That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual salary not exceeding £2,000 to the Minister of Mines, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses of the Ministry as may become payable under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of Mines, and for regulating the coal industry and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein, and of any sums that may become payable by the Treasury by way of temporary advances by reason of the extension by such Act of the continuance of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920.
Provided that the total amount so paid shall not in any one year exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
Provided that fees or expenses of any pit or district committee or area or national board or any members thereof which may be constituted under the said Act will not be payable as expenses of the said Ministry.
§ Resolution read a Second time.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, after the word "paid" ["Provided that the total amount so paid"], to insert the wordsin respect of the salaries, remuneration and expenses of the Ministry, and for regulating the coal industry, and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein.It will be in the recollection of the House that last night an Amendment was accepted limiting the expenditure of the Ministry to a sum of £250,000. Since then it has been pointed out to me that the Amendment did not properly come in in the place in which it was put, and that the Resolution, as eventually passed, covers too wide a ground, because if it remains as it is on the Paper at the pre- 1383 sent moment, it means that £250,000 is the only sum which can possibly be paid by the Treasury with regard to the whole transactions of the Ministry. But other lines in the Resolution refer to certain sums which have to be issued by the Treasury from time to time in order to cover losses made by certain mines in the country. I understand that losses made by certain mines are made up out of the profits earned by other mines. The profits are in fact pooled, and the Treasury from time to time has to issue large sums to make up losses in certain mines, and eventually these sums are reimbursed to the Treasury out of the profits of other mines. Therefore the Resolution, as it stands now, will prevent the issue of sums by the Treasury for that particular purpose. I do not want the £250,000 which was passed last night to apply to that part of the Money Resolution. If the Amendment which I have now moved is passed, it will still enable the Treasury to issue sums for the purpose to which I have referred.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Horne)
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for taking notice of the embarrassing position caused by the terms of the Amendment which he moved last night. If the Amendment had been on the Paper, one would have had an opportunity of seeing exactly how it fitted in with the general Resolution. I accepted it in the spirit in which it was moved, namely, that the £250,000 was to cover the expenses of the Coal Control and the administration of the Mines Department. My hon. Friend has recognised the difficulties in which we should have been placed owing to the fact that, as he has explained, the last three lines of the Resolution apply to matters which could not be covered by the £250,000, but which are met by the incomings to the Coal Controller to recoup the outgoings which the Treasury has advanced in order to meet the obligations which my hon. Friend has described. Accordingly, I accept his Amendment so far as it goes, but I do not think he has covered quite enough. He provides that the £50,000 shall cover the salaries, remuneration and expenses of the 1384 Ministry and the regulation of the coal industry, and so far I agree with him; but he goes on, "and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein." I venture to put it to the House that these last words also will have to be omitted, because they apply to particular obligations under which the Coal Control is to meet advances in wages which were granted to the miners of this country by certain increases last year and this year. These advances were granted by the Coal Controller on behalf of the Government. As the Coal Controller is responsible for paying these advances in wages, it is obvious that the £250,000 could never cover them, and they must now be paid out of the funds which come into the Coal Controller's hands. It would be a great mistake, and would create endless confusion in the coalfields, if it were sought to make the £250,000 cover these things also, and accordingly I hope my hon. Friend will agree to stop at the words "coal industry", making the proviso as to the £250,000 covering expenses include, not merely the salaries, remuneration, and expense of the Ministry as they become payable, but also the cost of regulating the coal industry, but excluding, on the other hand, what must be paid in wages by the Coal Control to those who are employed in the coal industry, and also the sums, for which the Treasury is responsible, for making up deficits temporarily upon coal mines which do not pay. Accordingly I hope my hon. Friend will accept what I suggest and will put it in his Amendment.
§ Captain ELLIOT
I wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, to whether it would be subsequently in order to move in Committee a Clause placing a levy of some small sum, say, ld. per 100 or 1,000 tons on coal got in this country, for the purpose of carrying out research in connection with the utilisation of this and other sources of fuel, or if it would be competent for me later to move a new Clause suggesting that a levy should be made on the coal for the purpose of carrying out research in connection with fuel, or whether it would require to come within the £250,000 at pesent moved. I should be glad if you would give a ruling.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I should be glad to do so, but it really does not rest with me. The Amendment which the hon. Gentleman will propose would be in Committee 1385 on the Bill, and it would be a matter for the Chairman to decide. I have already ruled that it would be open to hon. Members to move, in the course of the passage of the Bill, to insert proposals for raising a levy, because a levy is imposed only on a limited number of persons, and would not be a charge on the public, and therefore there would be no necessity for the King's consent to be signified. It might be moved by the hon. Member or accepted to meet the view of the hon. Member.
§ Captain ELLIOT
In that case there is no necessity to raise it at the present stage of the proceedings. It is far more important possibly than any other thing that is going to be discussed under the Bill that research should be carried out both in the utilisation of our present fuel supply and the discovery of new sources of energy when those are exhausted, and if it is possible to raise this in Committee I do not wish to raise it now, but I wish, if possible, to have a lead from the Chair as to whether we shall be in order subsequently in discussing this vitally important point, because I consider that research is far and away the most important thing that will arise under all the provisions of this Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
This Resolution only relates to charges which will become payable by the Exchequer. Other charges may be added to the levy which may become payable by persons other than the Exchequer.
