purpose other than for such purpose as is authorised by the said agreement, any information acquired by him under the said agreement, he shall, on summary conviction. be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of fifty pounds for each day during which the default continues, and if the default is wilful shall also be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.

If any person pays any dividend or repays any loan in contravention of the provisions of the said agreement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceedinfi fifty pounds, and to forfeit to His Majesty the amount of any dividend so paid or loan so repaid.

Where any such offence as aforesaid is committed by a company every director and manager of the company who know- ingly authorises or permits the default, shall be liable to the same penalties as the company.

(3) Nothing in this Act or in the agreement confirmed thereby shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by the agreement, affect the general powers of the Board of Trade or the Controller of Coal Mines under the said Regulation.

(4) References in the said agreement to the Controller of Coal Mines shall be deemed to include any person for the time being appointed to hold that office.

Mr. WATT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "are" ["are hereby informed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "is." This is simply an Amendment to correct a grammatical error. We hope to see some of the improvements we are suggesting adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. David Mason)—in Subsection (1), after the word "confirmed," to insert the words " and in pursuance of such agreement financial provision as hereinafter set forth will be duly made "—is not in order, and it does not make sense.

Mr. D. MASON

I appreciate your remark, Mr. Chairman, but I understand that only a Minister could put down a Financial Resolution. My object in putting it down was that a Financial Resolution is consequential upon it, and in view of the fact the Leader of the House gave us a qualified reply that he might accede to a Financial Resolution on the Committee stage. I do not know if the Leader of the House or the President of the Board of Trade would say now that he would be prepared to consider the matter and thus put my Amendment in order. I quite understand that I cannot move such a Resolution, and I shall not press my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

With regard to the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Adamson), that is an Amendment of the agreement, and, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is impossible for us to introduce Amendments into the agreement.

Sir C. CORY

Is it your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that it is impossible to put into the Bill anything that will amend the agreement?

The CHAIRMAN

I think that is undoubtedly so. If it is the view of the Committee that the agreement is unacceptable, then there will be two courses open, one is to omit Clause 1 and the other is to omit the Schedule. The result of that would be that the agreement would be referred back to the parties to bring it up in a form which might be acceptable to the House and the Committee. It is quite impossible to entertain a series of Amendments to the agreement.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would be out of order in any way to limit the scope of this agreement by an Amendment of the Clauses of the Bill itself? I would point out, if your reply to that is in the negative, it would mean that the Committee stage of this Bill, as far as the operative purposes of the measure are concerned, would be useless. I respectfully suggest that if the House is to deal with this Bill in the Committee stage as with other Bills, it must be open to the House to insert Amendments in the Clauses of the Bill itself which might in their effect limit the operation of the agreement, or, as this is an agreement between three persons, it would be open to the House to vary that agreement in so far as it applies to other persons. Unless the House is given the power to limit the agreement in its operations to other persons not named at the foot of the agreement, the Committee stage for all operative purposes becomes of no avail.

The CHAIRMAN

That, of course, is rather a general question, and at this stage I could not give a complete answer to it. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is referring, for instance, to an Amendment—in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect"—a little lower down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen District (Mr. Llewelyn Williams). That Amendment, I think, is in order, as is also a later Amendment on the question of time.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I wanted to .put the question to you because I understood that your earlier ruling was of an absolute character. So long as it is open to the House and to the Committee to limit the operation of the agreement, I do not venture to dispute your ruling in any way.

The CHAIRMAN

I have taken two Amendments, as illustrations of those which, in my view, are in order.

Sir C. CORY

Your ruling amounts to this: That it is impossible for this House to deal with any point of principle in the agreement. If that be so, I submit, in the first place, that most eminent counsel has given it as his opinion that this agreement is ultra vires. It is made between the Coal Controller and the President of the Mining Association of Great Britain, without any authority, and acting ultra vires. It therefore amounts to this: That the head of a Department can enter into an agreement with a trading association, and it is binding not only on the individuals who make the agreement, but on the whole trade, including those who have never agreed to it and who never would agree to it, and Parliament really has no right whatever to criticise or amend it. If that is so, then, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Committee stage is a pure farce and a waste of time, because, after all, the legislative functions of Parliament have been delegated to the head of a Department.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going outside anything that comes within my jurisdiction. It may be a very sound argument for leaving out the Schedule or the Clause, but on that it is not for me to express an opinion.

Mr. LOUGH

With regard to your ruling that no Amendment which affects the agreement is in order, I would like to draw your attention to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which provides a penalty for any person paying a dividend in contravention of the provisions of the agreement. That is one of two proposals in the agreement which are expressly brought into the Bill. I would like to ask whether it is in the power of the House to amend that Clause, and Whether that would not affect the agreement?

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is referring to an Amendment—to leave out the words, "If any person pays any dividend or repays any loan in contravention of the provisions of the said agreement he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and to forfeit to His Majesty the amount of any dividend so paid or loan so repaid"—standing in his name. That Amendment certainly is in order and will be called upon.

Mr. LOUGH

Yes; but with great respect, if it is in order and can be carried by the House, will it not affect your ruling that the House cannot do anything that affects the agreement? If it carries that Amendment, it will knock a substantial part of the agreement out. That is the point.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think so. It is clearly within the power of the House to leave out that part of a penalty Clause and to say that they will not agree to the imposition of a penalty in that matter.

Mr. ADAMSON

There are two considerations with regard to my Amendment that I wish to put before you. First, my Amendment deals with a matter which is already dealt with in the agreement. We have in the agreement a provision for the collieries that are closed. My Amendment deals in part with that subject. Secondly, this agreement seeks to override the Finance Act. If the Coal Controller has power to override an Act of Parliament, is it not within the power of this House, when we are considering an agreement made by the Controller, to deal with the financial aspect of it? I frankly confess that the object of my Amendment is to secure compensation for the men who are employed in the collieries, as well as for the coal-owners of those concerns, that may be closed, and I ask you to give consideration to the two points that I have put before you.

The CHAIRMAN

I have given very careful consideration to those points, and what the hon. Member says may be a good argument for not accepting an agreement which has certain omissions, but it is clear that it is not possible here to bring up omissions and insert them, as it were, in the agreement. We cannot possibly proceed in that manner.

Mr. W. ROCH

I do not understand whether you rule the Amendment—after the word "and" ["are hereby confirmed, and the said agreement"], to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act"—which stands in my name comes within the ruling which you have just given. If that is so, I would wish to address arguments suggesting that it is in order. The Amendment as it appears on the Paper is in the wrong form. I should wish to move to insert the words "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained."

The CHAIRMAN

I am not dealing with that Amendment at the moment.

Sir J. WALTON

I would like to ask whether there is any precedent in the case of a Bill containing an agreement between certain parties which needs legislative sanction before it can be made compulsory and which applies the same compulsion to people who are not parties to the agreement, and who are decidedly hostile to it, of the House of Commons being debarred from its perfectly legitimate right to criticise, to revise, and to change the provisions of the Bill when they have it before them on the Committee stage? If that if the case, the Committee stage is obviously reduced to a farce.

The CHAIRMAN

On that I may point out that I have already said that the Amendment which proposes to leave out the last words of Sub-section (1), "and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect," will be in order. But on the general point which the hon. Member raised, I am not responsible for the drafting of the Bill or for the methods of the Bill; therefore I cannot give an opinion on that point.

Sir J. WALTON

It is very tricky.

Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY

This Bill is partly a Bill to confirm an agreement with certain persons who, like myself, have consented to the agreement, and it also applies the agreement to other persons who have not consented to it. It applies first to the owners (including trustees) of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9G is for the time being applied, and secondly to all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect. Would not the Amendments such as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Adamson) proposes to move be reasonable and proper if inserted as applying to those persons who had not agreed to the agreement, so that there shall be a proviso that the obligations apply only to those persons to whom this Bill really applies? So far as those of us are concerned who have agreed to the agreement, it is settled and done with, and the Bill is only necessary to apply the agreement to other persons who have not agreed to the agreement. It seems to me that they have a perfect right to put in Amendments to the agreement as a condition of their agreeing to it. Would not that be in order?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid not. That would be bringing in quite another Bill—something quite outside the scope of this Bill. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch), to insert the words "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained," I take it his purpose in that Amendment is to lead up to subsequent proposals which he is afraid might be out or order if those words were not inserted, but the Amendment is quite unnecessary for that purpose. Any Amendments we may have later on which are in order will be just as much in order without these words as with them.

Mr. ROCH

I wish to raise a larger question by inserting these words, and with your permission I will say a few words on the Amendment. My object in moving it is to make the agreement which is given statutory effect subject to the provisions of the Bill, and that I submit would be in order for this reason: Subsection (1) of this Clause purports to confirm an agreement which is entered between three parties only. It does not state that any of these parties enter into this agreement on behalf of anybody else but themselves. It is an agreement between the Controller of Coal Mines, Mr. Nimmo, and Mr. Guthrie. It is sought to confirm that agreement by Statute. But Sub-section (1) of this Clause goes further than that. It purports not only to confirm this agreement and give it statutory effect, but to impose that agreement, in the words shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine— that is to say, it not only confirms the agreement between three parties only but also imposes that agreement, with statutory penalties and statutory obligations, on all those various undertakings who are not parties to the agreement. I am going to submit that it is open to the House to say that they will confirm the agreement, but only subject to such provisions as they shall make the agreement subject to and which shall find a place in the body of the Bill. I submit that that will be strictly in accordance with the ruling given by Mr. Speaker on the Second Reading. You will find, Sir, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday, 8th November, that Mr. Speaker was asked about this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), whose question was: Would the 15 per cent. thus collected by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue still not bear the charge, although that amount had gone into the coffers of the Inland Revenue and was there retained, because there had been no provision made for the expenditure of the money? Mr. Speaker: Would not that involve an alteration in the agreement? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury replied quite frankly: Yes, Sir. But I submit that it is open to the House to amend the agreement when we come to the Schedule. I would ask you, Sir, to bear in mind the words "when we come to the Schedule." Mr. Speaker then replied: I do not think so. The Bill provides that this agreement be confirmed. The House has no power to alter the agreement. The agreement has been made between certain parties, and in my opinion there is no power to alter it. It is like a treaty made between two negotiating nations, which the House is asked to either accept or reject. The hon. Member far Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) then said: As a matter of fact, on the contrary, have we not every intention of altering the agreement? So far from being an agreed treaty, it is the draft of a treaty which will be very much altered before it passes. I would call your attention to the ruling that Mr. Speaker then gave, which was: That alteration will have to be made in the Bill. It cannot be made in the Schedule. There is the agreement, signed and dated the 20th day of July, 1917."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917, cols. 2409, Vol. XCVIII..] I submit that Mr. Speaker's ruling is quite clear, that he ruled specifically that we could not amend the Schedule—that is to say, that the Schedule could be accepted or rejected by the House but could not be amended. It clearly was a ruling that you could amend it in the Bill—that is to say, you could make provisions in the Bill which would modify the agreement. That is a specific ruling by Mr. Speaker and it is in accordance with that ruling that I venture to move the Amendment making it quite clear that we confirm this agreement and impose it on people who are not parties to it, only subject to such modifications as the Committee think fit to adopt by subsequent Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the words he proposes here to insert are unnecessary, and would have no effect one way or the other if they were inserted: The next two Amendments on the Paper are in order—that is to say, Amendments limiting the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill. That, however, does not affect the ruling on this question. The hon. Member has certain subsequent Amendments and new Clauses, some of which are in order, and I propose to call him when we reach them, but they will not be made more in order or out of order by these words.

Mr. ROCH

I should like to have a specific ruling, because I think it would shorten the proceedings, as one does not want to move Clauses which are obviously out of order. Do I understand you to rule that you do not accept this Amendment on the ground that it is not open to us to modify this agreement in any way? I submit that these words have this effect: that we confirm the agreement subject to subsequent provisions, and I take it that we shall have no safeguard for that unless these words are inserted.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a question which covers a number of different matters, to some of which my answer subsequently will be "Yes" and to some of them it will be "No." It is clearly impossible, where there is, as in this Schedule, an agreement, of whatever character it may be, that we should proceed in the Bill to cut it about, because there will no longer be anything in the nature of an agreement. Therefore, Amendments of that character appear to me to be clearly outside the scope of the Bill and cannot be entertained.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE

May I again call your attention to the ruling of Mr. Speaker on the. Second Reading? That alteration will have to be made in the Bill. It cannot be made on the Schedule. Are we to understand that in face of that ruling you now rule that no Amendment is possible in a Bill which affects the rights and obligations arising under the agreement? In the second place, is it not the case that frequently in Bills which pass this House, of the nature of private Bills, there are agreements embodied in the Schedules but it is nevertheless the practice of Private Bill Committees to modify these Schedules by enacting provisions in the Bills themselves? I put it to you that surely that is a precedent to guide the Committee itself when for the first time in, a public measure an agreement is the Schedule of the Bill?,

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think it is quite correct to say this is the first time. I recollect when the Speaker occupied this Chair a somewhat similar case arising. As to the question with regard to private Bills, I am not aware of any case of an Amendment being introduced in the body of a Bill by amending an agreement which is scheduled to that Bill. There have been cases from time to time, no doubt, where a Committee has withheld its approval of a Bill until the parties modified the agreement. That is on all fours with what I suggest is the proper course for this Committee if it holds that view—either on Clause 1 or on the Schedule itself to refer the matter back to the parties.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I am reluctant to press the matter further, but your ruling might on some more important occasion affect the procedure of the House; therefore I would submit that the point raised by my hon. Friend below the Gangway has a direct bearing on our proceedings here to-day. The agreement, as I understand it, has been entered into by a considerable number of coal-owners. who naturally in honour feel themselves bound by it. I quite appreciate the point you have taken in your ruling that we cannot affect that agreement. That agreement stands, and I presume the signatories to it and those for whom they were acting would not attempt to upset it. But Clause 1 of the Bill in effect applies the terms of that agreement to other persons who knew nothing about it at the time it was made. May I ask for a general ruling as to whether it would not be in order for this House in Committee to say that certain provisions of the agreement need not apply to those persons who were not signatories to it nor bound by it? If your ruling were that this House could not amend the Bill in that respect, we might on future occasions see more important matters than this dealt with by a procedure which is entirely novel to the House.

The CHAIRMAN

It is clearly open to the Committee to strike out that part of the Clause which applies the agreement to persons who were not parties to it. The Committee has its remedy there. On the further point of making some other agreement than the one which is in this Bill, that is a matter which does not arise on any Amendment that I have seen, and, therefore, I have not dealt with that. I can see great difficulties in a proposal of that kind.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

Would the Amendments of my hon. Friend be in order if they were put in some such form as this? Would the House be able to say that it confirms this agreement and applies it as proposed, provided that a further supplementary agreement is made between the same parties embodying certain additional proposals?

The CHAIRMAN

No. That, again, would be making the agreement no agreement. As I say, it is not for me to say anything about the form of the Bill. What I have to do is to do my best in Committee.

Mr. LOUGH

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "any undertaking consisting of or comprising."

The effect of these words is greatly to extend the scope of the Bill. I submit, in the first place, that the opening words of the Bill themselves do not enable such a great extension as these words cover to be introduced in the Bill. The first words of the Bill are Whereas provision is made by Regulation 9G of the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the control of coal mines. The Bill there limits itself to the control of coal mines. The words which I want to strike out extend the operation conceivably to great undertakings of all sorts throughout the country, which are of an entirely different character from coal mines. Further, in the two proclamations by which the Government first took possession of the coal mines they simply used the word "coalmines" and confined their action to what could be described as coal mines. It might, for instance, cover the use of railway wagons in connection with coal mines and all kinds of machinery necessary for a coal mine, but I do not think any justification can be found for words as wide as these, any undertaking of which a coal mine forms part. Let us look at one or two illustrations of undertakings familiar to us all of which coal mines form a part. The first illustration is that of the Wholesale Co-operative Society. That is a great undertaking with a vast fleet of ships of its own and great buildings, owning coal mines or a coal mine, and under the cloak of this Bill my right hon. Friend can take over the whole of that society, or any such gigantic business as that, and demand the minute particulars and accounts which the agreement provides he may ask from an owner of coal mines. It is only necessary to mention one or two illustrations of that kind to show the absurdity of so wide a provision as this. It may be said that the Board of Trade has power to exempt any part of the undertaking. But I do not think it can be urged on the Committee that that is a fair or reasonable way to leave this most important matter. We ought surely to confine the Bill to what is declared to be its object and to the powers given under the Defence of the Realm Act with regard to it, and not leave in such very wide words as these.

I will take another illustration. Suppose the case of a merchant who deals exclusively in coal without owning a mine. He may have a very extensive business, amounting to millions of tons, and yet not come under control at all, because his business does not comprise a coal mine, whereas another merchant in a humbler line of business which does comprise a coal mine, however small, would be taken over and would come under the provisions of this. Surely this is a most unequal arrangement, and if we are to legislate at all in a matter so grave and important as this a difficulty of that kind ought to be smoothed down, and we ought not to mete out such unequal treatment to people who are working in the same field and competing with one another, one of whom may get a gigantic advantage by our passing such a Bill as this as against his competitor. Then there is the case, familiar I believe in the coal trade, of the merchant or coal-owner who happens to have foreign depots in distant parts of the world and ships to carry his coal there. These foreign depots will come under all the provisions of the Bill, and minute particulars will have to be given with regard to them, whereas a merchant who did not happen to own a coal mine would not be treated in this way at all. I think the Committee has only to allow its mind to consider what a tremendous extension of the Bill this is, to see that these words must be limited. It is hardly necessary to pursue the argument because it is so clear. The Bill deals with coal mines. Here is a proposal which might apply it to businesses mainly composed of shipping, to businesses like the Wholesale Co-operative Society or any other business in the country if a small coal mine happens to be a part of it. That cannot be intended, and we ought not to be asked to pass words which give such a very wide extension as that.

Colonel F. HALL

This is an exceedingly broad matter, and it was discussed at a deputation. The right hon. Gentleman then said it was not the intention at that time that there should be these regulations for embodying all different kinds of trades, but he protected himself and said: I am not going to commit myself by saying that under no circumstances would that be done. Let us take the case of a man who has a small interest. Suppose he is a sleeping partner. He has money invested in coal. Does he become a colliery proprietor, and if he does, what portion of the business in which he is interested will come under this Bill? I can see all sorts of difficulties. Take, for instance, one coal merchant who is interested in collieries and another who has no such interest. Is the former to be handicapped to the extent of 95 per cent.? Surely under these circumstances we are handicapping one part of the trade as against another. It is not fair. Surely if you are going to bring in a Bill of this magnitude, which is a most drastic Bill, and one which has been brought in in such an extraordinary manner, and if we cannot alter the agreement, we can at all events come to this House and say, "Let us have equality of treatment between these various persons." I can foresee all sorts of difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some. Anyone who knows anything about the coal trade knows that many of these merchants—taking London, for instance, I know of several—have their depots in different foreign ports, and they, have interests in collieries here. Are they coming in under this or are you going to say, "At the present time I am not going to take the additional 15 per cent." But, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said to a deputation, you may eventually take the 15 per cent. I think we are entitled to know what is going to be done, and if the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am not going to take it to-day, but circumstances may warrant me in taking it to-morrow," I should like to know on what ground is he going to do that. It is the first time we have ever a thing of that sort brought forward here, and the sooner we know how far it is going to go the better.

