§ 1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for the purchase and importation of Coal in connection with the Stoppage in the Coal Industry."
§ 2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £433,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for certain Expenses incurred in setting up and, maintaining Organisations for supplying the Necessities of Life and in connection with the maintenance of order during an Emergency and for Grants in respect of Emergency Police Expenditure."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move to leave out "£3,000,000," and to insert instead thereof " £2,999,900."
I move this reduction in order to draw attention to the extraordinary answer that I received to-day from the Secretary for Mines. It raises a very big question. When the Home Secretary was explaining the necessity for this Bill for setting up a revolving credit for the purchase of coal, he said that it was necessary to safeguard the coal supplies for poor people and the smaller municipalities. He said that the great municipalities and the great firms could find their own coal, but that the small municipalities, urban district councils and so on could buy this Government coal. I naturally supposed that they would not only be allowed to buy the coal, but to sell it to their own ratepayers. To make quite certain, I put the following question to the Minister of Health to-day:
Whether the small municipalities who buy Government coal during the present emergency will be permitted to distribute it?I received a reply, not from the Minister of Health, but from the Secretary for Mines, as follows:Yes, Sir, where this cannot be done satisfactorily through the ordinary trade channels.162 That presumes that in any part of the country, however rural or remote, there will be some local coal factor or coal merchant who is always prepared to distribute the coal satisfactorily through the usual channels. Of course, there will be. There is always some local coal merchant prepared to distribute the coal, and he will probably be the nominee of a colliery company. It is common knowledge that in the case of thousands of these coal distributing firms, the shares are held by colliery companies. The colliery companies have nominally independent coal merchanting companies to whom they sell their coal, and the companies pass on the coal at a profit to the consumer.The object of my question was to make quite certain that the municipalities who buy this Government coal will be able to sell it to the people in their district. The Government are going into the coal importing business: this new flourishing industry of importing coal into the greatest coal-exporting country in the world. The Government are acting on the principle of "carrying coals to Newcastle." They will sell the coal to the municipalities, plus, I suppose, a small overhead charge to cover costs. May I ask the Secretary for Mines what the extra charge will be? I do not want him to give away any trade secrets, but perhaps he can tell us what will be the percentage of overhead charges that the Mines Department will charge in passing the coal on to the purchaser? I naturally supposed that the smaller municipalities would be allowed to distribute the coal. If they bought coal from the Government for their gasworks and turned it into gas, they could sell the gas to the consumer, but they are not to be allowed to sell the coal. That has to be done, apparently, through the ordinary trade channels.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox)indicated dissent.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. He said in his answer to me that where satisfactory arrangements exist— we all know that there is always a coal distributing firm in a district—the small municipalities will not be allowed to sell the coal. If I am wrong, I accept correction, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to deny what he said at Question Time. The Government are doing a 163 wicked thing. The price of coal is rising weekly. Figures have been given from great cities showing what the poor have to pay for coal. These people are in no way concerned with the dispute; they are what the Home Secretary called the non-combatants. When people go to night clubs their rights are to be observed, but when they are poor people buying coal they will have to buy from what the Secretary for Mines calls "the ordinary channels," that is, they will have to rely upon the ordinary law of supply and demand. They are going to be sweated and profiteered against by the coal merchant. That is morally wrong and wicked in the present circumstances; it is even worse in view of the findings of a Royal Commission which cost the country about £22,000,000 for the production of its Report. We bought off the coal stoppage or lock-out at a cost of £22,000,000, in order that the Report might be forthcoming. The Report was prepared by one of the ablest politicians, even in my party, as chairman—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The hon. and gallant Member cannot be too historical.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt was a, recommendation of that Report that the municipalities should be able to sell coal, even in ordinary circumstances, when the ordinary law of supply and demand was in operation. The law of supply and demand has become oppressive, because of the shortage of coal consequent upon the long-continued dispute, and yet when the need is greater than in normal times, municipalities are not to be allowed to distribute the coal which they buy from the Government.