§ Captain ELLIOT
The Clause says "the Minister of Mines shall undertake the initiation and direction of research," and therefore I thought it might be in order to raise this question of research on this sum of £250,000 which is to be granted for the purpose of the expenses of the Ministry of Mines, since this is the only sum which will be available to him to pay out salaries for those engaged in actually prosecuting the research which it is part of his duty to initiate and coordinate. That is the point I wish to be quite clear upon.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am afraid I cannot assist the hon. and gallant Gentleman any further. It is not a matter that rests with me. It will rest with the Chairman of the Committee.
§ Sir R. COOPER
The President of the Board of Trade spoke of the Coal Con- 1386 troller paying the miners' wages. Is that really a correct statement? I understand all the Coal Controller does is to make up the standard profits in the case of those companies which are making a profit below the pre-War standard, and only in that sense can they be said to be paying the wages.
§ Mr. RENWICK
Am I correct in interpreting what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade, that this £250,000 will be largely used in connection with the raising of the wages of the miners? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, it is for the payments in connection with the machinery for raising the wages. If so, we clearly see that there will be another rise of wages, and the £250,000 will have to be increased. The £250,000 will be a very small amount in a very short time, because we are told that this money is required for regulating the coal industry, and for purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein. Before we are asked to vote this money, we ought to be told for what purpose it is required, in addition to the £2,000 for the Minister. I represent a very large mining centre, and we are very much interested in the matter. We want to get rid of all control, if possible, but I admit we cannot do that at present. I hope this money will not be granted offhand, otherwise we may have another big bureaucracy like the Ministry of Transport before we know where we are.
§ Mr. HOLMES
Then I will speak now. The memorandum which the President of the Board of Trade circulated in regard to the expense likely to be incurred upon the Ministry of Mines reads as follows:Beyond the salary of £2,000 made payable by the Bill to the Minister of Mines, the establishment of the new ministry is not likely to involve any substantial increase in expenditure, inasmuch as the majority of the powers of the new Ministry will be derived from the transfer of existing powers from other Government departments, the concentration of which in a single department is one of the chief objects of the Bill.That is intended to convey to the House the idea that merely certain officials would be transferred to the Ministry of Mines, 1387 that their salaries would not be increased, and that the only additional expenditure which the Exchequer will have to meet in this Bill will be the £2,000 for the salary of the Minister. I would ask the House to realise what departments are to be transferred to the Ministry of Mines. In the first place there is the Coal Controller's Department. Then there are certain sub-departments of the Home Office, one of which deals with the inspection and safety of mines and another with mining examinations. There will be a sub-department of the Board of Education which deals with the geological survey. There will be a sub-department of the Woods and Forests Department, which deals with the lands of the Crown which have coal under them. One or two minor departments will have to be transferred, but they are not worth referring to. It will naturally be assumed on reading this White Paper that all these departments at the present time have been a charge on the Exchequer. Take first, the Coal Controller's department. I said last night that the Coal Control Department has never been a charge upon the Exchequer. The Coal Control Department has always been paid for by the coal industry. Section 7, Sub-section 3, of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920, says:There should also be debited to the said Fund such amounts as may be necessary to meet the administrative expenses of the Board of Trade constituted for the purpose of that control of the coal industry incurred during the period of the operation of this Act.That shows that the Coal Control Department up to the present has been paid for out of profits of the coal industry, and could not have been charged upon the Exchequer. Therefore, if that Department is going to be transferred, there is going to be a new charge on the Exchequer beyond the £2,000 salary of the Minister of Mines. The President of the Board of Trade told me last night that I was grossly inaccurate. The explanation he gave was that the surplus out of the pool of the profits of the coal industry would go to the Exchequer. The House will be aware that the first Act dealing with the Coal Control was the Coal Control Agreement Act of 1918. That confirmed an agreement made with certain coalowners by the Coal Control in 1917. The provisions were that 1388 the coalowners should not merely pay to the Exchequer the 80 per cent. Excess Profits Duty, but should pay beyond that 15 per cent. into a pool, so only holding 5 per cent. beyond their pre-War standards, and that that pool should be used for the purpose of paying other coalowners who did not make the pre-War standard such sum as would make up to them the pre-War standard, that pool was continued in a different way under the Coal Mines. Emergency Act. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade last night was that if there was any surplus under this Bill when the Coal Control came to an end, that surplus would go to the Exchequer, and he therefore argued that since the expense of the Coal Control Department came out of the pool, if it had not come out of the pool, the amount received by the Exchequer would have been so much more, and therefore in effect the argument was that the Exchequer was paying the expenses of the Coal Control Department. I ventured to say that the Exchequer had no right whatever to touch that pool, and nothing but an Act of Parliament could enable it to do so. He greeted that remark of mine by the monosyllable "nonsense"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two syllables"]£with the single word "nonsense." I am going to try to show that it is not nonsense. He has no right whatever, nor has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor anyone else, to touch a penny of any surplus that may remain in the pool when the Coal Control comes to an end. When the Coal Mines Agreement Bill came before the House for Second Reading in November, 1917—
§ Mr. HOLMES
The financial resolution which we are discussing is supported by the Memorandum as to expenses likely to be incurred which has been circulated by the Minister. Surely we are entitled to say that the Memorandum is misleading?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
We are discussing an Amendment which has been proposed, and the Debate must be confined to that Amendment. When we have disposed of that, I am prepared to take the hon. Member's Amendment, as I have already stated.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I am willing to accept the suggestion of the President 1389 of the Board and his assurance. I wish, therefore, to alter the wording of the Amendment, so that it would stop at the insertion, after the word "paid," of the words "in respect of the salaries, remuneration and expenses of the Ministry, and for regulating the coal industry."