Mr. ADAMSON

I, like the right hon. Gentleman who moves this Amendment, have certain objections to the agreement, but my objections are not of the same character as those of the right hon. Gen- tleman. I do not want to limit the scope of the Bill. One of my chief objections to, the agreement is that it is of too limited a character. I do not want only control of the coal mines; I want ownership as well as control. That is not only my own personal attitude, but it has been the personal attitude of the miners for many years. It did not need the War to bring the miner to the position of being in favour of public control and ownership of this very important industry. For several years before the War we were advocating both ownership and control. My chief objection to the agreement is that it does not go far enough. I think it should have included ownership as well as control, and I hope, while I have certain objections to the Bill, that we are not going to further limit its provisions, because they are of too limited a character already. An important industry such as coal-mining, an industry or such vital importance to the whole of the people of this State, ought not to be in the hands of private individuals. This agreement gives us part of what we have been contending for for many years, and I would not like to lose hold of that part which we are securing under the agreement. On the contrary, I would like to keep as firm a hold on that as possible, and try to secure the other portion of our demands, namely, the ownership of coal mines as well as the control. I hope the Committee will be very careful and will not accept any Amendment that will still further modify the agreement. That is our position, and I hope the Committee will adhere to it.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN

I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that of this Amendment is not accepted the Controller, at his sweet will, will be able to take 15 per cent. of the remainder of the excess profits of any undertaking, which may be a very large one, such as iron and steel works, simply because they have got a small coal mine which produces coal for the running of the works. The President of the Board of Trade may say it is not his intention to do that, but I think it is the duty of this Committee to see that this House does not pass legislation that may make it possible for such a difficulty to occur between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The Treasury is plainly entitled to take their 80 per cent. from an iron or steel industry or any industry in the country, leaving them under the Finance Act with 20 per cent. of the remainder; and now because there may be a small coal mine attached to any particular business that big business will run the risk of not getting the benefit of the Finance Act like any other business. I think it is the duty of this Committee and of the House of Commons to see that legislation is not passed which upsets the Finance Act and practically amends it.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley)

We cannot accept this Amendment. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) has a very exaggerated idea of the words to which he has referred and of the value he puts upon them. We certainly have not in contemplation the extending of this control beyond what is absolutely necessary for the successful working of the mines under the control; but it is quite clear that we cannot accept any limit of definition of coal mines. There are many undertakings in the country which are not only working coal mines, but are working ironstone mines and fireclay mines. It is impossible to separate one from the other. There are other instances where there are ancillary parts of a coal mine, such as washeries, mineral railways, and wagons, which must be brought within the control. But if the Mover of the Amendment would read the words of Sub-section (1), any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied, I am sure he cannot read into that the control of co-operative societies or a general merchandise business or a foreign depot such as he suggested. I hope that after this explanation the Amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. HOLT

I hope that after listening to that explanation the Amendment will be carried. It is the most alarming explanation that I have listened to for some time. Apparently, according to the President of the Board of Trade, the true interpretation of this Clause is that the Government may, and, I suppose, must, bring all ancillary business under the Bill. I cannot imagine that the Government can make a distinction in the way they treat the owner of a coal mine in regard to his ancillary business and the way they treat another business which comes within the Clause. If it is possible to bring into the purview of this Bill the ancillary business of any coal-owner you must bring in the ancillary business of every coal-owner. You are bound to do that. I hope the Committee will not allow that. Take the case of Lord Londonderry. He is a very large coal-owner, and he has steamers which carry his coal. Are they going to be controlled by the Board of Trade on the one hand and by the Shipping Controller on the other? Is that what the Government proposes?

Sir A. STANLEY

No; we do not propose to take the control of steamers.

Mr. HOLT

Then if the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to take that control, what is the objection to inserting words which would make it impossible for him to do so. I hope he will realise that I am not saying anything personal in regard to himself, but for the last two or three years we have had endless pledges as to the intentions of the Government given from that Front Bench, and we have had an endless succession of broken pledges. I do not think anyone in this House would for a moment accept an undertaken from the Government now, that they would not in a certain sense use powers which they had got. We had an instance only the other day of a Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Act in regard to the freedom of expression of opinion which is in diametrical opposition to a pledge given by the Home Secretary. No one ought to accept from the Government a pledge not to use powers which have been entrusted to them. I believe it will be impossible for the Government to avoid using these powers. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to come forward with some alternative words which will make it quite plain that he cannot use the powers contained in this Clause for the purpose which he admits he does not intend to use them, I hope the Committee will insist upon putting this Amendment into the Bill.

Sir C. SEELY

I think the President of the Board of Trade does not quite understand how important this matter is from the point of view of the co-operative stores. I speak, subject to correction, but I think I have an impression that some of the large co-operative stores own coal mines. According to this Clause the agreement shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9G is for the time being applied. If a co-operative stores have a coal mine, am I not correct in saying that this Regulation would apply to that coal mine? Therefore, these great co-operative stores are included in this agreement, and the 15 per cent. can be taken from them. I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do it, but 15 per cent. of the excess profits of co-operative stores and of workmen connected with those stores in this country are going to be taken from them by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer, and I have no doubt whatever that he has no intention of doing this thing, but Acts of Parliament have to be construed according to the law, and, as we all know, the decisions of judges are often quite different from those of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are not lawyers. Therefore, I should like to have some opinion from the Solicitor-General as to whether there is any chance of what has been suggested being the case, because, if so, something ought to be put into the Act in order to make it clear that this additional 15 per cent. excess profits, including the profits of the large co-operative stores, are not to be taken because they may happen to have a small coal mine connected with their property.

Mr. PRINGLE

I have some difficulty in appreciating the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, and the argument that the co-operative societies cannot come within this Clause. He referred to the expression any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied, and said that those words could not refer to an undertaking such as a co-operative society. But in an earlier part of his speech he said that if he did not have the wide expression in the Bill he could not deal with such an undertaking as an ironstone mine, and so forth. Obviously, the words quoted cannot refer to ironstone mines, but undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman contemplates bringing in ironstone mines.

It may be that Lord Londonderry's ships are excluded, as they are under the Shipping Controller, but I should say that the whole of his estate in Durham would come under this Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman may give us a pledge that neither he nor the existing Coal Controller intend to do anything of this kind, but the lives of ministers and controllers are transitory; they are—to use the phrase of a celebrated leader of this House—transient and embarrassed phantoms. We are bound not to decide our actions by the pledges of these transitory ministers who may speak, from that bench, but to consider the powers which we are conferring on those who may hold the office in future.

Undoubtedly it is possible for a President of the Board of Trade or for a Coal Controller in future under this Clause to take over the whole undertaking of the co-operative societies, to take over the whole estate of a man who happens to own a coal mine and to make him subject to the provisions of this Act. This House should not part with this Clause without making it absolutely clear that that is not the intention of Parliament, so as to prevent arbitrary action of this kind in future. We do require some further enlightenment in this matter, because in the Schedule itself, which apparently is modified to some extent by Clause 1, we have a definition of undertaking. Undertaking means The whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is, for the time being, under the control of the Controller, except such parts of the undertaking as are controlled establishments within the meaning of the Munitions of War Acts, 1915–16, or are under the Controller of Shipping and such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of the agreement. This leaves it entirely in the option of the Controller afterwards to control and deal with ironstone mines and bring them within this agreement, a thing of which nobody had any notice before. It may bring steel works within the operation of the Section, because people making steel may also have a coal mine in connection with their undertaking. Parliament should know whether this is going to be done or not. I have no objection to taking the excess profits from these people. The real point is that Parliament should know exactly what it is doing when it is asked to put in words of this kind. What we seek is a definition. The Committee should have clearly defined what the Government intend to do, so that in the event of litigation arising, as it is bound to arise under a Bill so complicated as this, we may be blameless for any of that litigation.

The. SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)

I cannot help thinking that a great deal of this discussion arises from misunderstanding. So far as intention is concerned there is no difference, of view between hon. Members who have spoken and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The possible source of the misunderstanding may be of this kind, that in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill the term "undertaking" is used, and when one turns to the agreement the term "undertaking", is defined, but it is important to remember what is on the one hand the object of this Clause in the Bill and what is on the other hand the object of the definition clause in the agreement. Under this Clause in the Bill what has been done is not to extend the number of undertakings to which the Bill or the agreement is going to apply. It is to enumerate the owners upon whom the agreement is to be binding. The words are, "that this agreement shall be binding on the owners of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine," and so on. That does not carry the ambit of the Bill an inch further than that which is contained in the agreement, for this very good reason. The source of the whole matter, as the Preamble explains is Regulation 9 G, made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and that Regulation applies to coal mines and collieries only, whatever may be appropriately included in the term "coal mine."

Mr. PRINGLE

How can you take ironstone mines?

Sir G. HEWART

Ironstone mines would be included only when they are a part, and an inseparable part, of the coal mine. It is not proposed to take an ironstone mine or a fireclay mine simpliciter, but where they form an inseparable part of the coal mine they are part of the undertaking. But if I may say so, I readily assent to the view, which is urged on all sides of this House, that it may be that a particular form of words which has been employed in the Bill is capable of being so construed as to go beyond the intention of the House and the intention of the Bill. It is not in the least likely to happen in practice, as is evident when one turns to the definition of the word "undertaking," which is contained in the agreement; but I recognise also, and, if I may say so, sympathise with the desire of the House, that words should not be contained in the Bill which, whatever may be the intention of a particular President of the Board of Trade or of a particular Coal Controller, might be capable of receiving an unduly extended meaning. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake that, at a later stage, words shall be inserted or, on the other hand, words shall be omitted which would make it perfectly plain that the scope of the Bill must be limited to that which is intended.

Sir C. CORY

The right lion. Gentleman says that he is in general agreement with the contention of those who have spoken, that the words in the Bill may be brought in to include all the undertakings of a firm which owns a mine that is under control. If that is the view of the !right hon. Gentleman and of the President of the Board of Trade, I do not know why they cannot accept the omission of these words or why they cannot propose other words now. The Solicitor-General points to the definition of undertaking in the Schedule, and says that that is sufficient protection. I see no protection in it at all. It excludes certain undertakings, but all other undertakings are left absolutely at the discretion of the Controller, and there is no protection whatever that I can see. The President of the Board of Trade says that it is necessary to have these words in order to include ironstone or fireclay that might be worked with the coal mines. But there is no doubt about it in any case that they are part of the coal mine. We do not require these words to include those, or any sidings of railways, which are all, as far as I remember, in the Coal Mines Act defined as Dart of the mine. It seems to me, and others also, that there is an attempt in this Bill by some subterfuge to bring in all sorts of things that are not supposed to be intended to be brought in. If, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pringle) says, it is intended to bring in all these undertakings, let us understand it and discuss it. Let us know where we are.

The President, on the Second Reading, told us that he wanted control of the mines to prevent miners asking for more wages. I pointed out on the Second Reading that he had already granted the miners more wages, so that that reason has gone. But if that is the reason it cannot be the reason for trying to get hold of these undertakings other than coal mines. My hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) said that he is out for nationalisation, and that he wants this Bill to be strengthened. If that is his idea of nationalisation, I cannot say that I have very much regard or respect for his sense of fairness, because his idea of nationalisation seems to be the use of most drastic powers with no compensation under this Bill for taking the control. You take these colliery owners' property; you take the 15 per cent.; you take the percentage standard; you do away with the right to compensation under the Defence of the Realm Act; and there is a number of other things of which you rob the coal-owner without giving him anything in return. I speak clearly on these matters. My hon. Friend thinks that nationalisation should be brought in by this House by robbing people of their property and giving them nothing in return for it. If I am misrepresenting him, he can contradict me.

The CHAIRMAN

It would be better not to go into this. It would carry us a long way from the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. ADAMSON

I think, in common fairness, that, a charge having been made, I should have the opportunity of explaining. I stand for nationalisation, but I do not stand for robbery. While I wish this Bill extended, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is robbery. We can agree to differ on these points. The agreement provides, and this is what my hon. Friend is forgetting, for certain guarantees for coal-owners whose output falls below a certain standard, and the 15 per cent that is spoken of is to be put into a common fund to provide compensation to the coal-owner. My hon. Friend is leaving that entirely out of his argument. I fear it is not because the hon. Baronet does not know, because he knows that the 15 per cent. is to be used for compensating the colliery owners themselves under certain conditions.

The CHAIRMAN

I must recall the Committee to the Amendment which we are now discussing. The question is what are the verbal consequences; whether these words go further than has been announced to be the intention of the Government, and whether they ought to be restricted or not.

Sir C. CORY

My hon. Friend says he has no wish to rob the coal-owners, and that nationalisation does not mean robbery. I think I may be allowed to reply to that. He says there is compensation in the Bill provided by the guarantee; but I say there is no guarantee.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a question for discussion on the Second Reading or on the Bill as a whole. Let us now deal with the wording of this Clause—with the words putting the Bill into operation.

Sir C. CORY

My point is that the Clause as framed includes all other businesses in which the coal-owner may be concerned. I have in mind a case of a coal-owner who had an electrical factory. The Government took that factory over, and, in order to keep his customers together he put his machinery into another place. He bought a factory for manufacturing ladies' underlinen. It was a German concern, and he found that the Controller had made contracts which necessitated his carrying on that factory as a linen factory at a loss for some time. Having worked these contracts out he is now working the factory at a profit. Surely it cannot be said that the manufacture of ladies' underlinen has anything to do with coal-mining, although the President of the Board of Trade, who seems to have a very elastic mind, seems to suggest that this linen manufacturer is to have 15 per cent. of his excess profits deducted by the Controller, and the amount is to be put with the 15 per cent. paid by all other coal-owners in order to form this fund. See what an unfair position that linen manufacturer would be in as compared with other linen manufacturers! His competitors would retain that 15 per cent. and be able to use it for increasing their machinery, for depreciation, for the strengthening of a reserve fund, and, perhaps, even for undercutting his trade competitors.

Sir G. HEWART

May I point out that this argument shows that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension as to the meaning of this Clause? This Clause enumerates the persons to whom the agreement will apply; it says it shall apply to all persons who are the owners of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 a is for the time being applied and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect. The owners of coal mines are the persons to whom it will apply, and suppose the owner owns something besides the coal mine the agreement will apply only to the coal mine. The word "undertaking" is defined in the agreement as a coal mine or something less than a coal mine. There are, of course, exceptions in the agreement.

Mr. LOUGH

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read that definition?

Sir C. CORY

I would rather reply to the hon. and lamed Gentleman. No doubt it would be presumptuous on my part, as a layman, to differ on a legal question with such an eminent authority as the Solicitor-General., but I submit he is misquoting the Bill. He read out the words "the owner of a mine," but if he will look at the definition he will see the actual words are that the agreement shall be "binding on the owners of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine." Therefore I take it that included in this Bill is any undertaking belonging to the owner of a, coal mine.

Sir G. HEWART

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I said was that in Sub-section (1) of the Bill what is done is to enumerate the persons to whom the Bill is to apply, and those persons are the owners of coal mines, whether they own something else or not. As long as they are owners of a coal mine, the Bill will apply to them; but when you come to the Schedule, which contains the agreement, you find "undertaking" defined as the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under the control of the Controller, and when you look at the Regulation as to the "controller" you will find that he is to control coal mines.

Colonel F. HALL

Then why not accept the Amendment?

Sir C. CORY

The hon. and learned Gentleman did not read the words, "the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine," and really, with all due respect to the great legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may say we have had the opinion of a gentleman equally eminent who has taken a very different view to that stated by the Solicitor-General. He distinctly says that the whole of the undertakings, with the exceptions which are mentioned, and nothing outside these, are to be at the discretion of the Controller. The hon. and learned Gentleman was very subtle on the Second Reading. He was very clever in avoiding answering the arguments which we put forward, but we must take the language of the Bill itself, and there it is definitely stated that the whole undertaking of the owner is to be subject to this charge. We cannot get away from that fact, and I hope the House will appreciate it and vote for the Amendment.

Mr. LOUGH

If it is only a question of words. I do not think we should waste the time of the Committee further.

Sir J. WALTON

Oh, yes! Other people want to speak as well as you.

Mr. LOUGH

The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has, I venture to think, made a very generous offer.

Sir C. CORY

What is it?

Mr. LOUGH

I will make it clear in one moment. His reply certainly contrasts favourably with that of the President of the Board of Trade, who would do nothing for us at all; but the Solicitor-General, exercising a wise discretion, has taken a different attitude. Let us be clear about it. If he has made a fair offer which will meet the desires of those who support the Amendment, I suggest we should not waste further time upon it. The hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the words that the definition Clause makes the agreement apply to the coal-mine owner only so far as his coal mine is concerned. If that be so, it may be asked by this Committee why not accept the Amendment and strike out the words to which exception is taken? Now, I have had a little experience of this sort of thing, and I know the Government often have a difficulty in hurriedly accepting Amendments of this nature. If we are agreed on the substance, I think we ought to accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. He has promision he will consider the words further, and I will ask him if, providing he finds that it is impossible to use words which will exclude any part of a coal-owner's undertaking apart from the mine or which rightly or naturally belongs to the mine, will he insert them?

General HICKMAN

He never said that.

Mr. LOUGH

He left it for me to say. Let me give an illustration. Suppose a co-operative society owns a coal mine.

Mr. ADAMSON

Can the right hon. Gentleman name any co-operative society that owns a coal mine?

Colonel F. HALL

It is a well known fact.

Mr. LOUGH

However that may be, the illustration will do for my purpose. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to introduce words which will limit the operation of this Clause to the mine owned by such a society and not bring in the whole of its general business? If the Solicitor-General will make it perfectly clear that that is his intention I shall he glad to meet him by withdrawing my Amendment, because I do not want to waste more time.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Judging from what has taken place, I am inclined to think that we have been discussing a point which is not really confined to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. It seems to me, from the point of view of substance that the question is a small one; it deals with the point whether the agreement is to apply to a man who is the owner only of a coal mine or to the owner of an undertaking which comprises a coal mine. There you really are describing the same person in different words and the description seems to be perfectly definite. it has been stated by the Government that they are going only to deal in this Bill with coal mines and with the profits of a coal mine and are not going to touch other parts of the undertaking of a coal-owner which are not connected with the coal mine and are not parts of the coal mine. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman has said he will deal with that specific point, and that, on the Report stage, he will substitute words which will apply the definition of "undertaking" which is given in the Schedule to the Bill itself. I only rose to put this question to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The word "undertaking," which we have been discussing to-day, is in the Bill, but the definition of "undertaking" which he has been quoting is in the Agreement. Are we to take it that in discussing the Bill the definitions in the Schedule will apply equally to the same words, whether used in the Agreement or in the Bill? I am afraid that they will not.

Mr. ROCH

The agreement is enforced on everybody.

Mr. JONES

Words are used in the Bill which are also used in the agreement. The words in the agreement are defined in the Schedule. Does the definition of words used in the agreement apply to the same words when used in the Bill? I think not. In my opinion the words used in the Bill are used in the sense ordinarily accepted in the Law Courts, and they will be interpreted as having the ordinary meaning attached to such words in a Statute, but they will not have the special meaning which attaches to them in the Schedule to the Bill. I think we should be perfectly clear on that point and I hope the Solicitor-General will give me a reply.

Sir J. WALTON

I should like to bring this Committee back to what it is we are really asking for. It is that the Clause shall read: That this Act shall be binding on owners of any coal mines to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied. 5.0 P.M.

That is a perfectly clear definition, and when we remember that the Order of the Board of Trade of the 29th November, 1916, dealing with the South Wales coalfields simply used the words "all coal mines," also that by the Order of the Board of Trade of the 22nd of February, 1917, which recited the South Wales Order of the 29th November, 1916, and when we also refer to Regulation 9G of the Defence of the Realm Consolidated Regulations it will be seen that they applied that definition to all coal mines of the United Kingdom. Therefore, why not stick to that and let us have the matter perfectly clear? I cannot understand why they should seek to go beyond these Orders of the Board of Trade which are the basis of the whole Bill, as I understand it, and when really this Bill is intended to give legislative effect and to make compulsory everything that was included in those Orders which cannot be made compulsory without the passing of this Bill. I do hope that we shall have clear and definite statements and be allowed to know where we are. I do not care for this legal hair-splitting. The point of the matter is whether this Bill is confined to the coal mines of the United Kingdom or whether it is not, and if it is not confined to that, let the Government tell us definitely now and here what further undertakings they propose to control.