§ Colonel LANE FOX indicated dissent. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe right hon. Gentleman again shakes his head. I put this question to him: Are they to be allowed to distribute the coal?
§ Colonel LANE FOXWhere there are satisfactory arrangements by which they can distribute through the ordinary channels the local authorities will make use of them, but where there are no satisfactory ordinary channels, they will have to distribute themselves.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am glad to have had that information. 164 Will the ordinary coal factors be considered a satisfactory means for the distribution of this coal, for which the British taxpayer is paying? Will that be considered satisfactory machinery? The fact of the matter is that there is no intention on the part of the Government to allow any municipality to deal in coal as long as they can prevent it. They will fight for that until they are swept out at the next General Election. I think it is wrong, and I am moving this reduction to mark my appreciation of the utter collapse of the present Government's coal policy. They came into power in order to help British trade and British goods, to recover our lost markets, and here we are, a country possessing the richest and greatest coal fields in the world, a country which has been in the forefront of the coal exporting nations, holding that trade against all attempts of our rivals to take it from us, with the situation absolutely reversed as the result of 20 months of Tory rule. We are bringing coal into the greatest coal producing country in the world and it is owing to an utter lack of statesmanship and courage. I cannot let this Vote go without making some protest and if I am fortunate enough to find a Seconder, I shall most certainly divide the Committee.
§ Mr. BATEYI beg to Second the Amendment.
I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is no question of getting a Seconder for the Amendment or someone to support him in dividing the Committee upon it. As miners' representatives we regard this Vote as one of the worst that can come before the Committee, and we should not be doing our duty to the miners who .are locked out and in a state of semi-starvation if we allowed it to go without the strongest and bitterest protest we can make. This Vote is but another move on the part of the Government to defeat the miners. They have tried other methods before and they have failed. The Prime Minister, soon after the lockout started, tried proposals which would mean a wage reduction for the miners—and they refused them. Then the Government carried through this House their Eight Hours Bill with the clear and definite intention of defeating the miners in this struggle. There was no other object in pushing that Bill through 165 this House. The Government thought that by it they would defeat the miners. The Eight Hours Bill is on the Statute Book, and the miners are not defeated yet. They have not jumped at the increase of hours as the Government believed would be the case. Then the Government have tried to defeat the miners by making it impossible for them to be paid Poor Law relief, but that has not defeated them; and I am certain that this method will fail as well.
I wish the Secretary for Mines would realise that, so far as the miners are concerned, this is not a fair fight. The Government, as well as the coalowners are relying on starving the miners into submission. We can leave the coalowners alone for the moment because we believe that bad as are the coalowners the Government are worse. There is no question about that. The Government is encouraging?; the coalowners, but the Government are using all their resources in order to defeat the miners. It is not a fair fight. The Government and the coalowners are relying on starving the miners into submission, but if the miners could get sufficient funds to keep them going—the coalowners and the Government would never defeat them. It is only the weapon of starvation that will defeat them, and the Government are relying upon that weapon. Before this Vote is passed, the Secretary for Mines should tell the Committee why this coal is brought into the country. He has not done so yet. He has shown no need for this importation. Last week the Home Secretary told us that it was not the intention of the Government to import coal for gas works, electricity undertakings, railways or big municipalities. I was surprised at the answer which the Secretary for Mines gave to the hon. and gallant Member this afternoon, because it seemed to indicate a change on the part of the Government from the statement of the Home Secretary last week. We understood last week that there was no intention on the part of the Government to buy coal far municipalities, but the Secretary for Mines has rather qualified that statement to-day, and seems to imply that some of this imported coal will be supplied to municipalities for their disposal. What is the need for this coal? What has asked for it? Who 166 wants it? Above all, is there not sufficient coal imported by private enterprise for the needs of all those who want coal without the Government going into the business and using all the resources of the State in order to defeat the miners?