§ Captain W. BENN
I understand we are at present amending, at the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade, a Resolution which was amended at the instance of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson). On that I want to point out that the President of the Board of Trade asks for a restriction to be put into the Amendment so that it shall not be understood to interfere with his power of spending money, outside the £250,000, "for other purposes." That is the point of the Amendment. I want to direct the attention of the House to the last paragraph in this Memorandum, which states thatWith respect to the extension of the continuance of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920, it is not anticipated that the extension will involve the necessity for any additional advances from the Treasury to the account established under that Act.What is the meaning of that. Either the Memorandum is to be relied on or it is not. If it can be relied on, the Amendment is otiose; if it cannot be relied on, it shows how much importance is to be attached to such documents.
§ Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein."—[Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.]
§ Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the said Resolution."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
We are discussing, I understand, the uses to which the £250,000 is to be put, and I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, because it seems to me that the £250,000, even for the limited expenditure that we have agreed to, has already practically been exceeded, and the fears of the hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Renwick) have been realised. I have here the estimates of the Coal Department of the Board of Trade, and there is there a total sum this year of £550,521. That is the net amount. The gross amount is £605,601, but there is a note stating that the estimated re- 1390 duction of staff will lead to a saving of £55,080. I take it that the principal justification of the hope of saving is the fact that the biggest item of all is to drop, and that is contributions towards the expenses of local authorities in administering the household fuel orders. I want to ask whether that amount, which comes to £400,000, is going to drop, or, if not, whether it is to come out of this £250,000. If that is so, then it seems that the £250,000 is going to be never-ending, like the widow's cruse.
§ Captain ELLIOT
It was oil came out of the cruse, and is it in order to discuss it on a question as to coal?
§ Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not think the new Minister of Mines will deal with oil and I was not discussing that. Is this £250,000 only a gesture to be put in as a pious hope never to be realised. We ought to be told now and clearly what the cost is going to be as near as it can be calculated.
§ Mr. R. McLAREN
Those of us who are acquainted with the subject of the mines know that the £250,000 is only to cover certain things. We understand that the Minister of Mines is to take over certain matters which are now looked after by the Home Secretary and it is perfectly evident that money must be required for that purpose. I am not sure that the sum of £250,000 is too much for the various schemes. The question of the inspection of the mines and of the examiner's mining board have to be taken into account, and above all there is the question of research. I trust that the House will not listen to the request which has been made to ask the coal trade to defray the expenses of research, which I submit should be a matter for the Government. There is a Committee which has been inquiring for many years into the question of safeguards and also as to the question of explosives. I think the suggestion that there has been no research work done by the coal owners is very unfair. I can remember that on the great question of coal dust explosions, they conducted experiments and erected an establishment to demonstrate the composition of coal dust and shale dust with the object of preventing coal dust explosions. If any work of that kind is going to be done it should be done by the Government and not by private indi- 1391 viduals. There is a penny on the ton in reference to the question of housing, which means a million pounds per year. Another penny per ton has been suggested for research. That means £1,000,000 per year.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
We are not discussing the levy to-night. We are discussing the sum that shall be payable by the Exchequer.
§ Mr. McLAREN
The Minister of Mines with £2,000 per year will not be overpaid for the work that he has to do. With regard to the £250,000, I am clearly of opinion that when you take over all the Departments that sum will not be too much. I only trust, seeing that we are going in for economy, that this Ministry will not, like some other Ministries, be increased very largely, and that the Government will keep within the margin and spend not more than £250,000.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I am disappointed that the speech which I made last night has made so little impression upon the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), because I then explained the very item regarding which he has questioned me to-night. It is perfectly true that the estimate of the Board of Trade, in connection with the Coal Department, included the sum of £500,000, of which £400,000 was for local committees. The result of the change which I announced some weeks ago with regard to the cessation of control over distribution has been that we shall be able to get rid, as far as next year's accounts are concerned, of that expense of £400,000. That is the reason we are able to do without the large sum of £550,000.