Sir W. BEALE

I think the Movers of this Amendment have put a finger on a real difficulty and that probably the apprehensions expressed axe pretty well justified. The difficulty, however, like all other difficulties, can be put right, and very much on the lines indicated by the learned Solicitor-General. It is on that point that I just want to add a few words which have occurred to me while I have been listening to those hon. Gentlemen who have such a horror of legal points. I understand the point to be that the thing cannot be put right by accepting this Amendment. That is quite clear. This Amendment only proposes to take out the words that go beyond providing that it shall be binding on the owner of a coal mine. It is to be binding on the owner of any coal mine to which it applies, and in the case of a coal mine to which it applies the agreement makes it binding on all and every part of the undertaking, subject to the safeguards in that agreement itself. These safeguards are, first of all, about the other parts being under the control of the Ministry of Munitions in some respects, but the final words are very significant— such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this agreement. Obviously, the framer of the agreement saw that, having regard to the broad, sweeping nature of the meaning of "undertaking," the Controller must exclude very large parts of a great many of the undertakings that would otherwise be included within the meaning of the agreement. I suggest that we should rely on those words, because, as has been said, and with very great respect to the President of the Board of Trade for the time being, we want it binding on less reliable people than the President of the Board of Trade for the time being who may possibly come hereafter. We want it made so that them is some actual right in the matter, and so that we are not dependent on the pleasure of the Controller to exclude. It might easily be met by bringing in a right of arbitration against the decision of the Controller under the discretion which has been given to him in the last words of that Clause of the agreement. I have myself suggested, not particularly with a view to this actual purpose but on other points, a new Clause, appearing on page 2260 of the Amendment Paper, which would cover that point and other points where a feeling that too much discretion is given to the Controller may raise apprehensions in people's minds. I only throw that out, not insisting on anything, because I think a solution lies in the direction the learned Solicitor-General pointed out, and that he has materials here on which to work to give a fair solution which ought to satisfy every reasonable man.

Sir G. HEWART

I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir W. Beale), and I shall certainly bear carefully in mind what he has said and suggested. To go back to the question which was asked by more than one hon. and right hon. Member—that is, the nature of the undertaking—a word which comes very often into the discussion of the agreement— the nature of the undertaking which I gave, I desire to repeat it, and I hope I shall do so in perfectly plain terms. So far as the agreement is concerned, the term "undertaking" is defined. It is defined in Clause 1 of the agreement and in Section 1 of the Schedule to this Bill, and nothing that I can say, and nothing that I propose to do, will subtract from or diminish in any respect the definition of that word "undertaking." Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that where, for example. a wholesale co-operative society happens to be the owner of a coal mine—if there happened to be such a case—it is the intention to bring in the whole of that undertaking because a part of it happens to be a coal mine. No; there is no such intention. The term "undertaking" is clearly defined in the agreement itself, and it may be said to be a colliery undertaking.

Mr. LOUGH

The first line does not read like that.

Sir G. HEWART

It is the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller; but whatever may be the merits of that definition, I have nothing to do with it for the present purpose. That definition stands. It is part of the agreement which, for reasons that I offered and that were offered by others in the course of the Second Reading Debate, cannot be altered. The point which we are upon is this, that in regard to Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill itself there is an apprehension that the words which are at present employed have the effect of making the agreement apply to persons to whom it should not apply. What I said was, and what I repeat, and I hope in the plainest possible terms, is that there is no such intention on the part of the Government, and that between this day and the later day upon which the Bill will be dealt with I will endeavour to find words the inclusion or omission of which will make it perfectly plain that the agreement is not intended by this Bill to apply to any persons who are not properly covered by the agreement—that is to say, any persons who are not owners of a colliery undertaking. I am not in the least going to try to find words which will whittle down or subtract from the definition of "undertaking" in the agreement. I am going to try to find words which will have the effect of removing the doubt, if doubt there be, as to the persons to whom this agreement is to apply.

Mr. ROCH

I am sure we are very much obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for the very clear explanation he has given, but I am afraid there is still some little doubt in my mind as to what exactly he means; and the doubt arises in this way. As he very truly says, he has referred us to the fact that this agreement is applied to certain persons dealt with by this Amendment, and he has called our attention to the definition of "undertaking" given in the agreement. The whole difficulty, however, and the necessity for this Amendment, arise owing to the difficulty of understanding precisely what is meant by the definition term in the agreement, and I will call the right hon. Gentleman's attention quite specifically to it.

The words are 'Undertaking ' means the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller "— and then follow certain exceptions. The whole difficulty arises from the fact that the "which" in these words refers, as it is read by many skilled people, to the owner of the coal mine, and not to the undertaking. I understood the learned Solicitor-General to mean that he only wished to bring into the scope of Section 1 those owners who were owners of a coal mine—that is to say, he only wished to bring in those undertakings which were subject to the Regulation 9 G of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which were coal mines only. But the definition in that agreement goes much further, and brings in not only what is controlled under Regulation 9 G, but also brings in any undertaking which is owned by a person whose mine is brought under control under Regulation 9 G. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman quite clearly, Is that his intention? Is it his intention to apply it in that way, or is his reading of that another? I do not know whether he will give me an answer to that question.

Sir G. HEWART

I certainly will give an answer with pleasure. The word "which," as I understand it, in the third paragraph of the first Section of the Schedule defining "undertaking," refers to the next word before, namely "mine." "Undertaking" means the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller. That is to say, the undertaking as a whole of that colliery undertaking.

Mr. ROCH

I really do not want to split straws with the right hon. Gentleman. I read the words in the same way as he does, but the real difficulty one feels is that if a person owns a colliery and is there brought subject to this definition Clause, then any undertaking which he possesses outside the coal mine or colliery is subject to the definition Clause. That is the whole difficulty between us, and if only the right hon. Gentleman would make it quite clear it would assist us very much. If he will give, first of all, his very high authority as a law officer to saying that is not the effect of it, and that he is clear on the point, or if he will say that it is not the wish of the Government to make it have that effect, and that his Amendment will cover the point, what we have been wrangling over for over an hour will be covered.

Mr. LOUGH

I do think we must have words which go somewhat further than those the learned Solicitor-General has mentioned, although I have every disposition to cut short the Debate. He said that in the case of the co-operative society—and we will imagine that there is one that has a coal mine—nothing was further from his intention than to bring in the rest of their undertakings. Let him put in words to that effect, then: That is all I ask. We had another example given by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holt) of Lord Londonderry's ships.

Colonel F. HALL

They are excluded.

Mr. LOUGH

The hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but the words the right hon. Gentleman used rather limited his promise. He said he would keep it to the owners, and would only exclude those owners to whom the Bill did not apply. The Bill itself applies to all the owners, like co-operative societies, owners of ships, or anything else, because they have coal mines, and therefore it is necessary that words should be inserted in order to exclude the remainder of undertakings which is not connected with coal mines. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise that, it will bring to an end the Debate in a moment.

Sir G. HEWART

I apologise for intervening again My right hon. Friend, if I understood him rightly, is making complaint because he is of opinion that in the words I employed I was limiting the Amendment which I had in contemplation to the exclusion of those who ought not to be included. That was the object of the Amendment before the House, and I am certainly not prepared to limit the definition of the undertaking that is contained in the Bill. That is purely a matter of fact. I say frankly that nothing is further from the intention of the Government than to bring within the scope of the agreement something which is not properly a part of the colliery undertaking. If it is possible to find words which will make that plain, as well as the other point, I will certainly endeavour to do so.

Sir J. WALTON

Will the Solicitor-General refer the Schedule back to the parties in order to have it amended in the sense that he is going to amend the Bill?

Sir G. HEWART

I cannot do that, and nobody knows better than my hon. Friend that I cannot do it.

Colonel F. HALL

It is exceedingly difficult for anybody but a lawyer to understand the Bill or the Schedule. When the deputation waited on the President of the Board of Trade he was particularly asked with regard to this matter, and he took care to say, when asked for a definition, "You know as well as I do that, in consequence of the amount of business at this time, it would be impossible to give an explanation of every single phrase in the agreement." But surely it ought not to be beyond the scope of the Law Officers to come to some arrangement, and to bring before this House an agreement or a Bill that they understand themselves. On their own acknowledgment, however, they do not understand it, and, if that be so, and if they say plainly, whether they are going to limit the meaning of the word "undertaking." How can anybody know what the Bill does mean, and how, if a case comes before the Courts—for there is sure to be some question raised—will it be interpreted? I submit that it is the duty of this House to insist upon seeing that the wording of this Bill is such that it is perfectly plain. I hope before we are finished with this discussion we shall hear something more as to what is the intention and what is the meaning of this Bill. I submit that it does not limit itself to coal-owners. If the point was brought before the Law Courts, and they had to adjudicate upon it, they would not be guided by anything that has been said in this House, but by what, in their opinion, is the meaning of the Bill itself. I think we should press for some further statement as to the real meaning of the agreement.

Mr. PRINGLE

I only wish to make the position clear before we leave the point. As I understand the position, whether this Amendment is accepted or not, it will not limit or increase the number of people affected by the agreement or the number of undertakings affected by the agreement. The number of people will be the same whether the the words proposed to be omitted are omitted or left in the Bill, and the question of the extent of the undertaking affected is entirely dependent upon the wording of the definition Clause of the agreement, over which, of course, we shall Lave no control whatever. It was, therefore, with a view to obtaining some statement from the Government that this Amendment has been moved. The real trouble is that we have had no clear statement from the Government as to what this definition Clause means. The "undertaking " is defined in Clause 1 of the Agreement— The whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under the control of the Controller, except such parts of the undertaking as are controlled establishments within the meaning of the Munitions of War Acts, 1915 and 1916, or are under the control of the Controller of Shipping, and such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this agreement. The whole question arises as to these last words, namely, "such other parts, if any, as the Controller may exclude from the operations of this agreement." The President of the Board of Trade appa- rently intended something more than the colliery undertaking, because he spoke of ironstone mines, and other things, and I think it should be made absolutely clear what is the principle upon which the Controller is going to act when he takes a decision as to what are the objects to be included within the operation of the agreement. It is true that we cannot get an Amendment in this Committee, but it appears to me that we ought to obtain from the President of the Board of Trade some statement of principle on which he will decide what he will exclude from the operation of this agreement.

Mr. L. JONES

I am very much afraid, whatever the Controller may do now, you cannot have anything that will be binding on the future controller. We are told by the Government that we cannot amend the agreement. That is to say, that the Committee is either compelled to pass the agreement, or to make it operate in a sense which was not intended. It has become very clear to me that in order to give effect to the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General he must alter the words of the agreement. The whole effect of this discussion, and the whole object which we have in view, is to separate parts of the undertaking which are collieries from parts of the undertaking which are not collieries. At present it rests with the Controller, and it will continue with the Controller, and the Government, therefore, are in the position of not being able to give effect to what they intend to do. I really do not know whether it is too late to make any modification whatever in the agreement, but it does seem to me that, if it is revealed, in discussion in this House that the agreement contains a Clause to which the Government does not intend to give effect, then the position of this assembly is really becoming degraded. No language can be strong enough in condemnation of a course which results in the passing of a Bill which contains a Clause that the Government did not intend to give effect to. I think the Government should again approach those with whom they have made the agreement, and refer the matter back to them. It is really a very small point, and there can be no unwillingness to exclude those parts of the undertaking which are not colliery. At any rate, if that cannot be done, I can only protest as strongly as I can against legislation of this kind being passed through the House of Commons.

Mr. G. FABER

I have listened to a considerable portion of this Debate and I came here with an absolutely open mind. What has emerged quite clearly, that the words in the agreement are something much more than the Committee wishes to pass into the Bill itself. It is very many years since I had anything to do with the law, yet at one time I was a humble practiser of it, and it is quite clear that when you look at the word "undertaking" in the Schedule, it means something much more than is intended by the Committee. It means the inclusion of all sorts of things radiating around the colliery undertaking; it means something wider than that; it means some other property altogether, owned by the owners of the "undertaking." At any rate, as regards this point, the Committee do not want to go anything like so far; they only want it to apply quite clearly to the coal mine itself. When you look at Clause 1, Sub-section (1) the words, "shall be binding on the owner of any undertaking consisting of, or comprising any coal mine," these words may mean very little, or very much when they once get into the Schedule. It is no good telling us what will be done in the future, since whoever has to construe the Act will look at the words in the Act itself. The result may be that endless litigation may ensue. Surely it is here and now that we have got to settle this matter. Will the Government make it clear by accepting the words of the Amendment or will they compel us when the time comes to throw out the Schedule which embodies the agreement? Do let us know where we are.

Mr. HOLT

I am very sorry to have to continue the Debate, but I think the position of the Committee in this matter is most serious. The learned Solicitor-General explained the position with great lucidity. I think I understood him perfectly well, and having done so all I can say is that the position is about as bad as it possibly could be. He tells us he is not prepared in any way to modify the agreement printed in the Schedule. If that is so, I do not think the Committee ought to proceed any further with the Bill. It is perfectly monstrous that we should have put before us a Bill which is so drawn that the important parts of it cannot be modified by us, and which we now know do not say what we mean to say or what the Solicitor-General means to say.

Sir G. HEWART

dissented.

Mr. LOUGH

He admitted it.

Mr. HOLT

It is quite plain that the Schedule goes far beyond the intentions of the Government.

Sir G. HEWART

dissented.

Mr. HOLT

What we are doing is taking an agreement made by certain persons whose authority to sign on behalf of other people is disputed. Now we are told by the Government that this House is to compel persons to accept that agreement and a system of taxation without the House having in its power the power to alter that agreement. I think that is a monstrous position. If my right hon. Friend goes to a Division, as I hope he will, I trust that the Amendment will be carried.

Mr. SHAW

I think, on the whole, that the Government has treated the House very fairly. The point was established quite clearly by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pringle) that there was here at least an ambiguity, and that these words are capable of ambiguity was admitted by the learned Solicitor-General. I do not think that the House has given sufficient force to what the Solicitor-General pointed out at the beginning of his remarks, namely, that the scope of this Clause consists in making certain things binding upon the owners, and unless you bring the owners of coal mines within the ambit of the Bill everything falls to the ground. The Clause provides that the agreement shall be binding on the owners. On what class of owners is it to be made binding? On the owners "of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied"? I share the alarm which was expressed by certain of my hon. Friends as to how far that word "comprising" might be construed. But I acquiesce in the views expressed both by my right hon. Friend and by the Solicitor-General that it is not, and has never been, the intention either of the Board of Trade or the Law Officers, or the Coal Controller, to give that somewhat bizarre and expansive definition to the word "comprising."

Mr. L. JONES

It is in their power to do so.

Mr. SHAW

It is, but I think the Solicitor-General has met the position, in so far as ambiguity exists, by saying that that rather bizarre power to put into the hands of a Government Department is a case which should be met.

Mr. LOUGH

It is in the agreement.

Mr. SHAW

That cannot be altered under the ruling given by Mr. Speaker, but the Solicitor-General said that he was quite open between now and Report to consider the alteration of these particular words in the Bill. I would respectfully suggest that if the words were altered so as to read, "Any undertaking consisting of or ancillary to any coal mine," that that would really meet the substantial point about which the House feels alarm, which, I confess, if I accept the view taken by the House of the scope of the words, would certainly share. I think the Solicitor-General has met the House very fairly. We have been engaged for the last hour or so in merely rubbing in the point which was established and, I think, fairly met. In view of the great amount of work that has to be got through on the Committee stage of this Bill, it might meet the convenience of the House if this particular discussion were now brought to a close.

Sir C. SEELY

The Solicitor-General seemed to think that we blamed the Government, and thought they had the intention mentioned. I entirely agree that the Government have no intention whatever of doing anything different from what we yr ant them to do. The difficulty is that under this Bill the businesses under control will pay 15 per cent. extra taxation, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be practically obliged to levy that tax and to see that the Coal Controller levies that tax wherever he can. Every man is obliged by law to levy public moneys when adopted by Parliament. Therefore, the Coal Controller and a future President of the Board of Trade will not find themselves in the same free position in which they think they are now with regard to this matter. I think it is much more important that the question should be cleared up than the Government seem yet to have realised. As regards the matter itself I quite appreciate the statement of the Solicitor-General. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the difficulty has really arisen from the words "or comprising any coal mine." Those words are in the Bill, and they undoubtedly raise great doubts as to whether all sorts of businesses which may be around a small coal mine may be included. May I suggest that instead of leaving the matter over for the Report stage we should strike out the words "or comprising" and leave it "consisting of any coal mine." Then the Attorney- General could put in other words if necessary, in order to cover what I well know the Government want. There are all sorts of businesses ancillary to coal mines such as farms and brick yards.

Sir G. HEWART

Certain apprehensions are widely entertained by the Committee. I am anxious to avoid now any discussion as to whether or how far those apprehensions are well founded, but I have had the opportunity of discussing the question with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and for the reasons which I have already given and in redemption of the undertaking which I gave, I am happy to be able to say that we have decided to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BRUNNER

I beg to move, in Sub- section (1), to leave out "9 G" ["Regulation 9 G "]. Regulation 9 G may be changed by Order in Council. If that were to happen, would 9 G as it now exists be the basis of the Bill, or would it be the new 9 G

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean)

I have considered whether I ought to submit this Amendment to the Committee, and I have decided to let it go.

Sir G. HEWART

If I follow the question put it is this: whether in the event of Regulation 9 G being repealed, and some other Regulation being substituted in its place, the effect would be to make Regulation 9 G in this Bill refer not to the old but to the new Regulation. If that were the fact no doubt very great difficulty would arise, but we must determine all these matters with a little common sense. Is it to be supposed if and when this Bill has become law and when Regulation 9 G is obviously made the foundation of the Bill, that somebody is going to change that Regulation? I cannot imagine that would be the case. If that were to happen the words in this Clause "the said Regulation 9 G " could only mean what they mean now, that is to say, Regulation 9 G which is mentioned in the Preamble of the Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE

The point which the hon. Gentleman opposite has raised is really of some consequence. The Committee is familiar with the changes which have been made in many Regulations at different times. We have seen Regulations which have been issued from time to time in different forms, but still bearing the same name. For example, I cannot for the moment recall the exact number, but if any Member of the Committee looks over the Defence of the Realm Regulations he will find Regulations which have been very considerably modified or added to in course of time. Consequently, we may have this arising, not that Regulation 9 G will be withdrawn, but that a new Regulation will be issued, or that an Order in Council may be made in which it is said that Regulation 9 G will have certain additions to it, and in all subsequent editions of the Regulations you will have this new Regulation 9 G, which will be very different in substance from the Regulation imposed at the time we were passing this Act. We ought to have some security when we are referring to Regulation 9 G of this Act that it will continue to be the Regulation as it at present stands, that there should not be any substantial alteration of it. It would, for example, be possible to issue a new Regulation 9G to say, after the words "coal mine" and " ironstone mines and shale mines," and, it may be, other mines, so bringing them all within the Coal Controller's purview. It is perfectly possible, by simply issuing the new Regulation, which will still continue to be 9 G, to have all these new undertakings which might have nothing to do with coal at all brought within the purview of this Act and within the terms of this agreement. The matter is one which really deserves some attention. Under the conditions which I have suggested, such a new Regulation would still be Regulation 9 G, and, therefore, I think there should be some limit placed so that Regulation 9 G only refers to undertakings as understood at present to be referred to by it.

Mr. BRUNNER

May we take it that we can move this Amendment to leave out the words "for the time being applied" ["Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied"], and insert instead thereof the words "now applies"?