I want the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether in buying this coal we are simply buying it for working needs, or whether we are entering into contracts for its supply, and, if so, when these contracts are to terminate. The lock-out in 1921 terminated on the 4th July, but owing to the fact that the Government had signed contracts for coal we had coal coming into this country for months after the lock-out had ended. In the month of October no less than 600,000 tons of coal were imported into this country, and at a time when the coal mines were working. The importation of that coal meant, when the collieries should have been re-started, that our collieries had to remain idle, although our own coal was immensely cheaper than the imported coal; our miners were not able to work because this imported coal was being brought into the country. I do not think that the Secretary for Mines should attempt to shelter himself behind a veil of secrecy, pretending that it is not wise to say this or that, to give the price, or to say where the coal is bought, or where it is coming to, or its quantity. The Government ought to be prepared to tell the House just what they are paying for the coal, whether it is being bought by contract, and when the contract will end.
Will the imports cease as soon as the lock-out ceases? If not, that fact will make us far more bitter in our opposition, and we are bitter enough now so far as this lot is concerned. We believe that our people are in a state of semi-starvation because of the action of the Government. We believe that we are entitled to urge the Government to use the powers which they have under the Emergency Powers Act, and to take possession of the coal pits and produce coal without importing from abroad. We have long passed the day when a coalowner could claim to do just what he pleased with his own. We believe that there is no one in this country who is entitled to do just what he pleases with his own. When a coalowner says, "I am going to do what I like with my pit; I will work it if I please or close it if I please, and keep it 167 closed as long as I please," any fair or any unprejudiced Government would say to the coalowner, "You are not going to close your pit when you please, and you are not going to keep it closed as long as you please. You have to work it in the public interest, and if you do not work it we will take the pit from you, and we will work it in the interests of the country and of the men."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt appears to me that what the hon. Member is suggesting would require legislation.
§ Mr. BATEYI submit that you have forgotten that we have passed the Emergency Powers Act. Regulation No. 14 gives the Board of Trade the power.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt might give them the power for a month, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the Government should take the mines over altogether.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI submit that my hon. Friend's argument is quite in order, for in one month we could produce far more coal than the £3,000,000 will purchase.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the hon. Member merely suggests that the Government should take over the mines for the period of the emergency it would be in order.
§ Mr. BATEYThat is what is in my mind. We fought the Emergency Regulations as long as we could. We said that the only good Regulation was Regulation No. 14, which gave to the President of the Board of Trade the power to take over the pits. We believe that that is what the Government should do. If the Government took over the pits for a month the owners would not try to impose on the men such abominable conditions as they are attempting to impose now. We had experience in 1921 of the importation of coal. In that year the coal that was bought cost no less than £3 12s. 9d. a ton. If the Government took possession of the mines they would get the coal produced in this country at a far lower price than that. Certainly, if the miners to-day asked- to be paid at such a rate that it would involve the selling of coal at £3 12s. 9d. a ton, there would be a rare 168 outcry against the selfishness of the miners. The Government paid this huge price in 1921, and I assume that they are foolish enough to pay as high a price again if only they can defeat the miners in the present struggle. I assume, unless the Secretary for Mines contradicts me and produces evidence, that they are paying to-day as much as £3 12s. 9d. a ton. If they are, it is a scandal.