§ Sir R. HORNE
If we were asking for the expenses of these committees during this year, the present estimates would not cover them, because they are back-handed estimates. We only pay the expenses at the end of the year. Accordingly, we are always a year behind on the Estimates in regard to the expenses of the local committees. The fact is that, as far 1392 as next year's Estimates are concerned, we are saving a sum of £400,000. We also expect to make other economies which I hope will cut down the cost of what will remain of coal control to £75,000. My hon. and gallant Friend has also referred to a sum of £252,000 for the Coal Mines Inspecting Branch of the Home Office. That covers only the actual work of inspection, excluding travelling expenses, the Statistical Department of the Home Office, and the bonuses which are now being paid to the various officers of the inspecting staff. The personnel which we take over from the Home Office under the Mines Bill will cost, according to present figures, £98,000 in all. If the items of the Home Office account were scrutinised it would be found that these sums represent what the Home Office have to pay at the present time for the staff which we taka over. We have arrived at the two figures of £98,000 and £75,000, and there are, as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) said, other Departments of the Government which are to be taken over and which cost a certain amount of money. We have also got to anticipate duties in connection with the regulation of non-ferrous mines, which, according to the report recently presented to Parliament regarding that matter, require considerable help and supervision at the present time. The sum of £250,000, accordingly, is as near an estimate as I can make Of what the Department is going to cost. It is necessary to get some margin, because under the Bill new duties may be imposed on us by Order. I have done my best to arrive at a fair sum and to explain to hon. Members what the items consist of. There is no attempt to set up an inflated Department, and what I hope the future will reveal will be not an increase of establishment but a decrease. In the meantime, £250,000 is the sum which, as nearly as I can guess, will meet the needs of the Department, and from that point of view I support the Amendment which has been moved.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING
I think every Member ought to do his utmost to limit to the greatest extent the amount of money which any Department is allowed for any work it proposes to do. We have a repetition here now of what we had in earlier days during the War, when new departments were being set up every moment. A sub-lieutenant in the Admiralty succeeded in thinking of an 1393 idea and thought it essential to set up a department to deal with it, and he knew quite well that the more he added to his typists the more important became his staff, and therefore the greater should be his remuneration, until eventually he had to have a sub-lieutenant to help him, and so he was made a lieutenant by rapid promotion. That is what is happening in the Government to-day. In the case of the Ministry of Mines, instead of an Under-Secretary looking after the Coal Mines Section of the Board of Trade, we have a brand new Minister in a framed-up job. I think in this matter I should have the support for the first time in my political life of some of the Labour Members. Their agitation for nationalisation, which is almost as pernicious as the alternative which the Government have introduced, and which has brought them no nearer to their Utopian ideas, has meant a framed-up position which is going to provide more jobs and more expense and generally a perpetuation of that pernicious bureaucratic control which we put up with on the excuse of winning the War, but which we as a nation are utterly fed up with to-day. Every Member who is not bound hand and foot to keep the present Government in power ought to raise his voice in opposition to any such expense, and it is only on the point of expense that you can possibly catch the Government out to-day. An hon. Gentleman said, "It is only £75,000; what is that?" Of course £75,000 is not much. It only takes a minute to say it, and there are sixty minutes in the hour and there are twenty-four hours in the day. That is what we have been listening to ever since the Armistice. There has hardly been a minute, especially after eleven o'clock at night, when the Government has not said something like, "Of course, that is only £200,000 or £300,000." But it is adding up, and to-day we were listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was trying to squeeze the money out of us, and ten minutes later we are told how it is to be spent. The finest Budgeting would be to stop this sort of legislation altogether, crush bureaucracy, and let an economic system establish itself in this country.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the said Resolution.1394
§ Mr. HOLMES
I beg to move to leave out the words "two hundred and fifty" ["two hundred and fifty thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred and seventy-five."
As the right hon. Gentleman thinks that £75,000 will be the future cost of the Coal Control Department which is transferred to the new Ministry, at any rate, the new charge on the Exchequer will not be £2,000, but £77,000. I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to ride off on the suggestion that the surplus from the pool would be handed over to the Exchequer, and I ventured to say last night that the Exchequer had not the right to touch that money. I was interrupted by the President of the Board of Trade that it was nonsense. I am going to show it is not nonsense. The Coal Mines Control Agreement Bill came before this House on 8th November, 1917, and Mr. Runciman made the point that that Bill was a taxation measure and imposed taxation upon the coal industry. Mr. Speaker dealt with that point very fully, and I desire to read part of the statement Mr. Speaker then made:Then there is the question: Is there any charge upon the people? What does a charge upon the people mean? A charge upon the people, as I read it, means a charge which is made in the nature of a tax which is paid to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, which is paid by them to the Consolidated Fund, and is available for all purposes for which the State may require it, Army, Navy, Civil Service and what not. There is no such charge in this Bill or in the agreement. It is true that there is a levy, but in my opinion that is not a charge within the meaning of the Standing Order. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) suggested that this was an Amendment to the Finance Act, 1915–17, but there will be none of this money coming to the Consolidated Fund at all. There will be no moneys available for the State, and therefore there is no taxation. The 80 per cent. of profit—called Profits Duty—which is now raised by the State, will still be raised by the State, and will still be payable to the Inland Revenue. In addition to the 80 per cent. there will be 15 per cent., which will be levied amongst a section of the people, the coalowners of this country; but although that 15 per cent. will be paid to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, it will not be paid by them into the Consolidated Fund. It will remain under the charge of the Coal Controller. It stands very much in the nature of the compensation levy which was raised in the case of the licensed houses, and which was money levied upon the owners of the licensed houses for certain purposes which were indicated in the Bill. Indeed, it 1395 may be said that it is very much in the same position as the Munitions Levy which was raised in 1915 upon the extra profits derived by the manufacturers of munitions. There was no charge upon the people there in the sense that it was a tax imposed. It was a levy, I think it was even called a levy in the Bill, imposed upon certain people, and it was used for certain purposes. It is true that in that case it was eventually passed on to the Exchequer, and possibly that is not so strong a case as this one where the money does not pass on to the Exchequer. No provision is made in this Bill for it ever passing on to the Exchequer. What eventually may happen to it I cannot say, but at all events in this Bill there is no such a proposal. I think that disposes of the first point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, that there is "a charge upon the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November., 1917; cols. 2401–2402, Vol. 98.]A considerable number of questions were put on the point to Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bilston (Brigadier-General Hickman) put one with regard to the levy in which, after pointing out the provisions of the levy, he said that after 40 per cent. of the surplus was allocated according to the schedule, the remainder went into the Exchequer. Then the following dialogue ensued:—
"Mr. SPEAKER: No, it does not.