That would make it quite clear that it will be 9 G, as it at present exists, and will not be any new Regulation which the fancy of the Coal Controller, or anybody else, may lay upon us in the near future. If so, I shall withdraw my Amendment, and move the fresh one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BRUNNER

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for the time being applied," and to insert instead thereof the words "now applies."

Sir G. HEWART

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend entirely appreciates the effect of his suggested alteration. The Clause at present provides—if one leaves out the non-material words—that the agreement shall be binding on the owners of any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G—that is, the Regulation mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill—is for the time being applied. Now that Regulation 9 G, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a Regulation which empowers the Board of Trade to take possession of any coal mine in the United Kingdom. The effect of the Amendment which my hon. Friend is proposing, if it were carried, would be this: that if, in point of fact, there are some mines to which that Regulation 9 G is not at present applied, but is hereafter to apply, those mines shall be excepted from the scope of the agreement. If that consequence were to follow I could not imagine that it would be a useful consequence. On the other hand it might well be argued that the true construction of Regulation 9 G is that it should apply to all coal mines in the United Kingdom. If that be the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment it follows that it is one of two things—either, on the submission I am making to the House the Amendment would have no effect, or it would have an effect which would be mischievous.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LOUGH

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and Upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect."

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be as conciliatory in this case as in a previous one, and when I point out the considerable danger in the Bill by the retention of these words that he will be willing to strike them out. Down to the word "applied" the Clause of the Bill seems to me to be very good, or at all events fairly good. After the word "applied" the draftsman apparently plunged into a vague seam, which I strongly recommend the Committee to endeavour to help him and us to get out of., The words are "upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect." Apparently it is not enough to say "all persons whom the agreement affects," but the words have to be added "or purports to affect." If these words be allowed to remain in they will affect a vast number of people whose interests cannot be easily realised. They will, for instance, affect every shareholder in any mine, and they will, too, affect the workmen in the mines. Let me give the House just one illustration of the extent to which these words may carry us if we do not strike them out. Note Clause 24 of the agreement. It says: 24. The terms of this agreement shall be taken to be in full satisfaction of all claims for compensation arising in the period of the operation of this agreement in respect of the Orders of the Board of Trade… Claims for compensation arising in the period! If you, by including, as you do, in Clause 1, that the agreement shall be binding on all the persons whom it affects, then it would appear that all claims for compensation are included. It would include claims for compensation for accidents, and compensation in a wide sense which I am sure is not intended. I think the draftsman really went too far. It is not necessary to go one step beyond the word "applied."

Sir G. HEWART

I am not only ready but anxious to meet my right hon. Friend, and I suggest that we should put in such words as I venture to regard as a reasonable compromise. We are prepared to accept the Amendment so far as it relates to the last four words of the Sub-section—that is, to leave out the words "or purports to affect." I think I shall be able to show in one moment a good reason why we are not prepared to accept the first part of the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman proposes. If he will be good enough to look at the Sub-section as a whole, he will see that it makes particular mention of the Controller of Coal Mines, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Board of Referees, or any other persons—that is to say, the agreement is to confirm all rights and powers conferred upon named persons, and any other persons. The Sub-section goes on to provide that the agreement shall be binding on the owners and upon all persons whom the agreement affects—that is to say, it is binding upon the Controller, upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, upon the Board of Referees, and upon other persons whose place in the agreement is. so compara- tively inconspicuous that they are not mentioned by name, as are some persons. Let me give a single example. If my right hon. Friend will be good enough to turn to Clause 18 of the agreement he will see there: 18. The Controller or any person appointed by him in that behalf may require the owner of any undertaking, and any director, manager, or officer of the undertaking to furnish any information… By Clause 20, it is provided that Any information obtained under Clauses 17, 18, or 19 shall be treated as strictly confidential. There is a further provision against the disclosure of confidential information. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman desires is that the agreement should not be binding upon the person who shall be appointed to obtain information.

Mr. LOUGH

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a word about the shareholders and the workmen. Is there any danger in their case?

Sir G. HEWART

In my opinion, not the slightest.

Sir J. WALTON

I feel indebted to the Solicitor-General for the concession he has made, because the words "or purports to affect" really are too indefinite and cannot be interpreted with any degree of certainty. I am only desirous to show how ill-drafted and ill-considered this Bill is, and that these words ought never to have been put in. Personally, after the explanation of the Solicitor-General in regard to the words "and upon all persons whom the agreements affect," I do not see any objection to their retention.

Mr. PRINGLE

It seems to me that even the words that the Solicitor-General retains are mere surplusage, and as I think it is a mistake to have anything of that nature in a Bill I do not see why we should retain them. The Sub-section begins as follows: (1) The above-recited agreement of the twentieth day of July, nineteen hundred and seventeen, together with all rights and powers conferred and all duties and obligations imposed thereby on the Controller of Coal Mines, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Board of Referees, or any other persons… 6.0 P.M.

Those last words "or any other persons" are quite enough to include all persons whom the agreement affects. If it be so, it is absolutely unnecessary to have these words in the Clause at all. It seems to me that the Amendment intended to do some-thing a great deal more important than the drafters have achieved, and that they intended to leave out all the words after the word "Act"; but, instead of doing that, they have really proposed an Amendment which is an improvement on the drafting of the Bill, and I am surprised the Solicitor-General has not accepted the whole thing.

Sir W. BEALE

I want to say a word or two upon this Amendment, because it may cover a question raised in a subsequent Amendment which I have put down for the specific purpose of elucidating points which are, incidentally, in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. It is really a point touched upon on the Second Reading, and which I regret the draughtsman of the Board of Trade has not met more specifically. What I refer to is this. You have not said in the agreement that other people who are not parties to the agreement are to do this, that, and the other, and that this Act is to bring them under a statutory obligation to do this, that, and the other. You have not said that. I really only want to help to get a Bill which will not be open to question hereafter, and, therefore, I say let ns have it so that it is intelligible. As you have got it now, you first say, "All duties and obligations imposed thereby." Now, an agreement does not impose anything of itself, or impose anything on anybody. Who is not a party to it. Therefore, the words "or any other persons" have actually no meaning here. It only imposes anything on a party to it. Then you say, "The said agreement shall have effect as if enacted in this Act." What can be the meaning of enacting in an Act that two people agree that a third person should do something? This is an extraordinary way of enacting, and it is an unhappy way of putting it. The way out, as I look at it, would be this: The words I propose are to secure that it shall only be binding on those people who are parties to it, or who have authorised people to enter into the agreement on their behalf. It is to be noted that that was the line which, on Second Reading, supporters of the Bill took. It was said that practically everybody agreed to it. If so, then say that the agreement binds all those who agree to it. After all, I do not think the Government have found words which really meet the case. What I wish to put to the Government is that, before the Report, they should state in clear words that obligations imposed by the agreement are to be taken as indicating that they shall be fulfilled. I am only pointing this out because I think, before the Report stage, matters should be put beyond doubt, so as to make the Bill, at all events, more easily understood by a large number of colliery owners, some of whom have great difficulty in understanding what obligations the Bill really imposes, and so put at rest any doubt in their minds.

Sir C. CORY

I do not quite know whether the Amendment would achieve what we want, although it is well-intentioned. As has been pointed out, it is very hard that this agreement should be inflicted on people, some of whom never saw the agreement, and some of whom never agreed to accept it, but were hostile to it from the very first. A very large section of the coal-owners of the country have all along refused to accept the agreement, and it is because of that that this Bill is found to be necessary. If it had not been that this large number of coal-owners refused to accept the agreement, this legislation would not have been necessary, and it is being forced on the whole coal trade by the President of the Board of Trade, whether they like it or not. As many hon. Members pointed out on the last Amendment, this agreement should not be imposed on anybody except those who have agreed to accept it. There are in Scotland a large number of coal-owners who tell us that the whole result of the control means practical ruin to them, and whether the law is passed or not they are not going to accept it. That is not for me to say, but it indicates the intense feeling that exists among many coal-owners in regard to this agreement. They say it is contrary to all Parliamentary usage and custom—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is not relevant to the Amendment.

Sir C. CORY

I thought it was.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The difficulty is, I do not think so.

Sir C. CORY

I am discussing the Amendment, which says that certain people who have not been parties to the agreement should not have it forced upon them; therefore I thought my arguments why they should be left out were, quite relevant to this Amendment. I trust my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, because it is only fair. If he does not, I am afraid we shall be bound to object to the provisions altogether when we come to the Schedule.

Mr. HOLT

I really do not understand—at least, I hope I do not understand—exactly why the last words of this Subsection are thought necessary. The agreement is to be obligatory upon the owners of any coal mine "to which the said Regulation 9G is for the time being applied, and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect." So far as I know, there are no persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect except the persons to whom this Regulation 9G is being applied. At first sight it would appear that these lines are surplus-age, but I suspect the real reason for putting these words in is that the Government have a shrewd suspicion that Regulation 9 G in invalid, and may be upset in the Law Courts, and for that reason it is necessary to put in these other words, because if Regulation 9 G were found to be ultra vires, and had to be withdrawn, the unfortunate people who have been bluffed into signing this agreement would still be caught. I suppose that is the real object of these words. A great many of us are beginning to think that a large number of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act are ultra vires. I wish we could get everybody up and down the country to test every one of them, and see if we cannot establish—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

rose—

Mr. HOLT

I must not discuss that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No; certainly not.

Mr. HOLT

I admit I was for the moment departing from the subject, but I think it would be right to consider the effect of this particular Regulation being considered ultra vires.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The sole point is whether the words "and upon all persons whom the agreement affects" shall be left out.

Mr. HOLT

That is the very point I am endeavouring to argue, as those words are only necessary in ease this Regulation is found to be ultra mires, and their object in that case is to bind these parties to the agreement. These words can have no other purpose whatever. I submit, therefore, it is not desirable to bind people under those circumstances. If the Government has bluffed them into making agreement by Regulation which is ultra tires, I think the people who are affected by this Bill ought to be allowed to get out of the consequences of this Bill, if they can get a decision from the Law Courts that this Regulation is ultra vires.

Mr. HOHLER

I should like to understand what exactly attaches to the meaning of the word "affects." Is it intended, under the guise of what is called an agreement, which is really not an agreement, except as between the parties, to bind the whole coal industry? I am not concerned for the coal-owners or anyone else. When we are told by the learned Solicitor-General that we cannot touch the agreement, I agree with him. If it is an agreement, it is not within the province of Parliament, except under certain circumstances, to interfere with an agreement as between man and man. They have made it, and it is binding on them. My real anxiety as to this Bill is, Why come to Parliament if you have got an agreement? In nebulous words, it would seem they are seeking to bind persons who are not parties to this agreement, and can only reject it. Why not put in words which are familiar to every lawyer in this House, "all persons parties to this agreement"? Will the learned Solicitor-General frankly tell us that he intends to bind others who were not parties to the agreement, and who, as I gather—I only speak of what I hear—rejected the agreement and will not be parties to it? If so, let him tell us, and then we shall know where we are. I ask for a simple explanation of quite a clear point. Will he say why he is not content with the words "all persons parties to this agreement"? If he will tell us that, we shall be able to judge what he means by the word "affects." If he is going to bind the whole industry then we ought to have it in a form in which we can discuss it Clause by Clause in Committee, and not in an agreement which we cannot discuss word by word. Hon. Members of this House should not give sanction to an agreement unless they are prepared to agree absolutely to its terms.

Mr. WATT

There are two other Amendments dealing with this point, one standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Ayrshire (Sir W. Beale) and the other standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough). There is also one standing in my name, by which I move to leave out the words "or purports to affect." The Solicitor-General has indicated that he proposes to accept my. Amendment, but of the three Amendments I have mentioned I have no hesitation in saying that I think my own is the poorest. The one proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Ayrshire is eminently the best, because it indicates that no one is to be bound by this agreement except the parties thereto. The words are, "the parties thereto were authorised to negotiate and enter into an agreement to that effect." I wish to call the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to this Amendment, which would carry out exactly what he desires. The Solicitor-General has been asked to say specifically whether he intends to bind others not in the agreement. Some of these outsiders who are to be bound are Scotsmen in Ayrshire and other parts of my country, and I say that it is most unfair to treat them in that fashion. I do not mind Englishmen and Irishmen being bound, but I object to having Scotsmen treated in this way. The Government ought to consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment about to be proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Ayrshire, which will make only those who have been parties to the agreement bound by it.

Sir G. HEWART

The hon. and learned Member for Chatham, with his usual courtesy, asked me a specific question whether it was proposed by this Bill to make the obligations expressed in the agreement binding upon persons who are not parties to the agreement. Of course it is, and that is the essence of this legislation. On the Second Reading I made a definite statement to that effect, and certainly a very definite statement was made by the President of the Board of Trade in the speech in which he moved the Second Reading. It is too late now to reargue that question, but I do suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that his observations upon that matter were really directed not to the subject matter of this Amendment which is to leave out the words "and upon all persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect," but he objects more to the words which precede it, "any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied." That is the real point complained of and that is the matter which arises on this Amendment. Now those questions have already been dealt with. The persons referred to are minor persons. The persons mentioned in Clauses 18 and 20 are appointed to obtain certain information, and they are required not to disclose that information and by the terms of this Bill they will be subject to penalties if they should disclose that information.

Mr. LOUGH

As far as I am concerned, the concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman seems to meet my case, and I will not press the matter to a Division if my hon. Friends are agreeable. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. BEALE

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "whom the agreement affects or purports to affect," and to insert instead thereof the words "by whom the parties thereto were authorised to negotiate and enter into an agreement to that effect."

I quite follow from what has been said that really to carry these words would strike at the practicability of the agreement. As I have already explained, it was not intended to go so far, but the intention was to get consistency. There is a real point in what has been said unless and until the Clause is put right in other respects. I have moved this Amendment to keep the matter open, and it only expresses the meaning of the thing as it stands, and unless you give the former part of the Clause a meaning which it does not appear to have I do not believe in law it would have the effect of enacting the obligations in the agreement.

Sir G. HEWART

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy if I refrain from replying at length to his Amendment, but I take this course for two reasons. In the first place, the matter was to some extent dealt with on the preceding Amendment, and, secondly, the answer which I gave to the speech of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) applies no less to this Amendment. The substance of the complaint which is raised by this Amendment is that the Bill seeks to cause the agreement made between certain parties to apply to certain other parties. I have already pointed out that so far as there is any substance in that allegation it is not with reference to the words "upon all persons whom the agreement affects," but it is with reference to the words "and shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any undertaking consisting of or comprising any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9 G is for the time being applied."

Mr. L. JONES

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with the point which is troubling me. I want to know who are these people who are described as "persons whom the agreement affects or purports to affect." Are these different people to those who are dealt with in the preceding words?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I. wish to point out that while the hon. Baronet was entitled to move this Amendment, we cannot have the same discussion all over again.

Mr. JONES

I want to know who are the people covered by these words—are they the owners or other people?

Sir G. HEWART

I must point out that this question has already been answered twice within the last hour. The other persons referred to at the end of this Sub-section are different from the owners of the coal mines.

Sir C. CORY

This agreement was entered into and brought into existence in a manner which is most indefensible and scandalous. It was arranged with a body which acted quite ultra vires, and the agreement was negotiated in absolute secrecy, those taking part in it being pledged not to divulge any of the terms of the agreement. After this agreement had been entered into it was thrown at the coal-owners for their acceptance. Not only that, but this Committee which negotiated this agreement were told that if they did not accept it they would have something very much worse. Can hon. Members conceive anything more scandalous than that a Government Department should point the pistol at people's heads and say, "If you do not take this agreement, you will have something very much worse"? It is a most improper agreement. If these coal-owners like to accept it, let them do so, but do not impose it upon men who are no parties to it, and some of whom to this day have not even seen it. The Solicitor-General says that it is intended to impose it on all coal-owners, and that is why they have come to Parliament to ra[...]y it, because without statutory power they cannot do so. It has been suggested that Regulation 9 G is a bad Regulation, and will only last for the term of the War and some time afterwards. If it is a bad Regulation, then, apparently, this agreement will go on for all time and will mean the nationalisation of the mines on these confiscatory terms.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Sir C. CORY

If I am outside the Amendment, I am sorry, and I will keep within it. I thought, inasmuch as it was a question of imposing the terms of an agreement upon people who have never agreed to it, that I should be in order in referring to Regulation 9 G.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have given the hon. Baronet considerable latitude, and I hope he will observe my ruling.

Sir C. CORY

Certainly. I will again repeat—[Laughter]. I will not repeat. May I appeal to the Government in justice to accept the Amendment, and not to try and impose this agreement upon men who have never accepted it?

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1) leave out the words "or purports to affect."—[Mr. Watt.]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

With regard to the provisos standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke-shire (Mr. W. Roch), I observe that he has taken the precaution of putting them down both in the form of provisos and of new Clauses. It appears to me that, in so far as they are in order, they will come better in the form of new Clauses, and I will deal with them in that form. The Amendment—at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "Provided that. Clause three of the agreement shall be deemed to read as if the words 'with the addition thereto of an amount equal to one-fourth part of such excess remaining after the deduction therefrom of a percentage equal to the rate of Excess Profits Duty for the time being in force' were omitted"— standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), is clearly an Amendment of the agreement.

The following Amendment stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. ROCH:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "If" ["If any person without reasonable cause"], to insert the words "after the date of the passing of this Act. "

Mr. ROCH

This is a small point, and I have no doubt that the Government will accept the Amendment. It makes it clear that these penalties shall not be operative in respect of anything done before the passing of the Act. The Solicitor-General, in the course of the Second Reading, said that, it was the intention of the Government that these penalties should only apply to transactions which took place after the passing of the Act, and I presume that he will not object to making that clear.

Sir G. HEWART

I said in the speech to which my hon. Friend refers that an Amendment of this kind was quite superfluous, because, as the Bill already showed, the penalties could not possibly be construed to apply to transactions before the passing of the Act. But if it is thought desirable to insert these words, or some such words, to make it abundantly plain, the Government have no objection. I suggest, however, that it would be sufficient to insert the words "after the passing of this Act."

Mr. ROCH

I will move my Amendment in that form.

Question, "That the words 'after the passing of this Act' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir J. WALTON

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "cause," to insert the word "knowingly."

I have also two Amendments to insert this word after the word "or"["or gives any information which is false"], and after the word "or" ["or disclosed"]. This word has often been put in recent Bills. with regard to offences, and the President of the Board of Trade told me that he would accept it in all three cases.

Sir G. HEWART

It is news to me that my hon. Friend has had such an assurance from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir J. WALTON

Why is not the President of the Board of Trade here? I arranged the matter with him definitely.

Sir G. HEWART

My hon. Friend must be aware that nothing but business of the most critical character would take the President of the Board of Trade away from this House at this particular moment. I am surprised that he should ask such a question. With regard to his observation that an assurance has been given him that all these three Amendments would be accepted, I can only say that my information was, and is, that the Government would be prepared to accept the second and the third, but not the first. Of course, if it should appear that my hon. Friend's recollection is right, the matter can easily be adjusted, but, for the time being, I am prepared to accept the second and the third, but not the first. The Clause provides that a person is not to be guilty of an offence under this Section unless without reasonable cause he fails as and when so required to give a return. First of all, he is required to give a return, or to furnish information, and if he fails with reasonable cause that is an excuse. I should have thought that the introduction of the word "knowingly" after the words "without reasonable cause" would rather have the effect of diminishing the value of the words "without reasonable cause."

Sir J. WALTON

I agree. I see that it is unnecessary to have the first "knowingly" inserted, and I accept the introduction of the word in the other two places.

Sir C. CORY

The President of the Board of Trade did agree to the insertion of the word "knowingly" in the first place. I have proof here in the manuscript of the notes taken at the Board of Trade. General Hickman: There is one other slight point—

Sir G. HEWART

I must protest against this. I am not disputing—

Sir J. WALTON

You are disputing my statement.