General HICKMAN: I submit it does.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is where the hon. and gallant Member makes a mistake. There is no provision for the remainder going to the Exchequer. I thought I had made that quite clear.
General HICKMAN: I can only appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: It may be the intention of the Government or the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but there is no provision in this Bill for anything of the sort."
Mr. Speaker clearly ruled that this was not a taxing Bill, because the surplus, if any, would not get to the Exchequer. Later in the Debate the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman (now Lord Ashfield) made this statement:If, on the other hand, which is not unlikely, there is a surplus remaining, it will be for Parliament at the time the control comes to an end to determine what disposition is to be made of the surplus.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917; col. 2416; Vol. 98.]The right hon. Gentleman was then questioned as to whether the Department would account to the Treasury. He replied:I will answer that question when the time arises for dealing with it. The money 1396 will be in the hands of the Inland Revenue Authority, and it is to be administered by the Coal Controller. I have said that if there is any remaining at the time the control comes to an end it will be for Parliament to settle what disposition is to be made Of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917; col. 2416; Vol. 98]That disposes of the fact, at any rate, that under the coal control any surplus remaining in the pool shall go to the Exchequer. The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act simply carries on the same provisions. It state that the profits of the coalowners are to be paid into a pool, that they are to receive interest on their capital and one-tenth of the increased profits. There is also to be paid out of the pool the expenses, of the Coal Control Department, but nothing is said with regard to the final disposition of the pool. When I made this statement last night the right hon. Gentleman greeted it with the word "nonsense," but that is how the matter stands. There will probably be a surplus, and it is for the House to say how it should be disposed of. I think every hon. Member of the House will expect that the coal owners and the miners will have something to say before the whole of the pool is paid to the Exchequer.
The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to give him a Vote of £250,000 for the Ministry of Mines. I want the House to bear that in mind in connection with this White Paper which has been circulated. We are told that the only additional expense is to be £2,000 for the salary of the Minister of Mines. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for £250,000, so that we may assume that expenses to the extent of £248,000 are to be transferred from other Government Departments to the Ministry of Mines. I have been through the Estimates, and I have picked out the Departments likely to be transferred. There is the Home Office Department for the Inspection of Mines, and the present estimate is £80,734. Then there is the Department of the Home Office that deals with the Board for Mining Examination, for which £3,210 is put down. The Geological Survey of the Board of Education is responsible for £30,043. There is also the Commissioner of Woods and Forests who will transfer his sub—department which deals with land, and the total in this case is £33,000. There is the Coal Control Department, which the right hon. Gentleman estimates at £75,000, and if 1397 you add to that £2,000 for the salary of the Minister of Mines the total is £190,087. Let us throw in £10,000 for contingencies and the whole total is £200,000. What is the £50,000 for? The right hon. Gentleman said that these proposals will only cost £2,000 more than the Exchequer is paying, but it is going to cost an extra £75,000 for the Coal Control Department, and in addition there is £50,000 unaccounted for. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the head office of the Ministry of Mines is going to employ experts who have never been in Government Departments before who will cost £50,000? That may be a perfectly right thing to do, and I do not quarrel with it. What I disagree with is the issuing of a misleading White Paper which says that this Ministry is only going to cost an extra £2,000, when the Coal Controller's Department has to be paid for by the State and a large number of new officials are going to be put on to the funds of the Exchequer. Never has a more misleading or untrue statement of expenses been presented to this House than this one which suggests that the new Ministry is only going to cost the country an additional £2,000 a year.
§ Mr. RENWICK
I beg to second the Amendment.
It is clear from this Resolution that we are dealing with the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Mines. The Resolution reads:That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to the Minister of Mines, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses of the Ministry as may become payable under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of Mines.It is clearly contemplated in the Resolution that we are going to have an increase of officials. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not intended to set up an inflated Department. It never is, but it comes about just the same. If the Coal Controller is worth his salt he is worth more than £2,000 a year, and I do not think that we shall get an efficient official at that salary. We shall probably have a proposal made later to increase his salary to £5,000 a year, and then he will want an Under-Secretary, and we shall find another great bureaucracy set up. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say frankly what is the number 1398 of officials contemplated. Why is this £75,000 wanted? Let us know what officials are going to be appointed under this Resolution. I do not wish to hamper the Minister, and I would rather help him, but I object, and I think the coal industry objects, to having another great bureaucracy set up. We were in hopes that we were going to get rid of control, but now it is going to be increased. We cannot forget that the people are asking, what has the Control done? It has given us dearer coal than we ever had before; the coal export trade has been destroyed; we have in all the ports of the country ships lying idle because they cannot get coal to enable them to go to sea. We have not to thank the Coal Control for anything. Unless we are going to get a better Ministry than we have had in the past, I strongly object to voting the amount asked for.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I appreciate the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) has made to-night, in succession to the one which he addressed to the Committee last night upon the same point. He has used somewhat vehement language with reference to the White Paper issued to the House by way of explanation of the requirements of this Vote, and he has referred in particular to the statement that all that would be required, in addition to present expenditure, is a sum of £2,000 for the salary of the Minister of Mines. I hope he will not think me unfair if I remind him that, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated that £2,000 would be required for the salary of the Minister of Mines, and that there would necessarily be the small staff which every Minister requires by way of secretariat and so on; so that I hope my hon. Friend will not regard me as in any way exceeding the limits of the White Paper in saying that he must not stick too rigidly to the sum of £2,000. I explained, however, that it would be a very few thousand pounds altogether. I do not take it that that is his real point, but rather the larger one that in some way there has been concealed from the notice of a Committee of the House, and of the House to-night, the fact that there is a real additional expenditure, in his view, of some £75,000.
§ Mr. HOLMES
If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment, it 1399 is not a question of concealed expenditure; it is his own figure for the future cost of the Coal Controller's Department, which he said would be £75,000 a year. My point is that that has been paid previously by the coal industry, and is now going to be paid by the Exchequer.
§ Sir R. HORNE
At any rate, I understood that my hon. Friend's point was that the White Paper concealed the fact that this £75,000 had previously been paid by the coal trade, while now it is to be paid by the Exchequer, and I do not think we really differ as to the point which he made. I regret very much that my hon. Friend should think that at any stage of his speech last night, to which I listened with great attention, I shouted across the House, or said sotto voce, the word "Nonsense." I am certainly not aware of having used any such expression, and if my hon. Friend thought I did I should very much regret it, and should like him to accept from me the assurance that I had no discourteous feeling whatever towards him, nor did I regard the argument he was adducing as meriting any such interpretation. I distinctly remember saying, at one stage of his argument, that I thought the statement he was making was inaccurate, and I repeated that in my reply. I did, indeed, think that he gave an inaccurate account of what had happened previously in connection with the expense of the Coal Control, and I interjected that remark at the time; but so far from thinking that his argument was one that I could treat with any sort of contempt, on the contrary, I repeatedly did my best, perhaps under considerable difficulty, to answer him.
I should like to say at once that I was completely in error in the view which I ventured to present to the Committee that, when a Government Department made sums of money with regard to the distribution of which nothing was said in any statutory enactment, that money thereby fell into the pocket of the Exchequer. I assumed that that was so. I had not the privilege of being a Member of the House at the time when Mr. Speaker gave the ruling to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I confess quite frankly to the House that I was in complete ignorance that that was in point of fact the method of procedure which 1400 the House adopted and which was followed by the Exchequer. To that extent I make a complete apology to my hon. Friend and to the House for the inaccurate view which I endeavoured to present. After all, that is a technical point of view and really does not affect the question. My hon. Friend went through the items of expenditure which he had culled from various Estimates and arrived at a figure of something a little over £200,000 and asked what the extra £50,000 was for. In the course of his survey of these various items he omitted entirely to notice the Statistical Department of the Home Office, which will also come over to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Mines, and he omitted further to observe that the Ministry of Mines has to take over certain duties with regard to nonferrous mines. They certainly deserve every consideration from the State at present and I hope the new Ministry will be able to do something on their behalf.
§ Sir R. HORNE
My impression is that it is something over £10,000. I am speaking from memory. Instead of the £80,000 which the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) gave as the amount of the expenditure on the personnel to be taken over from the Home Office, the figure which I have is £98,000. In addition to that—and this is an item which, of course, he could not have found—there are a certain number of officers at present in the Coal Control Department whose salaries are borne on the Votes of other Departments. They are lent by other Departments. These salaries amount to £10,000. There is also a Department in the Board of Trade dealing with mineral resources and with statistics which costs roughly £10,000, so that I think my hon. Friend will recognise that I am well up to the figure which I have estimated will be required in order to meet the necessary expenses of this Department.
§ Mr. HOLMES
The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the whole of the Statistical Department of the Home Office is going to be transferred to him, because it deals with all statistics in the country.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I readily agree, but there is a large Statistical Department dealing with mines alone, and that is a very important body. It was referred to by the hon. Member below the gangway as one of the elements of expense which would require to be contemplated in connection with the Ministry of Mines. Accordingly, I do not think the House will think that we are in any way over-estimating the amount in putting it at £250,000. I should like to assure the hon. Member (Mr. Renwick) that these are sums which are already being paid to people who are at work in other Departments. We hold indeed that, by bringing all the various Departments together which are working in connection with the coal industry, we shall be able to get rid of a certain amount of overlapping, and it may be, in the end, save a good deal of expense which would have been incurred.