Sir G. HEWART

Not in the least. Nothing was further from my thoughts. I only said that in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade I had no such information.

Sir C. CORY

I am giving proof. Here is the manuscript.

Mr. ROCH

There is nothing in it.

Sir F. BANBURY

The President of the Board of Trade is here now.

Sir C. CORY

General Hickman: There is one other point I wish to raise. In Section 1, Sub-section (2) it is provided If any person without reasonable cause fails as and when so required,' and so on. My suggestion is that after the word 'cause' we should put in the word knowingly.' That is quite a usual thing in such a Clause. Sir A. STANLEY: You mean that it should read 'If any person without reasonable cause knowingly fails.' General Hickman: Yes. It is usual to put it in all these Clauses. Sir A. STANLEY: Will you raise it in Committee? General Hickman: I will put it down as an Amendment, but I did not like to do so without giving notice. I therefore say that the right hon. Gentleman did agree. He will remember that he agreed at the Board of Trade that the word "knowingly" should be inserted in this place.

General HICKMAN

May I ask my hon. Friend to drop this matter, because the word "knowingly" is obviously not wanted in this place. The Solicitor-General has clearly explained the matter, and we ought to accept the other two Amendments.

Sir J. WALTON

I did drop the first.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["or gives any information which is false"], to insert the word "knowingly."—[Sir J. Walton.]

Mr. WATT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words, "or discloses or makes use of for any purpose other than for such purpose as is authorised by the said agreement any information acquired by him under the said agreement."

This particular Sub-section gives power to call for a return and for information, but these words are too wide and ought not to be retained. This is information about the man's own business, comprising details of his own affairs, that he has been asked to give, and he is to be punished if be uses that information for purposes other than such purposes as are authorised by the agreement. The difficulty of showing how this information has been used and of proving that it has been used for purposes other than the purposes of the said agreement is very great in face of the fact that the agreement is the most perplexing agreement that has ever been laid before Parliament. It is absurd to say that any man is to be punished for using his own information in a way that is not sanctioned by this agreement. I would call the attention of the Committee to the severity of the penalty to be imposed. If a man uses his own information, there is to be hard labour and a fine. There is also the fact that a great number of people are to be liable. If the information has been given by a manager of one of these concerns contrary to the purport of the agreement, then every director, as well as the manager, is to be made responsible. The directors and the manager may get six months' hard labour simply for utilising the details of their own business in a manner which is thought to be contrary to the spirit of the agreement. That is a very drastic penalty to impose for such action.

General HICKMAN

I would like to ask the Solicitor-General whether the words which the hon. Member proposes to cut out are not meant to refer to people connected with the Treasury, or in control of a Department who let out official secrets to different people without having any right to disclose them, and therefore who would come under the penalty? I was under that impression. If that be so, I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that it might be better, in putting penalties in the Bill, to put down one set of penalties for one side and another set of penalties for the other side. Then we should know to whom they apply, and there would be no misapprehension on the matter.

Sir G. HEWART

This is a paradoxical Amendment. I suggest that my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) has misunderstood the agreement. I am sure he has not deliberately misunderstood it. No doubt there are parts of this agreement which are not quite clear, but, on the other hand, there are other parts which I should have thought nobody could have possibly misunderstood. May I refer to Clause 18 of the agreement, which says: The Controller or any person appointed by him in that behalf may require the owner of any undertaking and any director, manager, or officer of the undertaking to furnish any information which may be reasonably required by the Controller for the purposes of this agreement, and may inspect and take copies of any books, plans, and documents relating to the undertaking, and every such owner, director, manager, and officer shall furnish to the Controller or any person appointed by him all such information as aforesaid, and shall produce all such books, plans, and documents as may be in his possession or under his control, and shall afford to such person all reasonable facilities for inspecting the same. Then paragraph 20 of the agreement goes on to provide that, Any information obtained under Clauses 17, 18, or 19 shall be treated as strictly confidential, and shall be used only for the purposes of His Majesty's Government or any Department thereof, and no person who obtains any such information shall disclose or make use of any such information for any other purpose. Then in the penalty Clause it is provided that a person who discloses or makes use of, for any purpose other than for such purpose as is authorised by the said agreement, any information acquired by him under the said agreement shall be liable to certain penalties. I should have thought, with all respect, that the meaning was perfectly plain. The criticism which is made upon it, and which I suppose is seriously made, is that under this penalty the proprietor or the owner of the coal mine might himself be accused because he was making use of information about his own mine.

Mr. WATT

Yes, that is it.

Sir G. HEWART

If anyone were so foolish as to launch such a prosecution as that, it is perfectly obvious what the result would be. Of course, no such prosecution would be launched, because it could not be said of that coal-owner that he acquired that information for the purposes of this agreement. The Clause as it stands is intended to protect the coal-owner, and it would, indeed, be paradoxical if, in the interests of the coal-owner, these words were omitted.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["false in any material particular, or discloses"], insert the word "knowingly."—[Sir J. Walton.]

General HICKMAN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "fifty" ["in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of fifty pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

Section 44 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, provides: If any person fails to furnish a proper return in accordance with this Section or to comply with any require-men of the Commissioners under this Section, or to give any notice required by this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and to a further fine not exceeding ten pounds a day for every day during which the offence continues after conviction therefor. I submit to my right hon. Friend that there is no reason why we should depart from the precedent of that Act and make the fine fifty pounds instead of ten in this particular case.

Sir J. WALTON

I hope that we are going to have this Amendment accepted, because it is reasonable that the penalty under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, should also apply under this Bill.

Sir G. HEWART

This Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. CORY

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "default" ["each day during which the default continues"], and to insert instead thereof the word "offence."

The right hon. Gentleman will see that. "default" is hardly the word to put in here, and that "offence" is the proper word.

Sir A. STANLEY

We accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. CORY

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "and if the default is wilful shall also be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months."

This seems to be an extraordinary penalty to impose for not giving or not disclosing certain information. I do not think it can be seriously intended.

Sir G. HEWART

As I understand it, this Amendment seeks to get rid entirely of the penalty of imprisonment, but it is to be observed how that punishment is alone applicable. It is in the case of a wilful, which may be a continuing offence. We have already accepted an Amendment whereby, in the case of a continuing offence, the further fine is reduced from £50 to £10. It is a necessary complement to that comparatively slight penalty, that where the default is wilful there shall be power in the Court to impose a term of imprisonment. We find similar penalties in many of the Regulations issued under the Defence of the Realm. Act. In any case, the amount of the penalty would be within the jurisdiction of the Court. It would be a strong thing to say that in no circumstances of a wilful and continuing offence shall there be power simply to inflict a fine. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. LOUGH

I wish the Solicitor-General had waited until I had spoken, because I have some confidence in his matured judgment. If hon. Members will read the beginning of the Sub-section they will see that the matter really is somewhat difficult, and the Committee might well hesitate before imposing this great punishment of imprisonment. The Sub-section says: If any person without reasonable cause fails as and when so required to give a return or to furnish any information or to produce or to give facilities for the inspection of any books, plans or documents. All those things are very hard to do. The Government is sending accountants to businesses all over the country at the present time. The general course adopted by a business man is to say, "Send your man and get what particulars you want." Many business men are quite unable to answer the conundrums put to them by the Government at the present time. Many of the accounts asked for by the Government are not kept by business men. A business man said to me the other day, "Do you know what these fellows are doing?" I asked, "What fellows?" He said, "These accountants." I asked, "What are they doing?" He said, "None of us know." I said. "What is their object?" and he said, "None of us know at all." He then gave me particulars about which I am going to ask a question in this House. Then there are plans and documents. The President of the Board of Trade must know that there is nothing so easily lost as a plan. When you first get it you take some interest in it; then the thing confuses you and you put it aside; then when it is wanted you cannot find it.

Sir G. HEWART

There are the words "without reasonable cause."

Mr. LOUGH

It is very hard to give a reasonable cause why you do not produce a plan.

Sir G. HEWART

It might be lost.

Mr. LOUGH

Really the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little cynical in these matters. He does not know what complicated questions are being put by Government Departments at the present time. I would ask the Committee to look at the various duties imposed in the first part of this Sub-section, and I submit that it is only reasonable to provide for heavy fines without imposing a penalty of imprisonment.

Mr. L. HARDY

I should like to ask the Solicitor-General if he is quite sure that the rendering he gave was correct?

7.0 P M.

Sir G. HEWART

The argument I endeavoured to put before the Committee was that if you are to get rid of imprisonment altogether you cannot apply it even to a wilful and continuing offence. I quite agree that the Clause contemplates that if the offence is wilful there may be the punishment of imprisonment, notwithstanding that the offence is not also continuing.

Mr. HARDY

The right hon. Gentleman only dealt with one side of the question, and that the more important offence. He did not deal with the lesser offence, which is dealt with by the first conviction, "not exceeding 100." We have had the same argument on other Bills. It came on the Coal Production Act, on the question of hard labour and wilfulness. I think it really requires some amendment when we get it admitted by the Government that hard labour may be applied to a man who commits an offence without any desire of continuing it.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

I really think these words ought to, be left out. It seems to me that the two parts of the Clause are inconsistent. If a man is to be fined lie can only be fined under the early part of the Clause for declining to give facilities without reasonable cause. Surely that is wilful. He ought not to be fined at all. A fine itself involves something in the nature of a penal offence, and he ought not to be fined at all unless he is doing it wilfully. I entirely fail to understand what is the effect of the part of the Clause that we have already passed. If a man is to be subject to a continuing fine of £10 a day, it should only be because he has wilfully done something wrong. Why should he be fined £10 a day if it has not been wilful? It seems to me the Clause ought to stop there. If he has committed an offence at all, a continuing fine ought to be quite sufficient. I shall support the Amendment.

General HICKMAN

in many Acts that we have passed since the War began we have inserted no Clause like this for imprisonment. It is an exception. I do not see why the Committee should be asked on this occasion to cast a special slur on a particular trade.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

There is a real reason for making a difference between the ordinary munitions firm and the owner of a colliery. It is quite possible that the omission to give this information may be considered of very great value. It might mean thousands of pounds a month or hundreds of pounds a day, in which case a fine would not meet the case at all; therefore I think there is some reason for putting in more than a fine in cases where it is necessary. It is quite clear that having put in a fine, a fine will be the ordinary punishment. It generally is. It is very rare that where a fine can be inflicted the punishment of imprisonment is put in, especially on a man who is respected and looked up to as most coal-owners are. There are a good many in all trades who are not quite honest. It is quite possible that an adventurer, though he may have very little of his own money in the mine, may see his way to making something out of it, and in a case like that there ought to be power to inflict imprisonment where the Court thinks it ought to be done.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I have no sympathy, as I need hardly assure my hon. and learned Friend, with any coal-owner who attempts to evade this scheme once it is put in operation. It ought to be worked with good will. But the provisions of the Bill with regard to imprisonment draw a distinction between the treatment which is meted out to the coal-owners who are under control and those who are under control because they have munition works. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Warner) suggested that there was some great distinction to be drawn betwen the owner of a munition works and the owner of a colliery on the ground that the latter might be making money out of a false return. But exactly the same thing holds good in regard to munitions. There has been no reason to suppose that the operations of the Munitions Act have been in any way interfered with by the absence of this penalty, and to make a distinction by applying it to coal-owners and not to other controlled establishments is really unnecessary, and I think will be justly resented by the coal-owners themselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to meet me on the point.

Sir C. CORY

This does not only affect coal-owners but colliery managers. A colliery manager, for overlooking some small detail, is to be sent to prison with hard labour and his character will be gone for all time. He will be unable to get another situation as colliery manager for a trumpery offence of this sort I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Why should he differentiate between the coal trade and any other trade?

Mr. J. HENDERSON

I would make a strong appeal to my right hon. Friend. Do not let him make this more irksome than is necessary. The trading community throughout the Kingdom has begun to find all these controls most irksome and hateful, and they are all looking forward to peace, perhaps, more in order to get rid of these controls than for anything else it will bring. Why make any distinction? Really it is not necessary. The coal-owners will not wilfully keep back anything from you, and if they do there is the penalty running on day after day. There are penalties in other Acts of Parliament which are hardly ever enforced. Under the Companies Act, for instance, you have to make some returns or you are liable to a fine of £50 a day simply for some oversight or carelessness.

Sir A. STANLEY

In deference to the opinions which have been expressed, I think we might accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is not in order so far as the insertion is concerned. That would be a negative of the agreement. It is in order to move to leave out the words.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out the words, " If any person pays any dividend or repays any loan in contravention of the provisions of the said agreement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and to forfeit to His Majesty the amount of any dividend so paid or loan so repaid.'

Sir A. STANLEY

We propose to accept this Amendment.

Mr. LOUGH

On a point of Order, I drew your attention to these five lines earlier. The point I desire to raise is whether this provision does not bring this question of the payment of dividends within the purview of the House so that if it chose to give its sanction to this provision which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated he will not press, they could alter this very comprehensive Clause in the agreement which prevents the payment of dividends.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that is relevant at the present moment. It is quite competent for the Committee to strike out these words which impose a penalty for a certain purpose. I understand the Committee accepts that.

Mr. ROCH

I am sure we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying he will accept this Amendment, but I should like a little further light upon one point, because while he has accepted this Amendment it is of no real value. It is a fact that under the agreement the Coal Controller has full power as to whether he will allow the repayment of any loan or the payment of any dividend and the only effect of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has promised is that that will not have the sanction of a penalty behind it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) thinks that the concession really meets the substantial point which I am sure he wishes to raise. It is of very little practical value, and I hope he has not misconceived the value of it. It is true that this Amendment deprives the Coal Controller of the sanction of a penalty for prohibiting anybody from repaying a loan or paying a dividend, but that is the whole effect of it. Even with this Amendment he has complete power to say, " You shall not repay a loan and you shall not pay a dividend without my consent." There is one point on which I hope the Solicitor-General will give us some light. I believe that the effect of this power of the Coal Controller to prevent the repayment of a loan will not prevent a bank from suing anybody who owes it money. If there is a loan to a colliery company, the bank can still sue although the unfortunate owner of the colliery is precluded from using his funds for repaying the loan. While I am grateful for this Amendment for what it is worth I consider that its practical value is of very little use.

Sir F. BANBURY

I will not endeavour to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon points of law. All I will say is that the words which I propose to leave out in my Amendment, which has been accepted, are these: If any person pays any dividend or repays any loan in contravention of the provisions of the said agreement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and to forfeit to His Majesty the amount of any dividend so paid or loan so repaid. If those words are left out it is perfectly clear that if any person pays a dividend or repays a loan he will not be subject to any penalty. That, I think, is a very great step in the right direction. Whether or not any further point arises as to whether the Coal Controller may insist upon a loan not being repaid, inasmuch as there is to be no penalty if his orders are disregarded, I do not know, but I do suggest that the acceptance of this Amendment is a step in the right direction and we had better not look a gift-horse in the mouth. We can accept it and discuss the other point afterwards at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

That disposes of the next three Amendments. The Amendment to insert the words " An appeal shall lie to the board of referees appointed under the Act against any refusal of consent by the Controller to the payment of any dividend or the repayment of any loan" is contrary to the agreement and, therefore, out of order.

General HICKMAN

The five lines covered by the Amendment of the right hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) having. been left out, does not my right hon. Friend think that the next four lines of Sub-section (2) ought to go?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member can move that.

General HICKMAN

I beg to move to leave out the words " Where any such offence as aforesaid is committed by a company every director and manager of the company who knowingly authorises or permits the default, shall be liable to the same penalties as the company." It seems to me that the deletion of these words is consequential.

Sir G. HEWART

I am not quite sure that I appreciate the argument which was made or suggested in support of this Amendment. It appeared to me to be this, that because the Committee by consent have removed the penalty upon persons who pay a dividend or repay a loan in contravention of the provisions of the agreement it naturally or necessarily follows that the remaining four lines of Sub-section (2) should also be taken away. If that is the argument it obviously proceeds upon the assumption that these four lines relate only to the offence which was mentioned in the preceding five lines. That is not the case. The last four lines of the Sub-section relate to the whole of Sub-section (2). Although no doubt the effect of what has been last done is to make these four lines no longer applicable in the case of the payment of a dividend or the repayment of a loan, they are just as applicable as ever they were to the important matters in the other part of the Sub-section.

General HICKMAN

After that explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle)

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words " and in the event of the office of Controller of Coal Mines becoming vacant or ceasing to exist shall be deemed to include the Board of Trade."

The object is to make this a continuing thing. If the Controller of Coal Mines is not there the Board of Trade shall be responsible.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments—to insert at the end of Sub-section (4) the words: " Nothing in the said agreement shall be deemed to authorise any reduction being made in any guaranteed standard in respect of any decrease in output due to action of the Controller," and " Any levy paid by any owner of a coal mine under the provisions of paragraph 22 of the said Agreement shall be treated, for all purposes, as part of the expenses of carrying on his undertaking " are negatives or alterations of certain provisions in the agreement, and are out of order.

Mr. ROCH

I should like to know if you will give a specific ruling for our guidance in the future. I understand your ruling to be that no Amendment of any shape or form can be moved to touch this agreement. I will not repeat the arguments I addressed to you at the beginning of the Sitting, nor will I repeat what I conceive to be Mr. Speaker's ruling upon the point, but inasmuch as we shall probably wish to raise this before Mr. Speaker, who gave the original ruling, I would ask you if you could give a formal ruling now for our guidance to the effect that we cannot now, or at any subsequent stage, touch any agreement in the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN

I think that is so so far as the substantive part of the agreement is concerned. It clearly becomes no agreement the moment that is done. Of course, I guard myself in respect of Amendments I have already permitted and some of which have been accepted by the Committee, which deal with matters limiting the scope, and the Amendment that will come on as regards the time of the agreement.

Mr. HOLT

This Amendment deals not merely with the terms arranged between the parties, but also with such questions as the repayment of loans, to which the persons who have accepted this agreement are no party. Do I understand that you rule that although the persons who are affected by this agreement, but who are in no sense of the word parties to the agreement, may be directly affected in regard to loans, that it is out of order for us to propose that in such a matter as that the agreement shall be altered, and that we have no power to protect the interests of people who are no parties to the agreement.

The CHAIRMAN

I think I said earlier that the way to deal with that is to take action either on Clause 1 or on the Schedule, which would have the effect of referring the agreement back to the parties. That is clearly so.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Before you give a general ruling, may I point out the difficulty with which we should be faced if that were the only way of dealing with the matter? We are here to protect a great many interests and many interests beyond those of the signatories to this agreement. If the agreement were referred back to the same parties as entered into it in the first place, we have no reason to believe that, for instance, the banks would be represented in any transactions which took place. The interests of the colliery proprietors and the Coal Controller and the Advisory Committee are not the same as those of the banks, and I submit that it would be a very severe ruling on your part if you were to preclude the Committee from protecting the interests of those who have no one else to speak for them and no one else to guard their interests in this matter excepting this House.

Sir J. WALTON

May I point out that the position of those who may wish to borrow money from the bank for the development of the coal industry will be very seriously upset.

The CHAIRMAN

In regard to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that particular point does not arise on either of the two Amendments with which I am presently dealing, and I think it would be better if I did not deal with the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me until I see it arises on a specific point. I am very anxious that nothing I have to do to-day should carry us further than is necessary in reference to this particular Bill and the particular points on it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

May I, with respect, thank you for refraining from giving a general ruling on that point because of the difficulty we may be placed in in the future?

Mr. L. JONES

Would it be pertinent to inquire on what grounds you really rule that the agreement cannot be amended by the Committee? I understand you to say that if the Agreement were modified it would be no agreement. May I suggest that it is quite true it would be no agreement between the parties who have entered into the agreement which is embodied in the Bill, but it would be an agreement between any parties who are willing to enter into such an agreement with the Board of Trade, and it would be an agreement which the House is ready to sanction? It does seem to me to be a very extraordinary interefrence with the powers of this House, when we are passing these Clauses and are ready to enforce an agreement upon people in this country who are affected by the Bill, to say that we are not to define what that agreement is to be. Up to now we have not defined that agreement. It is true there is an agreement printed in the Bill, but we have not yet in the Bill defined what is the agreement which this House is ready to enforce upon people in this country. The effect of your ruling is to deprive the House of its power of declaring what is the exact form of the agreement which it is ready to enforce upon people who will be taxpayers in this country. I submit that if we alter the Schedule—as I should have thought it was within the competence of the House to do—we should no doubt upset the arrangement which has been made, but we should be suggesting to the coal-owners and to others the possibility of entering into another agreement which the House was ready to sanction. The effect of your ruling is to deprive us of that power which I should have thought was inherent in this House.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

As I understood your ruling, it was that there was an inherent power in the Committee of passing Clause 1, and dealing with subjects which might be in the agreement, so far as it is confirmed by Clause 1; but as you pointed out this particular agreement had been entered into four or five months ago, and that we now as a committee, of course, could not alter that agreement. On this point of Order, so tar as we give that agreement the force and effect of an Act of Parliament it is competent for us to say that the agreement shall have the force of an Act of Parliament to the following extent, and make alterations in it for the purpose of statutory adoption; but the important point is that here we have got a signed agreement executed four months ago which clearly we cannot alter. What we can do is to say how much of it is to have the sanction of an Act of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN

I am extremely anxious not to go in the least further than I think I am bound to do on the actual Amendment which arises here, and, therefore, I think it much better not to give a general answer to that question. I am now dealing with the Amendments as they arise on the paper.

Mr. PRINGLE

Is it not the case that up to the present you have ruled several Amendments out of order because they seem to modify the agreement? Can that rule be justified on any other ground than the general ground that it is incompetent for this House to modify the agreement?

The CHAIRMAN

I think that that is going back to the point that was raised at the beginning, when I think I said quite clearly that in my view the way in which the Bill was presented had that effect.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understood you to say that you would not deal with the question of the banks now. I therefore put down an Amendment so that the question can be dealt with on the Schedule according to your wish. I hope that I shall be allowed to raise the point then.

The CHAIRMAN

I have not seen any Amendment of that kind, but I must warn the right hon. Baronet that it is very doubtful whether it can be introduced on the Schedule.

Mr. HOLT

Would it be in order for the right hon. Baronet to propose a new Clause declaring that the Schedule should not have effect in that particular respect?

The CHAIRMAN

He might possibly introduce a Clause which would limit its effect on these persons other than the coal-owners. That I do not know. I must deal with that when it arises. The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke in substance is in order, but it will come on as a new Clause.

Mr. ROCH

Shall I move it now or as a new Clause?

The CHAIRMAN

It will come on in its turn as a new Clause. As to the next Amendment by the hon. Member for Barnsley—to insert the words, "No moneys assessed upon and collected from the owner of any coal mine under this Act shall be applied towards the expenses of the control "—I am not sure whether it is in order or not, but if it is put in the form of a new Clause I can deal with it. It would not come on on this Clause. The following Amendment—to insert the words, " In the event of any mine in any district being closed by the direction of the Controller, and no such levy as is referred to in paragraph 21 of the said agreement being made in that district, such expenses as are in such paragraph mentioned shall, in respect of any such mine, be borne and paid to the owner thereof by the Controller "—is clearly an alteration of the agreement with regard to paragraph 21 of the agreement. The Amendment which follows—to insert the words, " Coal mines excess payments and any repayments thereof shall be treated for purposes of Income Tax as payments and repayments of Excess Profits Duty are treated under Section 35 of the Act "—involves a charge on the subject, and is an Amendment of the Finance Act. The next Amendment has already been dealt with by the Government Amendment which has just been accepted, and the Amendment which follows—to insert the words, "Any levy paid by any owner of a coal mine under the provisions of paragraph 21 of the said agreement shall be treated for all purposes as part of the expenses of carrying on his undertaking "—involves an alteration of the agreement.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. D. MASON

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

In support of this Motion, I may refer to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the proposal that we should have a Financial Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) was the first to raise this question. He argued that this Bill required a Financial Resolution. Many other hon. Members also raised it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he made it perfectly plain to the President of the Board of Trade, who discussed the matter with him, that the arrangement should be one which would not mean a demand on the Exchequer in order to carry it out, and he continued: He assured me that the arrangement was of that character. That being so, the conditions which you, Sir, laid down, are the exact conditions of this Bill. I can, however, assure the House that it was with no desire to save time or to take any short cuts in this matter that we adopted this course. We did it on the usual advice which is given to every Government in cases of this kind. I am ready to say to the House now that, if on further consideration—and we will give it further consideration—we have any reason to believe that a Financial Resolution is proper in the circumstances, the Government will not hesitate for a moment to ask the House of Commons in Committee to pass such a Financial Resolution. We have a perfectly open mind with regard to that." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th Novemher, 1917, cols. 123-4.] That goes a long way in the direction of a promise to give us a Financial Resolution. It covers a great many points which have been raised during the Committee Debate on this Clause. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now give effect to that promise.

One very important point was raised on the Second Reading with reference to the guarantee. Should there be a deficit it was pointed out that the President of the Board of Trade gives an undertaking that he will come to the House on a Vote of Credit to make up the deficit; but it would be much more regular and much more in accordance with the ordinary rules of business if we had a Financial Resolution, which would then remove a great deal of the doubt in many coal-owners' minds as to the possibility of some coal mines not paying and there being a deficit. We should have a Financial Resolution, and an undertaking by the Government should be embodied in this Bill that moneys would be provided by Parliament should such a deficit occur. But there is a more important thing than that involved in this question, the most important question of all—namely, the control of this House in the domain of finance. If this Bill goes through in its present shape it is a precedent which removes from this House financial control. The power is given to a Controller to act or not, as he thinks fit, and we have no control over the expense of the collection of this fund which is embodied in Section 4 of the agreement.

There is another point in relation to this question, and that is the manner in which it may affect our credit. If this principle is carried out further with regard to other very important industries—such as shipping, for instance—it would in time affect our credit, because if we study the original terms of the Consolidated Fund Bills, we find that these Bills—I go back as far as 1801—were based upon definite duties which were hypothecated to the service of the State for the purpose of raising loans, and if this power is taken away from the House of Commons, and this precedent is developed in regard to other important industries, we may find that an effect would be produced upon our credit, because the Consolidated Fund Bill provides for the security upon which loans are raised on behalf of the State on the basis of obtaining certain taxes which are derived for the service of the State. This particular Bill unquestionably puts upon this industry a very important burden. Yet we have no means of controlling the direction of that burden, and no means of finding out whether there is a profit or a deficit on the particular fund on which the Bill is based, and we have no means of calling the Controller to account with regard to what is done. It is quite true that the President of the Board of Trade has accepted an Amendment by which the Controller is to give an account to this House of what he does. But it does not come before us in the way in which it would come if we had a Financial Resolution which would first give a guarantee to the coal-owner, and would also give this House control of the industry. If we allowed this control to be as it were contracted out to certain other bodies, it may be followed with regard to other industries, and this will have an injurious effect upon our credit, and tend to take away from the value which ought to attach to the Consolidated Fund Bill, which then embraces all industries which we have any control over, and particularly the finance of those industries.

There is another point which has just struck me. One Amendment proposed by the Government provides that, in the event of the Controller disappearing, the Board of Trade should take his place. If the Board of Trade has to come in and take control, does not that necessitate that this should come on the Estimates of the Board of Trade, and should also come before Parliament? It seems to me that all the Amendments which we have just been passing are valueless unless in some way we can gather the finance of the measure into the Consolidated Fund Bill, thus bringing it under the purview of Parliament by placing it on the Estimates. The cost of collecting this 15 per cent. of excess profits will presumably come upon the Estimates, and if we have to provide for that we also ought to have control over the money. I hope that this will appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and that he will agree to what the Leader of the House said on the Second Reading that, in case a Financial Resolution is demanded, the demand will be acceded to.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

The point from which I wish to regard this matter is a comparatively—not perhaps unimportant—but narrow one. I do not propose to address any remarks to the Committee on the general principle of the Bill, although my whole sympathies are with the Coal Controller in his effort to secure a satisfactory arrangement. Nor do I desire to make any observation with respect to the form of the Bill, although I agree with most of what has been said as to the inadvisability of presenting to Parliament a measure in such a form that the full control of this House over its legislation is really withdrawn from it. I am not proposing now, either to raise the point that a Financial Resolution is necessary, because this Bill imposes a tax by taking from the coal-owner a certain amount of his profits, although I think there is a great deal of force in the argument. The specific point on which I rose to speak is that which I raised as a point of order when the Second Reading of the Bill was before this House. It is this. The fourth paragraph of the agreement imposes on the Coal Controller certain financial obligations he is bound to pay. When this Bill passes into law Parliament will require him to pay certain profits to certain people. In order to enable him to Day these profits he will have in his hand the sums which the coal-owners have agreed to give him by the agreement which has been signed, and the question arises whether these sums so received by him will be adequate to pay out the amount which the law will require him to pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) put the point. to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 7th November. He asked: Whether, in any eventuality, the guarantee of profits contained in Paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Bill may impose a charge upon the Exchequer, either directly or indirectly, by the interception of money which would otherwise be paid as Excess Profits Duty? That question was perfectly clear and specific. It was whether in any eventuality the Treasury would be called upon to pay money in consequence of that guarantee. What was the answer given by the Home Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was: No. Sir, the Government are advised that the guarantee referred to cannot in any circumstances impose a charge upon the Exchequer," — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1017, col. 2150, Vol. XCVIII.] Nothing could be more succinct and definite than that. In no circumstances would the Act impose any charge on the Exchequer in consequence of the guarantee in Clause 4. A few days later, however —I think it was on the following day —the Second Reading of the Bill came before the House, and then the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister in charge of the Bill, gave a precisely opposite answer on the same point. His answer was diametrically the opposite. He said — It is expected, as far as anybody can forecast on a matter of this magnitude, that the sum received from the excess profits will be at least sufficient to compensate those whose profits have fallen, but if that amount is not sufficient then it will be necessary for us to come to Parliament and ask that the deficit be made good either by a Vote of Credit or in some other way as may be agreed upon." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917, col. 2416, Vol. XCVII1.] And later on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Wardle) said If there is a deficit, then, having ratified this agreement, the House of Commons would be responsible to the Coal Controller for the money." [OFFICILA REPORT, 8th November, 1917, col. 2464, Vol. XCVIII.] I think the House has cause to complain when before a Bill comes up for Second Reading a definite point is put to the Government and an unmistakably definite answer is given by one Minister in one sense and on the following day two other Ministers give an answer equally definite in precisely the opposite direction. When the President of the Board of Trade met the Committee of Coal-owners on Wednesday, the 7th November, this point was put to him by an hon. Member who sits opposite: " Is the guarantee in Clause 4 that of the Government?" The President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his reply, said there could be no possible doubt at all that if the surplus received by the Coal Controller out of the excess profits was not sufficient, the deficit would have to be made up by the Treasury, and there was no question about that. Then General Hickman asked whether the right hon. .Gentleman would state that in the Debate on the Second Reading, and the President of the Board of Trade replied in the affirmative. That was on the 7th November, on the very day and possibly the very hour when the Home Secretary, in his place on the Front Bench, was giving an exactly opposite reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. I have put down a new Clause, which I understand is in order, and which I shall move when the proper time comes, but I think it may be for the convenience of the committee if I now address it on this topic and later on formally or very briefly move the Clause in its proper place. The new Clause which I have down is to this effect: It shall be the duty of the Coal Controller to provide from any funds receivable by him by virtue of his control of mines for the fulfilment of any financial obligations imposed upon him by the said agreement without recourse to moneys to be provided by Parliament. I had to put it down in that form because it is not open to a private Member to put down a Financial Clause providing that moneys shall be available from the Treasury. That can only be done, of course, by a Minister of the Crown. The point I wish to put specifically to the Solicitor-General is this: The Government must really tell the House of Commons whether there will be any charge on the Exchequer in any eventuality. If there will not be any charge on the Exchequer, then I think they ought to accept my new Clause and say in their Bill that there will not be any such charge, and that it shall be the duty of the Coal Controller to, meet his financial obligations from the funds which are in his hands. If, on the other hand, the reply is that it is impossible to say whether there will be a charge or not, then the duty of the Government is to come to Parliament and say that in this Bill there is a contingent liability which the State may be called upon to meet. If they come to Parliament and speak to it in that sense, then their duty is to put down a Financial Clause in the usual form and say that in the event of the funds receivable by the Coal Controller not being adequate to fulfil his obligations, the deficit shall be made good out of moneys provided by Parliament. That is the proper Parliamentary course, and it will involve a Financial Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that if the Government thought it necessary for the sake of proper Parliamentary form to have such a Resolution, one would be, put down. It was not through any desire to save time that they had excluded that stage of the Bill, but because they are advised that it was not necessary. These are the points I wish to place before the Committee and before the Solicitor-General. We are entering upon an era of industrial legislation possibly of great magnitude. I think we ought to maintain the control of Parliament when it deals with these matters, and that it should at the beginning knew definitely what it is doing and if any obligations which it imposes on an officer of the State like the Coal Controller may either immediately or ultimately result in a demand on the Exchequer. That should be before Parliament before the Bill is passed, and that Bill should contain a Clause making adequate provision for the financial contingency which may be involved in the proposed legislation.

Mr. ANDERSON

I wish to protest against the form in which this Bill is submitted to the House. I think it is the most extraordinary form of legislation, and also very objectionable. It reduces Parliament largely to a nullity to have presented to it a Bid in this way, and to be told, " You can take it or leave it, but you cannot amend or alter it in any substantial respect." It seems the only thing we can do is to attempt to make this Bill better from the standpoint of those who have entered into the agreement, but we cannot tighten up the Bill from the standpoint of the public interest, because we are told it is an undertaking outside the scope of any possible Amendment. We have already decided it was not outside the scope of the Amendment to wipe out the Clause with regard to the possible imprisonment of coal owners, though it may be, some of us think, some coal owners really ought to be open to imprisonment; but if, on the other hand, any proposal is made in the direction of modifying this agreement from the standpoint of public interest then it is urged that we are breaking the agreement, and the Bill cannot possibly go through.

I think there is very real substance in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) as to whether this does or does not involve any financial obligation. If it does involve certain obligations are we to be asked to take it like a pig in a poke? There could be nothing more objectionable from the standpoint of the status of the House of Commons than to have legislation thrust upon it in this way. There is one matter in which a number of us have taken a good deal of interest, and one of my hon. Friends had an Amendment raising the standpoint of the workmen's interests in certain contingencies under this Bill. If a coal mine is closed down, the coal-owner is to be compensated, and we asked if the workmen were to have any claim in the Matter. Would their claim be considered? That has been ruled out, because we are told we cannot modify or change the agreement, so that the interests of the working miner, who may be ruined by unemployment being thrust upon him, cannot be raised and properly discussed in this House. I say that is not a fair way of pressing forward legislation, and this matter ought to be raised in such a way that the House of Commons can give an unfettered expression of opinion with regard to it. I believe it is unfair to some of the coal-owners themselves, and, in the way the matter is put before the House, I am quite sure it puts great difficulty upon those who are, to the very best of their ability, trying to follow the rules of this House. It put them also in a difficulty with regard to the decisions that have to be given, and it is going to be a very bad precedent for the future, if we are going to have legislation on these lines. I hope the strongest protest will be made in such a way that we shall have no more legislation brought in in this manner. Members of this House ought no to be asked to take a Bill or leave it. Legislation with which they are called upon to deal should be dealt with from the standpoint of the best interests of all, and only under such conditions should a Bill be allowed to go forward and be placed on the Statute Book.

8.0 P.m.

Sir G. HEWART

I think I can put in very few words what I need to say further upon this Bill at this stage. More than one speaker has said that this Bill is not in a desirable form. Nobody, of course, pretends that if the matter were at large this is the particular form which the Government would select for a Bill of this nature; but for reasons which have now passed into history this Bill in this form was the only kind of Bill that the circumstances permitted. It had been decided, and I suggest decided upon good grounds, that the only practical and satisfactory course in dealing with the question of compensation to the mine-owners of whose mines control had been taken was to make an agreement. Since it became apparent that that agreement was not going to be assented to by all, but that there remained a minority of what have been called dissentient mine-owners, there were only two courses open: one was to abandon the notion of an agreement altogether, and the other was to proceed as we have proceeded in this Bill —that is to say, to take the agreement so far as it was agreed, and so far as it was not agreed to bring in by force of the Statute those who dissented. I am not saying for a moment, and I am far from thinking, that that is an ideal method of procedure. What I do submit is that in the actual circumstances of this novel difficulty it was not only a satisfactory course, but it was in fact the only course. The other matter which has been dwelt upon is a matter of a twofold character with reference to the question of a Financial Resolution. It was said, I think a little inaccurately, that there was a promise on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. MASON:

A qualified promise.

Sir G. HEWART

To propose a Financial Resolution in Committee. I do not think my right hon. Friend went so far; indeed, I am sure he did not. What he said was that the matter should be carefully considered, and that if on further consideration it appeared that a Financial Resolution was necessary or desirable a Financial Resolution there should be. What was promised was further consideration, and in the event of that further consideration leading to a certain result, then there was to be a Financial Resolution What has happened is this: The matter has been most carefully considered and the conclusion at which the Government has arrived is the conclusion at which the Government originally arrived, namely, that in the circumstances of this Bill a Financial Resolution is not necessary. What are the grounds upon which it was alleged that a Resolution of that kind was necessary? I am certainly not going to reiterate at this stage or traverse again the arguments that were employed at the beginning of the Debate on the Second Reading and in the course of the Second Reading, but the arguments were broadly two. It was said, on the one hand, that a Financial Resolution was required according to the practice of this House for the reason that the Bill imposes a charge—that the Bill was, in effect, taxation. It was said, secondly, that a Financial Resolution was necessary because the Bill was going to pay out of public funds public money in a certain direction. With regard to the first, I am not going to add a word to what has already been said. It was made clear—at least, it appeared to me to be made clear—that it was a fallacy to suppose that the charge which the pooling arrangement brought about by this Bill contemplates was a charge of the nature of taxation. But the point remains, which has been dwelt upon by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. H. Samuel) in his speech just now, that this Bill imposes an obligation upon the public funds themselves, and that the Controller, by way of satisfying the guarantee into which he has entered in Clause 4 of the agreement, must, or may, come to this House to make up a deficit. It is said and urged that upon that particular matter there was a contradiction, and almost a contradiction in terms, between what was said, on the one hand, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what was said, on the other hand, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I suggest that in truth and in fact, when one looks at the Bill and looks at the context of those observations, there was no such contradiction. Let us see what the point is. The point is—at any rate, this point is—that the Bill itself imposes a charge upon the public funds.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

A contingent liability.