§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Member shakes his head as if that was an entirely despairing point of view; but, being younger in the political game than he is, I do not share his pessimism in these matters, and I hope something may yet be achieved on the lines of economy. I come to the point of my hon. Friend. I totally agree that automatically any surplus that there is as a result of the working of the coal trade will not fall into the Exchequer, but I have already declared, when the adjournment was moved to consider the question of the rise in price of coal, that the intention of the Government was that the Exchequer should receive any profits which might arise from the coal industry. At present the Exchequer is foregoing, by reason of the control, a very large sum which would be in course of realisation as the result of the Excess Profits Duty. Instead of the small profits which it may be anticipated will be realised from the operations of the coal trade, the Exchequer, if this trade had been uncontrolled, would have been taking certainly something well over £100,000,000 in the shape of Excess Profits Duty from the trade, and it is only proper that any profits which in the course of our operations may be realised in the coal trade should fall into the Exchequer. That is the assurance I gave, and accordingly, if there are profits, these will have to be dealt with in one way or another by the House. I agree 1402 that the House is master of the situation. There is no sound foundation in reason for any assertion that either the coal owners or the coal miners should be entitled to these profits, and the view of the Government certainly is that they should naturally fall to the Exchequer. If they fall to the Exchequer, the Exchequer is just as much being relieved of the expense of operating the Coal Controller's Department as if the expense of the Coal Controller's Department was first taken out of the profits before they are handed over. Accordingly, I think the same point which I put last night is a perfectly sound one, though I admit that I was quite in error with regard to the technical situation which the hon. Member developed in the course of his speech.
I would say one further word, because the history of the matter was not put perfectly accurately by the hon. Member last night. During the operation of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act the Exchequer bore the whole cost of the Coal Control Department. From its initiation down to 1st April, 1919, the whole of the cost fell upon the Exchequer. It was only when the Coal Mines Emergency Act was passed that provision was made that sums which were expended by the Coal Control Department might be debited against the fund which came into his hands. That was done for the first time, and just to correct what the hon. Member said last night, not a single penny has ever yet been paid out of the coal trade for the purpose of maintaining the Coal Controller's Department. Every penny up to now has come from the Exchequer. (Interruption.) You may call it what you like. The hon. Member said last night it had been taken out of the coal trade in order to relieve the Exchequer. In point of fact, the Exchequer had had to bear the cost, and only if there are profits will the Exchequer ever be repaid. It is contingent upon there being profits.
§ Sir R. HORNE
There may be. At present no one is in a position to say what the profits will be. But supposing you had a big coal strike which took away all your profits, the result would be that the Exchequer would have to bear the cost of the Department. That brings me to this point. These costs 1403 of the Coal Control Department must be borne upon the Vote of some Government Department. They are borne on the Vote of the Board of Trade. That must necessarily be so, and the cost must be borne by the Exchequer until such time as the Exchequer is recouped. If this White Paper is read fairly, there is a distinct reference to the Coal Controller's Department as one of the Departments to be taken over by the Ministry. In the knowledge which the hon. Member possesses and has given to the House it is obvious that, if the Coal Controller's Department is taken over, the Vote which stood in his name on the Board of Trade estimates must necessarily come over also. The White Paper states that the estimates of expense for the Coal Controller's Department will be increased only by this small sum, and that is true.
§ Sir R. HORNE
It is only temporarily if, in point of fact, profits are realised by which it can be recouped, but the emergency Act dates back to 1st April, 1919, and not a single penny has yet been paid out and every penny has had to be paid by the Exchequer up to now, showing that you must have this Vote borne on the Estimates. What the White Paper represents is nothing more or less than this, that the estimates will be increased by only this small sum. There was no intention to mislead anybody. I think that my hon. Friend's somewhat violent description of it was scarcely deserved. Accordingly I ask the House to pass the Resolution with the Amendment which was made at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson).
§ Major-General Sir N. MOORE
If the right hon. Gentleman had made on the last occasion the speech which he has made to-night it would have saved discussion, because what was in the minds of many Members of the Committee was that a considerable amount of new expenditure would be entailed. We have to thank the hon. Member for North-East Derby (Mr. Holmes) for dissecting the expenditure and showing that this was purely a transferred expenditure from the other departments.
Personally I am entirely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—unimpressed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever the transfer of money is, we come down to the sum of £2,000, which we are to vote for the creation of this new Ministry. That seems entirely unnecessary. We have had enough of these Controllers and new Ministers. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will join with some of us in going to a Division against this new expenditure. Since I have been in this House, I have heard more claims for new expenditure than I ever heard in the course of 35 years' experience of this House. I sat upstairs for many years and heard proposals for expenditure put forward, but at a time when we are crippled with taxation, when people outside this House are burdened almost beyond their capacity to bear, we have the Government asking for this expenditure to set up a new Ministry. People outside are weary of these new demands for taxation. They are so oppressed with taxation that I wonder whether the time will not come when they will rise in their wrath. I say that, not in mere rhetoric, but in all sincerity. Taxation to-day is so immense that it is the duty of the Government—which I endeavour at all points to support—wherever they can to mitigate it. This new Ministry, in my opinion, is entirely unnecessary. It is an outcome of the passion of the Government for a new bureaucracy. It is part of the desire of those who are in power to-day to fix upon the people burdens which they cannot possibly bear. I beg my hon. Friends who have listened to the speech of the Member for North East Derby (Mr. Holmes), who has shown that my right hon. Friend has not put the matter candidly before the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I beg the House in all sincerity to pause before they commit the country to this new expenditure. My right hon. Friend opposite has been as fair as he can, and I am sure everyone will recognise the courtesy with which he has answered my hon. Friend. Last night, he frankly admits, he was mistaken in certain particulars. To-night he has come here and with all courtesy has put his case before the House, but he has not convinced the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] Although to-day the Government has a large majority the 1405 time may come when under the pressure of public opinion that majority will filter away until nothing is left, and I say, and I demand from this House—
I do not know why my Labour friends, who are supposed to be here in opposition, should be cynical in regard to the remarks I make. We independent men, who have taken no coupon and no ticket, are here to defend the taxpayer. This new proposal is a proposal which is putting on a burden of £2,000, and it will work out
§ at more than that. We are putting a burden of £2,000 on the back of the taxpayer. I see the Leader of the House here now, and even he is smiling at my sincerity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
§ Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)
rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 30.1407
|Division No. 189.]||AYES.||[12.28 a.m.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Neal, Arthur|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Fildes, Henry||Newman, Colonel J. R. P.(Finchley)|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Foreman, Henry||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Parker, James|