Sir G. HEWART

I will come to that in a moment. The point is that the Bill itself imposes a charge on the public funds, and it is said that that is done by the guarantee in the agreement scheduled to the Bill. What is that provision? May I read the terms to the Committee? It is as follows: Where as respects any accounting period the profits of any undertaking retained by the owner are less than the guaranteed standard as hereinafter defined, or if there is a loss or the loss is greater than the guaranteed standard, when that standard is a negative quantity, such sum as may be required to make up the guaranteed standard shall, subject to the provisions of Clause 13, be paid to the owner by the Controller. There is an obligation undertaken in the clearest possible terms by the Controller. But—and this is the capital fact of the whole controversy—the Bill does not contemplate that the Controller will draw moneys from any quarter except the coal mines excess payments for the purpose of satisfying that guarantee. I am speaking now of the Bill and of the agreement. Neither the Bill nor the agreement contemplates that the Controller will draw moneys from any other source. Nay, so far as the agreement deals with the matter in terms, it clearly contemplates that from the money paid from Clause 3 under the heading ("Coal Mines Excess Payments ") the Controller will have a surplus after he has satisfied the obligations of his guarantee. May I remind the Committee once more of the provisions contained in the fifth paragraph of Section 21 of the Agreement? If the total net amount paid as coal mines excess payments under Clause 3 during the whole period of control is certified by the Controller on the termination of control to exceed the total amount paid by him under Clause 4 together with his administrative expenses, the surplus shall be applied by him in reimbursing the fund created under this Clause to the extent of 40 per cent. of the amounts paid thereout under the provisions of this Clause. In other words, if you look at the Bill and if you look at the agreement which is scheduled to the Bill, what is contemplated, and I submit clearly and unequivocally contemplated, is a self-contained arrangement. The moneys which the Coal Controller collects are to be at least sufficient to enable him to pay the moneys in respect of his guarantee. That is the scheme of the Bill, that is what is contemplated, and that, and that alone, is what is provided.

Mr. MASON

Outside Parliament!

Sir G. HEWART

A self-contained arrangement, and I mean by that an arrangement within the four corners of the scheme contemplated by the agreement.

Mr. MASON

Outside Parliament!

Sir G. HEWART

What does that mean? There is no magic or mystery about it. The Coal Controller, who has the assistance of an advisory council, consisting partly of representatives of the owners and partly of representatives of the men, is thoroughly in touch with the carrying on of this difficult business, and among the things which he controls are prices. The whole of this pooling arrangement is a scheme whereby the mines which are worked more are to provide some compensation for the mines that are worked less. The Coal Controller has it in his power, unless some utterly unforeseen contingency should arise, to put himself in a position and to keep himself in a position without asking anybody for any money to provide what he has to find under the guarantee; and therefore it is that the Bill makes no provision for payment of money out of public funds; therefore it is that no Financial Resolution is either necessary or desirable. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if I may say so, with ingenuity, endeavours to impale the Government on the competing horn of the dilemma, and says, " Very well; if there is to be no disbursement of public money on the part of the Controller, or for the Controller, let the Bill say that." He used the phrase " contingent liability." If there were a real probability, although a slight probability, that there would be a deficit, then it might be said, as a matter of precaution, it would be wise and proper to have a Financial Resolution; but if the possibility of the deficit is so slight as to amount almost to impossibility, if it is such that you really could not call it a probability, it becomes idle to have a Financial Resolution.

It may be—I will not endeavour to express it mathematically in chances—that there is a slight, a remote, chance that there may be a deficit—I say a slight and remote chance. The Bill does not contemplate it; the agreement does not provide for it. On the contrary, the agreement and the Bill provide for the opposite. We deal with things as they are. If that emergency should arise—and nobody who is concerned with this Bill believes that it will arise; on the contrary, everybody who is concerned with this Bill believes that the Controller, having the control of prices, will be able to avoid that emergency—no doubt it would be a blemish on the Bill that it had failed to provide for the deficit, and it would be necessary to come to this House to provide the funds. But because there is a hundred-to-one, or a thousand-to-one, chance of that happening it does not in the least follow that it is wise or prudent, still less that it is necessary, to have a Financial Resolution to provide for the exact opposite to that which we contemplate and that which we have endeavoured to arrange. It is for those reasons that in our deliberate and considered opinion no Financial Resolution is necessary. There is no charge imposed by the Bill. The Bill contemplates that there will be not merely sufficient but a surplus, and in the exceedingly unlikely event of a deficit arising that will be an emergency which will have to be dealt with, although it is an emergency which is not expected. In these circumstances, I submit that the criticism which has been directed to this part of the matter entirely fails.

Mr. L. JONES

The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, has simply repeated the contradiction of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which my right hon. Friend drew attention earlier. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in no eventuality would the guarantee in the Bill and in the agreement come upon public funds.

Sir G. HEWART

The guarantee contained in the Bill.

Mr. JONES

It is contained not merely in the Bill, but in the agreement, and the whole meaning of the agreement was to give such a, guarantee to the coal-owners, whose mines will be interfered with, or who may be led to incur loss through the action of the Coal Controller. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in no eventuality will that occur, or that the eventuality is so unlikely and so remote that the Government does not think it worth while to meet it in this Bill.

Sir G. HEWART

What I said was not quite that. The Bill contains the agreement, and the guarantee in Clause 4 of the agreement does not impose a charge upon the public funds. I said that if, in the endeavour to work out that agreement, a deficit occurred it might happen that we should have to come to the House for a charge on public funds, but that the chance was so remote that it was not worth while to put any provision in this Bill.

Mr. JONES

The hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely admits the point to which I was directing my argument, that in certain eventualities, which he says are very unlikely to arise, the Government might have to come to this House and ask for public funds to pay over to the coal-owners in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the very opposite to that. He said that in no circumstances could the guarantee contained in the Bill become a charge upon the public funds. The hon. and learned Gentleman now says that it might—though it was not likely—come upon the public funds. I rose, however, not so much to reiterate that point as to draw attention to the working out of the agreement by the Coal Controller. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to have had experience in these matters of the Government, connected with the working of Commissions. Might I suggest to him to study the finances of the Wheat Commission, which was appointed to manage the importation of wheat and to manage the wheat supplies of this country? The Commission worked on exactly the same principle as that on which I understand the Coal Controller is going to work. They made their purchases and regulated the prices on which to sell to the public, so that those prices might be remunerative to the Wheat Commission When they made their purchases they created their stores of wheat, and they made out a balance sheet which showed that the profit to the country, at present prices, would be somewhere between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 on the turnover, and the expenditure of public money being over £100,000,000. The scheme of the Wheat Commission was intended to work so that the prices were entirely under their control; but owing to political exigencies the War Cabinet took the matter out of the hands of this Commission, and said to them: " You must sell your wheat at such prices as will enable the loaf to be sold at 9d." That cost the Wheat Commission £40,000,000, and instead of a profit of £2,000,000, or £3,000,000, they are left with a loss of £40,000,000. That is a contingency which is as likely to upset the whole beautiful scheme of this Bill. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to tell us that the prices fixed at which the coal is to be sold will be such that they cannot show a loss to the Government. How does he know what the political exigencies of the future may be? How does he know what directions may be given by the War Cabinet to the Coal Controller, directions that might result in his having to sell coal at a loss and cause the Government to come to the House to make good the losses incurred? I really can only wonder that my hon. and learned Friend should think that the contingency is so remote and so doubtful that it was not worth while to put a provision in the Bill on the point. I feel confident that before a year has gone by, owing to some contingency, the Government will have to come down to the House to ask for a Grant out of public funds to pay the coal-owners in respect of contingent liability.

Sir C. CORY

The hon. and learned Gentleman says the only course the Controller could take was to make this agreement, but my submission is that if that was the case the Government should have brought in a Bill, in the first place, for an agreement of this kind. At meetings of my association I always advocated that we should have a Bill brought into this House to deal with this question, and that we should not have a hole-and-corner agreement of this kind. With regard to the Financial Resolution, the Solicitor-General said that the President of the Board of Trade did not promise it, but only said that the matter would be considered. That matter was referred to at the interview which the deputation had with the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question as to the guarantee in Clause 4, and he said this, but he would state to the House, as he said to the Deputation, that if the guarantee should prove not sufficient, and there was a deficit, the Government would stand behind it. His words were: There can be no doubt at all, if the surplus received by the Controller out of excess profits, is not sufficient to meet the deficit, it will have to be made good by the Treasury. There is no question at all about that. How words could be clearer than those I am quite at a loss to understand. It was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Cleveland that on the one side the President of the Board of Trade was saying that there was no doubt that the guarantee was the guarantee of the Treasury, and yet the Solicitor-General states that it will not be, under any circumstances, a charge on the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) I think said that of course there may not be a guarantee, but that the Government will give their moral sanction to the finding of the money by the State in passing this Bill and they would be bound to grant the money when the President came down and asked for it. It would be a very serious matter if there was no Government guarantee behind this Bill. We know that they promise that the pre-war standard would be guaranteed. I am not so optimistic as the Solicitor-General that we are going to have any surplus, I am absolutely positive there will be a deficit. The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no need for a Resolution as this 15 per cent. is not a charge, but surely it is an extra tax on those coal-owners from whom that 15 per cent. is taken. You get exactly the same differences in opinion and in statement as to whether there will be a surplus or not as with regard to the question of whether there was a guarantee or not. The Solicitor-General, in his speech on the 12th November, said: It is thought that 15 per cent. of the extra profits which are taken under Clause 3 from those concerned with the more prosperous workings will be sufficient for the guarantee given under Clause 4 to the concerns which are less successful. Mr. Pringle: No Estimates have been given. Sir G. Hewart: My hon. Friend says that no Estimates have been given. Does he imagine that this agreement has been made without consultation with chartered accountants of the greatest skill? Of course not. The agreement is the result of the most careful calculation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1917; col. 112.] That question was put to the Controller himself by the hon. and gallant Member for Wolverhampton South (General Hickman) who asked, " You have some very fair general idea of what there will be out of the 15 per cent.? " and the reply to that was, " No, I have no idea at all," although the Solicitor-General absolutely scoffed at the idea that they had not made their inquiries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked further, " You cannot form any sort of estimate?" and the reply was "No." The hon. and gallant Gentleman then remarked that it was very important in the passing of the Bill that there should be some forecast. The Solicitor-General said just now that the Controller had it in his power to provide the money by regulating the prices. Is that the fact? In the first place, we know that there is an agreement with our Allies, France and Italy, as to the price of the coal which we supply them. There is a formal agreement made with those nations with regard to those prices, and I am not aware that it is within the power of the Controller to go and alter those prices. If he did the probabilities are that our Allies would have a good deal to say with regard to the question. Then the Admiralty have been taking their coal below scheduled prices, and I rather fancy if the Controller wished to interfere there he would find a good deal of friction and difficulty in getting them to agree to higher prices than they have to pay now. But I submit that even if they could regulate prices he could not make sure of making a surplus. Many collieries in, South Wars are stopped three days per week, and I am told that in parts of Scotland—I believe most parts—they are stopped every day of the week. In Durham and Northumberland they stop three or four days, and they stop often in West. Wales. It does not matter how the Controller regulates prices if there is no coal being worked and disposed of, and, therefore, I say under those circumstances, you are bound to have a loss. Collieries which are losing heavily now, if they can not get rid of coal, will not permit of any price being got and therefore he cannot regulate profits.

We are told that the possibility of a deficit is so slight as to be absolutely remote, and that the chances are a thousand to one against there being any loss. I think it is a thousand to one as to whether there will be any surplus profits. It looks to me as if there will not be any surplus. There may be some in the Midlands, where they are supplying house coal, and they may be making money, but down in South Wales there is no profit for anybody. A large number of collieries are being closed, and the miners are crying out because they are stopped from work. I think if it is found that owing to the collieries being stopped the men cannot get employment, it is only fair that those men should be compensated out of the Exchequer as well as the coal-owners. If the Government give no guarantee, and if the 15 per cent. is not sufficient, collieries will be stopped and there will be absolutely no compensation For rents and pumping and the keeping of surface plant going and airways open and the other necessary expenses. I cannot imagine anything more unfair to the employers and men than that the collieries should be stopped and neither employers nor men compensated. I submit that the House ought to reject this Clause, in order that the President of the Board of Trade may take the Bill back again and get an agreement which either this House can accept or deal with. To have a Bill of this sort with an agreement which the Chairman rules, contrary to the ruling of the Speaker, is not one which the House can deal with, seems to me to make this House a laughing stock to the whole world.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I cannot allow what has just been said by the hon. Baronet to pass. He has stated that there was a contradiction between the ruling of the Chairman and that of the Speaker.

Sir C. CORY

I think there is no doubt about it, it has been quoted more than once, and the Speaker's ruling has been read out.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I cannot have that discussed in any event, and I must make it quite clear that there is no conflict between the ruling of the Speaker and that of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir C. CORY

I will not pursue that further. There appears to be a difference in their interpretation, at any rate, and it has been referred to over and over again. [An HON. MEMBER: " Order! "] It is for the Chairman to keep order. I again appeal to the Committee to reject this Clause, as I certainly think the whole Bill is highly undesirable, and the precedent is bad Parliamentary procedure.

Colonel COLLINS

My hon. Friend's proposition, as I understand it, is that this Bill does not need any Financial Resolution, and that no charge will be made upon the public. If that be so, I trust the Government will accept the new Clause which is on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. The Solicitor-General, in reply to my right hon. Friend, did not state the intention of the Government on that point. I hope that before this Clause is put we may have from the Government a distinct assurance that the new Clause on the Order Paper will be accepted by the Government and inserted in the Bill. The Solicitor-General told us that the Controller of Mines had come under some obligation, and that there was possibly a slight, but also a remote, chance that public money might be used to carry through this Bill. The point I wish to put before the House is one which, I think, has not yet been put, and that is that in this Bill we are supporting the Coal Controller in an agreement that he has made. During the last few months the Coal Controller has been in negotiation with a large number of coal miners as to their rate of wages. If my information be correct, the Coal Controller has given a large number of men more money than they asked for. If that proposition be correct that an advance of wages had been given of even more than the men demanded, I ask the House, bearing that fact in mind, to say that we ought to scrutinise more closely this obligation which the Coal Controller has entered into with the coal-owners. My hon. Friend who has just spoken stated that under certain circumstances public money might be required to carry through this Bill. There is, at any rate, some doubt upon that point. I am sure the House of Commons would not at this time support public money being voted to carry through this Bill. That is evidently the intention of the Government, because they do not come to this House and ask us to pass a Financial Resolution before this Bill becomes law. Bearing these points in mind, I trust the Government will accept the new Clause to be moved later by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, making it quite sure that no public money will be voted for this Bill. Time after time recently the Government have come forward asking for public money to carry through obligations entered into by their various Controllers. Evidently they do not care again to come to the House for public money for this purpose. I hope the House will insist that no public money shall be voted, and that steps will be taken to insert the new Clause to which I have referred in the Bill.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

I would venture to ask the representative of the Coal Controller to give us a little more definite information in regard to the position, because the Solicitor-General rode off a good deal upon this fact of the non-existence of a Treasury obligation, and did not really give the House a full and proper explanation as to the circumstances of this particular matter. I am somewhat different from other hon. Members who have been taking a somewhat active opposition to the Bill, because I am One of those who signed the agreement. What was the proposal to us? That 15 per cent. of excess profits should be paid over to the Coal Controller with a view, so far as it went, of using that money for the purpose of paying those who made a guaranteed loss, as is provided for in the Bill. The Solicitor-General creates a visionary heaven where the Coal Controller is invariably to make profits. The Coal Controller is giving additional wage and additional cost, and in recompense he allows the coal-owner to increase the price of coal. He can do all this so successfully, according to the Solicitor-General, that invariably there must be a handsome surplus out of which he will get the excess profit of 15 percent. to pay the guaranteed loss! I assure him that that is a visionary scene. The Coal Controller has increased the wages of the collier 1s. 6d. per day, which is 9s. or 10s. 6d. per week, according to the number of days worked by the colliers. Nobody demurs to that increase, but it naturally increases the costs of the colliery proprietor tremendously. My costs, taken out for October—which, I allow, includes some back wages that have to be paid—are over 3s. per ton of the coal put out. Against that the Coal Controller has allowed an increase of 2s. 6d. per ton.

Sir J. WALTON

Only on certain coal!

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

Yes, on certain coal. The result of that is this beautiful vision that the Solicitor-General has told us of, where profit is invariable and where he will get his 15 per cent. to meet the guaranteed losses which may be made ! If you look at what the result really is, in view of that statement, you will see what terrible confusion it will give rise to.

Sir J. WALTON

Hear, hear !

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

You got 15 per cent. out of your profits up to the time that this ls. 6d. was proposed. You created a fund. The first persons who come in under this guarantee will ask for their 15 per cent., the guaranteed standard, and will receive the amount due to them out of the funds—to the extent to which they will go! Those who come after will find that there are no funds. They will stand aghast at the fact that they have made this agreement with the Coal Controller expecting to receive the guaranteed standard and that there is no money to pay them. I will say this for myself, having agreed, and having invited others to agree to this agreement on the strength that we have made that binding agreement with the Board of Trade—if you look at the Bill you will see it is the Controller or any person appointed by the Board of Trade—the Solicitor-General now apparently turns up and says, "You have made no guaranteed, binding agreement with regard to that guaranteed standard at all. There will be no funds. It is only if you happen to have funds; now you will have to whistle for your money." The Solicitor-General did not tell us that he was not going to accept the new Clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, by which payment is prohibited out of any money except that contributed by the coal-owners themselves. I was thoroughly at one with the scheme at the beginning, and considered that this was a patriotic measure for the coal-owners, and I agreed with the proposal that the Controller should come in and manage these collieries, with a consultative committee consisting of owners and miners.

The Coal Controller has altered a good many things. He has told us where to send coal to; he has altered our districts; he has altered a great many things in connection with our trade, and, having made that agreement, we are invited now to say we have no funds out of which we are to be paid the sum which he has guaranteed. Personally, I am inclined to say at once that the statement of the Solicitor-General is an absolute, gross breach of the agreement. The agreement is here plain, that if certain things are done certain moneys will be paid. I think, perhaps, through the vagueness of his language, and the non-committal and very cautious view he took, the Solicitor-General did not intend all he said, but certainly as he said it it reads that the Clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland is to be passed—a Clause which says that there shall be no funds provided by Parliament. Those who entered into this agreement, and who wish to do everything to carry out what the Controller has asked them to do, are now met by the Solicitor-General with a very doubtful statement as to where we are to get the money from to pay that guaranteed standard. It is bound to upset all those who entered into that agreement on the faith of the discussion that took place.

I do not think it is right that the Government should take up such a position. The Board of Trade has made an agreement with us, and now an hon. Member says at once, "Repudiate your agreement, and make the coal-owners pay themselves." They are quite willing to do it if they are not interfered with, but if you interfere with them and you add ls. 6d. to the miners' wages, and you give 2s. 6d. a ton back again, it does not cover the ls. 6d. a day, or anything like it. The Coal Controller and the Board of Trade must know now they are in negotiation with every district with regard to a request to increase the 2s. 6d. to cover the costs which have been incurred by the extra wages and the expenses which the Coal Controller has imposed upon them. The Coal Controller has been very fair and very reasonable. He has met us all and allowed us to discuss these questions, and I hope he will give his decision on this principle, that if you impose extra costs you must allow extra means of repaying them. But there is no guarantee, and the Solicitor-General over and over again fenced with the question of giving a direct answer as to what is the meaning of the agreement. I shall support the Bill because I cannot believe the Government will repudiate their guarantee, but, having heard the Solicitor-General, I am bound to say, unless somebody assures me that it is different, I shall sit down with a distinct disappointment with all the efforts that were made to meet the Coal Controller and the Board of Trade, and a belief that the Government are persuading, inviting, and asking everyone to help them in the War, and then intending to break the obligations and agreements into which they have solemnly entered.

Mr. ADAMSON

I would not have intervened at this stage but for some remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Greenock. In the course of his remarks he stated that an advance had been recently granted to the workmen which was larger than the workmen had asked for. That statement is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the workmen asked for a larger advance than they were able to secure. The original demand of the workmen was for an advance of 25 per cent. on their wages. They did not get anything like 25 per cent., so that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman is not correct. One of my chief objections to this Bill is that it provides a certain guarantee to the owner, while at the same time it does not provide any guarantee to the workman. I put an Amendment on the Paper which, if it had been accepted, would have remedied that defect. I think that if a guarantee of any kind is to be given to one of the parties, it is quite a legitimate request for me to ask that it should be given to the other. The hon. Member for Barnsley reminds me that it does not come out of the State. I am quite aware of that, but there is a special arrangement whereby 15 per cent. of the excess profit is to be put into a fund, and the guarantees are to be provided from that fund. My Amendment carried that principle further. It sought to take the whole of the excess profit and put it into that fund, and that from that fund not only should coal-owners who suffer loss through the closing of collieries be compensated, but the workmen employed in those collieries, and who are put to loss and inconvenience, should also be compensated. However, that was ruled out, and one of my objections is that there is no provision for the workman being compensated. It has been stated in the course of the discussion that if my Amendment had been carried it would have put the coal-owners in a worse position than the employers in other industries in the country. I frankly confess that it would have done that, but I am one of those who believe that no employers should be in the position of being able to make a single penny of excess profits in the great struggle in which this country is engaged for the time being. The Member for Barnsley said the coal trade should set an example. I want to remind the Committee that the coal trade, under the system of control, has certain guarantees that are not given to employers in other parts of our industry, and that that is a factor that he and his fellow coal-owners have to take into account. The principle objection to Clause 1 that has emerged in the discussion is the fact that it imposes a charge upon the taxpayer, and up to the present moment the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in common with those associated with him during the discussion, has given a specific pledge that it will not eventually impose a charge upon the taxpayer.. The Solicitor-General says that it is very improbable that it will impose a charge upon the taxpayer. If the chance is so remote. why cannot the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill give a specific pledge that the Bill, and the agreement that the Bill is brought in to legalise, is a sufficient provision in itself and provides for every possible contingency that may arise, and that there will be no charge on the taxpayer? It seems to me, in reading the agreement, that there are two sources from which the Coal Controller can protect himself from any possible deficiency. There is, first, the general fund that is to be created by the 15 per cent. excess profits; and, in the second place, there is a provision made in Clause 21 which seems to me to give to the Coal Controller the power to impose a levy.

Mr. PRINGLE

Only by agreement.

Mr. ADAMSON

I thought it gave to the Controller the power to impose a levy. [HON. MEMBERS: " No ! "] If the Controller had that power, it would appear to me to be a second source from which he could secure money, which would obviate the necessity of putting any charge upon the taxpayer. Whether I am right or wrong on that point, I think there is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving this House a definite assurance that this Bill will not impose a tax on the general taxpayer. The Solicitor-General has pointed out that the Coal Controller has also control of the prices, and that he is in a position to regulate the prices according to his requirements. If that is correct, I do not see any reason why there should be any hesitation on the part of the President of the Board of Trade for the assurance which has been asked for. There are other objections to the Bill which I have already dealt with shortly and which I have no intention of enlarging upon now. The Bill goes by no means as far as I think it should have gone, but at the same time it meets part of my ideas and the ideas of the miners concerned. We stood not for control alone, but also for ownership as well. In conclusion, I would say that I would like to press for the remainder of our demands, namely, ownership as well as control.

9.0 P.M.

General HICKMAN

The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to be very anxious that there should be no charge upon the taxpayer for any deficiency that may occur in case the 15 per cent. Excess profits are not sufficient to meet the guarantee as laid down in the agreement. I am told that the Solicitor-General in his speech certainly hinted that if there was any deficiency it might be made up by raising the price of coal. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is very little difference to the taxpayer if he has to pay for this deficit out of the price he pays for his coal or the money he might have to pay in Income Tax. I would also remind the hon. Member that the working classes, on whose behalf he has been speaking, would suffer most if they had to pay more for their coal, because they do not pay Income Tax. I am perfectly certain of one thing, and I had it myself from the Controller the day before this Bill was introduced, that they had really made no proper estimate and had no real idea as to whether there would be a deficit or a surplus. I put it to any ordinary individual, and especially to anybody who has any idea of business—I put it to any director who has his shareholders' interest to consider, if the company for which he is responsible is able to make the same profit standard as before the War, is it likely that the board of directors of that company, with the interest of their share holders at heart, are going to make more money and fetch out more coal, which is really the capital of the shareholders, in order to find excess profits to provide this 15 per cent. if their shareholders are not going to get anything out of it? Under these circumstances the probability is that there will not be such large excess profits under this agreement as there was before. That is only human nature. Therefore, he can draw the deduction that there will be a charge on the country one way or another, and whether it is to be a charge on the Consolidated Funds or whether the Coal Controller chooses to put up the price of coal, one of two, things must happen. The deficiency will have to be met. It was not right that the Solicitor-General should come down to the House and tell us that there would be no deficiency, and it was not right for the advisers of the Board of Trade to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer in so that he said on the Second Reading that he had been advised that there would be no deficiency and therefore no charge on the Exchequer. It was largely on account of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we did not divide on the Second Reading. It was not right to let him in in that way, because there must either be a, charge on the Exchequer or the price of the coal to the consumer must be raised. That is perfectly clear. I do not myself want to oppose the passage of this Clause, but I think it only right to point this out.

Mr. PRINGLE

Unlike the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think it is right to oppose this Clause, and I wish to remind the Committee of the circumstances under which the Second Reading of this Bill was passed. We passed the Bill under a ruling of Mr. Speaker to the effect that an alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) would have to be made in the Bill and could not be made in the Schedule. Many of us believed that many of the objectionable features in the Schedule, though not amendable in the Schedule itself, could be amended in the Bill, and in these circumstances we agreed to the Second Reading without a Division. We now find on the Committee stage that our faith in that ruling was misplaced, and that it is impossible either to amend the Schedule as a schedule or to affect the Schedule by means of amendments to the Bill. In these circumstances, it is impossible to make this an equitable agreement. There are to my mind two capital defects in this arrangement. First, there is inadequate provision for the compensation of men whose mines are closed down. At the present time they have certain remedies at Common Law and before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. Under this Bill, they are robbed of these remedies, and in place of them they are offered a provision which gives them totally inadequate compensation. In the second place, there is no provision whatever in this Agreement for the relief of the many thousands of workmen who are going to be deprived of their employment as the result of the operations of this agreement. Already as the result of the operation of control many men have been thrown out of employment in many parts of the country. In the county of Fife, represented by my hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson), the situation has been so serious that demands have been made upon the public funds for relief. In the county of Durham during this year already £70,000 has been paid in unemployment benefit. While providing a compensation fund to cover the loss of those affected by the operation of control, I hold that this House is failing in its duty if it does not make provision for all these thousands of workmen who are going to be unemployed as the result of this agreement. It is because of these two capital defects in the Bill, defects which it is impossible to remedy, that we feel bound to divide against this Clause as our only method of protest and of showing that although we cannot make Amendments to the Bill we at least disapprove both of the agreement itself as inequitable and of this unprecedented and totally unjustifiable way of treating the House of Commons.

Mr. J. HENDERSON

I rise to oppose this Clause. This is an essentially bad Bill, and I am sorry to say that it is one of a series of bad Bills. I could quite understand the Government if they had said, " We will take entire control of these mines and take the whole of the profits, and we will compensate the mine-owners on a scale which this House may pass," but this is the first time, so far as I know, that the House has been asked to pass a Bill which contains a Schedule of agreed terms without the House having any power to discuss those terms. Of course in the Companies Act and in other Acts there is power given to a majority to compel a minority, but the terms in detail upon which that power is given are always and always have been subject to discussion, item by item, in this House. It is not so in this case, and I consider that the most dangerous part of this Bill. We have brought before us an agreement which we cannot touch, and we are asked and almost compelled to agree to it and to give it statutory sanction so that a man who objects to the terms is compelled to submit to them nolens volens. Before we put that pressure on any man we ought to have the power of discussing the terms. We have not had that power.

There are also some very objectionable items in this agreement. We are not told where the surplus is going, if there is a surplus, and we are not told where the deficiency is coming from, if there is any deficiency. We pressed that very hard on the Second Reading, but do what we could we could not get an answer from the Front Bench. Of course, it is quite easy to foresee that there will be a deficiency. There is no doubt whatever that the miners have tremendous power at the present time. They can demand increased wages, and you dare not refuse them. It may be that the wages that they will put upon this agreement will be such that there will be a deficiency. The 15 per cent. may be nothing at all, and the excess profits may be nothing at all. I have known cases where there were excess profits in 1915, but where, owing to rises in wages, there were no excess profits in 1916, and where there may be still less profits in 1917. We all know that £25,000,000 of extra wages have been put upon the railways. I do not know what the amount is that has been put upon the coal trade, but it must be very nearly that, if not more. It only requires a certain percentage more wages to make the excess profits disappear altogether. It is really very bad legislation, and nothing but a state of war would justify in the least this House accepting the Bill. Are we to carry such legislation to the extreme to which we are carrying it to-night? Is the War to be made the excuse for introducing measures which cannot, on the face of them, be justified, and which put extra pressure on one particular branch of industry?

I have no interest in this branch of industry, but I fear that what is happening to this industry may happen to others. This seems to be one of the first steps to be taken to get a grip of the various industries, with the intention of keeping a grip upon them after the War, I suppose in the interest of the State. Whatever effort is made, and whatever legislation is developed in that direction, we ought to have full, complete, and absolute control in this House over such a measure, in order to be able to discuss it item by item, so that we may, with calm deliberation, pass a measure which we are prepared to discuss and support in the constituencies when we go down to them. To pass certain measures which are brought before us and forced upon us by big majorities drawn from the purlieus of the House is a very serious thing You can take it from me that this is only one of many such Bills which are going to be introduced. I have no objection at all to social legislation if it is properly considered and discussed, item by item, so that we may be able to give a reason for the faith that is in us when we face our constituencies in the time to come, and so long as those measures are proved to be beneficial to the country. This is an altogether vicious Bill. It is vicious in that it puts a tax upon a particular industry. That is wrong. I am not connected with the industry. I did not get much of its product last winter, but for that I bear it no ill-will. We have to guard against these efforts, and now is the time when we must put our foot down and say that no agreement that is going to coerce anybody shall be passed unless the details of the agreement are submitted to this House for discussion.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Before this Clause is voted on, I should like to say a few words on the general subject that has been under discussion during the last hour. The scheme which we are now asked to legalise concerns the principal commodity of nearly every one of our great industries, and it affects practically every household in the United Kingdom, yet, so far as I can gather, from first to last in this agreement and in the Bill itself, there is no provision made to protect the consumer. There are four interests in the coal trade of this country—the consumer, the royalty owner, the coal-owner, and there is the miner. Two of these, at least, have been omitted altogether from the purview of the agreement. Much the most serious omission is the omission of the consumer. If the Solicitor-General had been here, as he was a few minutes ago, I should have drawn more pointed attention to remarks which were made by him a little earlier in the evening. He pointed out that there was very little chance of a deficit in the fund which is required to finance this scheme. When he was challenged across the floor of the House, he modified his statement by saying, in sporting language, that there were a thousand-to-one chances against there being a deficit. I should like to know if that is the estimate made by the Coal Controller? Is that the estimate which the Board of Trade regards as a just estimate—a thousand-to-one chances against a deficit? When the Solicitor-General was further pressed, he said that the deficit could be made up by the Coal Controller putting up the price of coal. There we come back to the consumer at once. The only way, according to the theory of the Solicitor-General, in which this scheme can be made solvent is by throwing a further charge upon the consumer. Well, let that be thoroughly well known—the consumer is to be mulcted in whatever sum may be necessary to provide the fund for the pushing through of this scheme.

It may be said that the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act is some protection for the consumer. I know something about the working of the limitation of prices, and I think it is not unfair to say that it has bad some influence in keeping prices down, but we all know there have been hundreds of cases where, by agreement, prices have risen above the limit provided in that Act. If the Solicitor-General's theory is to hold good, the limitations there are to go by the board. No longer is the House of Commons to say that 4s. or 6s., or whatever it may be, is the limit above which the price is not to go. The Coal Controller, if he finds his accounts are looking rather blue, can place an extra charge on coal, and the poor consumers in the United Kingdom will be mulcted because this scheme is not watertight. The Solicitor-General was so very anxious to argue that a Financial Resolution was unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill that I think he overlooked the fact that, by securing a ruling from the Chair that this is not a Money Bill, the Government have left it open to the House of Lords to deal with this measure. If it had been a Money Bill we should have disposed of it here and the House of Lords would have had to accept the Bill. But by securing a ruling that this was not a Money Bill and therefore that no Finincial Resolution is required, the House of Lords may, if they are so pleased, interfere with this measure, amend it, or throw it out. I would remind the Committee that one of the interests in the coal trade, namely, the royalty owners, are well represented in the House of Lords. There are not many coal-owners there, and, so far as I know, there are no miners there, but there are royalty owners. Those royalty owners may say—indeed, I feel certain that some of them will say—" Under your scheme, if a colliery is closed down, the coal-owner may receive something in the nature of compensation, while the royalty owner will get his minimum rent, but he gets no compensation for the royalties he loses." If that is argued effectively in the House of Lords, it is the Government and the Government alone which is to blame.

What is the second interest in the coal trade? It is the coal-owners. I cannot speak as a coal-owner. I have not the pleasure or privilege of owning shares in collieries. I can only speak as a consumer of coal so far as my own personal interest is concerned. But from the discussions which I have heard here it is apparent that the understandings arrived at outside appear to be different from the version which was given us by the Solicitor-General. Again, I feel I am under something in the nature of a disability in not having the Solicitor-General present. Nothing could have been more categorical than his statement to-day that there was no intention whatever of making up any deficit which might arise out of the Treasury funds, and he fell back on the scheme of raising the wind by extra coal prices, well knowing that after the agreement had been negotiated, and they were discussing it, the President of the Board of Trade said explicitly that if there was not enough income to be found in the excess profits the deficit would be made good by the Treasury. Nothing could be more specific. On two sides you had two statements by two Ministers, diametrically opposed to one another. I have known the President of the Board of Trade for a long time, and I believe implicitly in his version of the transaction, and I am certain the coal-owners are prepared to rely on what he said when they waited upon him in deputation. But if what the President of the Board of Trade said is correct the whole of the argument of the Solicitor-General goes by the board, and the Government ought to have taken the bold course of adding two small stages to the passage of the Bill and preceded it by a Financial Resolution.

The last point I wish to make is with regard to the miners. My hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh) spoke on this Bill at an earlier stage. I do not know whether he fully appreciated the point I was pressing at the time, that, whereas this Bill provides, by legalising the agreement, for compensation to coal-owners whose collieries may cease to be worked, there is no provision in the agreement or in the Bill for miners who may be dispossessed of their work. My hon. Friend is one of the statesmen of the coal trade, and I feel sure that if he had been freer from official duties to devote his time to the affairs of his union he would never have allowed a Bill to be introduced into this House providing for compensation to coal-owners which did not give some form of compensation to miners. Yet that is exactly what the agreement does. There have been instances in various parts of the country where miners, owing to the action of the Government, which may have been right or wrong—I think in most cases the exigencies of the moment made that action right—have been prevented from earning their weekly wages. Large sums have been paid in the way of unemployment benefit, and in spite of that local charities have actually had to support many miners' families. Who can say this is a complete watertight scheme which leaves out one of the most important elements in the coal mining industry? It will not do for the Government to say this could not have been done. It need not have appeared in the agreement. The agreement was between coal-owners and the representatives of the Government. Those who were parties to the agreement will honourably abide by it, and it is quite possible that in that agreement no provision could be made with the miners themselves, but there was nothing to prevent the Government inserting in the Bill a provision which would have given the miners some analogous benefit to those given to the coal-owner. It could have

been done, because it was done in the cotton trade, and what was possible in the cotton trade was possible in the coal trade.

For this reason I do not think anyone can say this is a watertight scheme. No one can say it does not impinge on the financial rights of this house, and the method which has been adopted sets a thoroughly bad precedent. There has never been any scheme of legislation devised which has so successfully evaded the financial rights of the House as the Bill we are now discussing. It is little wonder if some of my hon. Friends think that when we come to a Division they must vote against the Clause. If I do not do so it is not because I do not think it is bad legislation, but because I believe the Government has landed itself and the country in such a position that there is no way out of our difficulties except by carrying through the scheme which the Coal Controller has obtained signatories to at this late hour of the day. in spite of the long interval of time which has passed since the Coal Controller got to work, this agreement has only now achieved partial support from those engaged in the coal trade. The minority, I dare say, may feel that their rights have not been thoroughly protected, but whatever may be their rights I feel sure they will fall in with what they feel to be the general interest, and, as I understand their position, they oppose this measure more because it is badly devised and unjust in its incidence than because they object to their industry being controlled in the national interest. If that is their position few can blame them for the attitude they have adopted.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 39.

Division No. 1 2 1.]	AYES.	[9.32 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Boyton, James	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Brace, Rt. Hon. William	Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)
Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.	Bridgeman, William Clive	Craik, Sir Henry
Allen, W. J.	Broughton, Urban Hanlon	Currie, George W.
Baird, John Lawrence	Bull, Sir William James	Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.
Baldwin, Stanley	Burdett-Coutts, William	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Burn, Colonel C. R.	Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward
Barnes. Rt. Hon. George N.	Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)
Barnett, Captain R. W.	Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)	Du Pre, Major W. Baring
Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Cecil,Rt.Hon.LordRobert(Herts,Hitchin)	Fell, Arthur
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Clough, William	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Bellairs, Commander C. W.	Clyde, J. Avon	Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Cochrane, Cecil Algernon	Fletcher, John Samuel
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Collins, Sir W. (Derby)	Foster, Philip Staveley
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith	Colvin, Col. Richard Beale	Galbraith. Samue;
Bowerman, Rt Hon. C. W.	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Maden, Sir John Henry	Spear, Sir John Ward
Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)	Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth	Stanley,Rt. Hon.SirA.1-1.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)
Gretton, John	Morgan, George Hay	Stewart, Gorshom
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Norman, Sir Henry	Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Strauss, Edward A (Southwark, West)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Swift, Rigby
fiewart, Sir Gordon	Pease, Rt. Hon.Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)	Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Pennetather, De Fonblanque	'themes, Sir A G. (Monmouth. S.).
Higham, John Sharp	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry (Derby)
Hinds, John	Pratt, .1. W.	Tickler, T. G.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George	Toulmin, Sir George
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Hunt, Major Rowland	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.	Wardle, George J.
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	I Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arlon)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich)	Wilson-Fox, Henry
Kellaway, Frederick George	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs)	Winfrey, Sir Richard
Kenyon, Barnet	Robinson, Sidney	Wolmer, Viscount
Larmor, Sir J.	Rowlands, James	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle)	Samuels, Arthur W.	Worthington Evans. Major Sir L.
Layland Barratt, Sir F.	Sanders. Col. Robert Arthur	Yee, Alfred William
Levy, Sir Maurice	Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	'Young, William, (Perthshire, East)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Shaw, Hon. A.	Younger, Sir George
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Alpert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E (Walton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Smith, Sir Swlre (Kelghley, Yorks)	F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.
Macpherson, James Ian
NOES.
Anderson, W. C. I	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich)	Pringle, William M. R.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	IReddy, Michael
Bentham, George Jackson	Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)	Roch, Walter F.
Boland, John Plus	Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Hickman Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.	Scanlan, Thomas
Brunner, John F. L.	Hogue, James Myles	Sherwell, Arthur James
Bryce, J. Annan	Holt, Richard Durning -	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Burns. Rt. Hon. John	Houston, Robert Paterson	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Chancellor, Henry George	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushclitte)	Watt, Henry Anderson
Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)	Jowett, Frederick William	Wedgwood, Lieut.-Commander Josiah C.
Crumley, Patrick	King, Joseph	Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ffrench, Peter	Molloy, Michael
Fitzpatrick, John Lain-	Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	J. Walton and Mr. D. Mason.

Question put, and agreed to.