|Atkey, A. R.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Pickering, Lieut.- Colonel Emil W.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Gange, E. Stanley||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Pratt, John William|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Pulley, Charles Thornton|
|Barker, Major Robert H.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Goff, Sir R. Park||Raper, A. Baldwin|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Gould, James C.||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Green, Albert (Derby)||Remer, J. R.|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Renwick, George|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Blane, T. A.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.||Hailwood, Augustine||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rogers, Sir Hallewell|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A Griffith-||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Royden, Sir Thomas|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Higham, Charles Frederick||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hinds, John||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.|
|Casey, T. W.||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Clough, Robert||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lort-Williams, J.||Waddington, R.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Cope, Major Wm.||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)||Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.|
|Courthope, Major George L.||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Matthews, David||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
|Dawes, Commander||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wood, Sir J.(Stalybridge and Hyde)|
|Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||Mount, William Arthur||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Murchison, C. K.||Younger, Sir George|
|Edgar, Clifford B.||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Murray, Major William (Dumfries)||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley|
|Falcon, Captain Michael||Nall, Major Joseph||Ward.|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Entwistle, Major C. F.||Holmes, J. Stanley|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lawson, John J.|
|Billing, Noel Pemberton-||Hayday, Arthur||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Bromfield, William||Hayward, Major Evan||Lunn, William|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hirst, G. H.||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Robertson, John||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Royce, William Stapleton||Swan, J. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Sexton, James||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)||Mr. Charles Palmer and Sir Richard Cooper.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'two hundred and fifty' stand part of the said Resolution, as amended."
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, as amended."1408
§ The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 39.1407
|Division No. 190.]||AYES.||[12.35 a.m.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Fildes, Henry||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Foreman, Henry||Parker, James|
|Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.|
|Atkey, A. R.||Gange, E. Stanley||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Pratt, John William|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Pulley, Charles Thornton|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Goff, Sir R. Park||Raper, A. Baldwin|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Green, Albert (Derby)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Blane, T. A.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.||Hallwood, Augustine||Rogers, Sir Hallewell|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Royden, Sir Thomas|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Casey, T. W.||Kidd, James||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Clough, Robert||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Lort-Williams, J.||Waddington, R.|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Cope, Major Wm.||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)||Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.|
|Courthope, Major George L.||Matthews, David||Whitla, Sir William|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
|Dawes, Commander||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Mount, William Arthur||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||Murchison, C. K.||Younger, Sir George|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Edgar, Clifford B||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Murray, Major William (Dumfries)||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Nail, Major Joseph||Ward.|
|Falcon, Captain Michael||Neal, Arthur|
|Barker, Major Robert H.||Hayday, Arthur||Robertson, John|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hayward, Major Evan||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Higham, Charles Frederick||Sexton, James|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hinds, John||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Billing, Noel Pemberton-||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Swan, J. E.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Lawson, John J.||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lunn, William||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Gould, James C.||Remer, J. R.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)||Mr. Holmes and Mr. Renwick.|
§ The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 35.1409
|Division No. 191.]||AYES.||[12.44 a.m.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Fildes, Henry||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Foreman, Henry||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Parker, James|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Gange, E. Stanley||Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.|
|Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Atkey, A. R.||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Pratt, John William|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John||Pulley, Charles Thornton|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Goff, Sir R. Park||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Green, Albert (Derby)||Raper, A. Baldwin|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Hallwood, Augustine||Robinson, Sir T.(Lancs., Stretford)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rogers, Sir Hallewell|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Royden, Sir Thomas|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.|
|Casey, T. W.||Kidd, James||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Clough, Robert||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Lort-Williams, J.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Waddington, R.|
|Cope, Major Wm.||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Courthope, Major George L.||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Wheler, Lieut. Colonel C. H.|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Whitla, Sir William|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Dawes, Commander||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Mount, William Arthur||Wilson, Lt.- Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||Murchison, C. K.||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)||Younger, Sir George|
|Edgar, Clifford B.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Murray, Major William (Dumfries)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Nall, Major Joseph||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Falcon, Captain Michael||Neal, Arthur|
|Farquharson, Major A. C.||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)|
|Barker, Major Robert H.||Higham, Charles Frederick||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hinds, John||Sexton, James|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Billing, Noel Pemberton-||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Lawson, John J.||Sugden, W. H.|
|Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Swan, J. E.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Lunn, William||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Davidson, J. E. (Smethwick)||Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Gould, James C.||Remer, J. R.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)||Mr. Holmes and Major Barnes.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Robertson, John||Mr. Holmes and Major Barnes.|
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ Adjourned at Ten Minutes before One o'clock a.m.