I believe that the struggle will go on for a long time yet. We cannot see the end of it, unless the Government change their ways and become much more reasonable than they are. I would not be surprised to see the Government again come to the House and ask for a far bigger Vote than £3,000,000 for the purpose of buying coal. In 1922, after the 1921 lockout, the Government had to get a Vote for over £7,000,000. If they did that after the 13 weeks' lock-out in 1921, what is the £3,000,000 going to do after a lock-out which certainly will not finish in 13 weeks and may last even to Christmas? If the Government can only defeat the miners, they are prepared to lose £3,000,000. The explanation attached to this Vote says that it is
to cover any loss which may be incurred on the liquidation of stocks not resold.The Government will shelter themselves behind that wall, if they should lose the whole sum of £3,000,000. In 1921 they lost £238,000, and the Government ought not to forget the lesson of 1921. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was in power in 1921 lost that £238,000 in order to defeat the miners. But he paid for it. He was swept from power and he will never get back to power again, and when the next Election comes the present Prime Minister will be swept from power. We would not complain if the Prime Minister had the courage to test the country on this dispute at the present time, because, if he did so, labour would very soon be an occupation of the benches opposite, and for the handful of Conservatives who would be returned, one or two of the benches on this side would be sufficient. The Government are in power with the aid of working-class votes. If it were not for the votes of working men and working women, I do not believe they would be in power, but they cannot expect to retain those votes by starving a million and a 169 quarter miners and miners' wives and bairns. That will influence other members of the working classes.Men may think they can do as they please, but there is always a judgment day, and there will be a judgment day for this Government when they will be judged and cast into the outer darkness. One knows it is no use appealing to the Government. We are beyond that stage. We make no appeal to the Government. But the miners at the moment have their backs to the wall. They can fight and they will fight, so long as they believe that the object of the Government and the coalowners is to push them further down into the gutter of poverty. The Government may succeed by these various methods, after weeks or months, in starving the miners into submission, but that will not be the end of the matter. If the men are driven back to work on the terms, which the Government with the resources of the State are trying to enforce, they will agitate and do everything they can and use the very first opportunity to get their own back. Of all the methods which the Government have used to defeat the miners, the importation of blackleg coal is one of the worst. They may succeed at the moment, but their success will have an end, and there will be a day of retribution.
§ Mr. WALLHEADThis Vote is part of what I would describe as a scandalous misuse of the Government's power for the purpose of defeating the mining population in the struggle in which they are now engaged. It is an illustration of the way in which the powers of finance and influence have been used in this House for generations. The Government may say what they like about this Vote, but they are using their powers for the purpose of helping to defeat the workers and to assist the mineowners. The Government represent to a large extent the coalowners of the country. The Conservative party has within its ranks the great royalty owners and the great coalowners, and they are using political and Parliamentary methods in order to bring victory to their own side in this industrial dispute. We had a Debate earlier to-day on the question of persons owning certain interests and at the same time holding positions in the Government, and I agree 170 with the Prime Minister when he says it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a House of Commons in which there were not represented interests that could be directly influenced by political actions. What we have always said to the working people outside is that this House of Commons has always used its political power, based upon economic power, for the maintenance of the capitalist interest against the interest of the great mass of the people outside. I say that is what is being done now by the use of the Government's power in forcing this Vote through the House.
9.0 P.M.
I have no doubt when this Vote has gone through, and when the Government have lost a considerable sum, we shall find them again making use of the old dodge, and telling the people that this experiment in State Socialism has been of a fatal character. The Government assume they are going to lose money. This Vote is intended to cover any loss which may accrue on the sale of coal or through stocks on hand when the dispute is at an end and the necessity for purchasing coal no longer exists. Are they going to sell the coal at cost price? Why do they not make a profit on the coal which they sell in order to cover their loss? The million men whom the Government are trying to defeat in this way are people who themselves must be taxed in order to pay, in part, for the loss which the Government incur in a trading transaction designed to bring about their industrial defeat. It is a monstrous use of political power, and it is a thing of which the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed. If they were composed of different types of people, they would be ashamed. When it is all done, this Government, that came in with the idea of establishing industrial peace and giving the country stability, will have rendered stability and peace further off than ever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has pointed out, you may by this means defeat the miners, send them back to their work, and beat them till the point of endurance has been broken, not because the men cannot endure, but because of the conditions imposed upon their families. We are getting remarkable and astounding letters, in their poignancy and anguish, coming through from the mining districts, stories that shock one's sense of humanity—
§ Mr. WALLHEADWe are not. It is your party that is preventing them. To what do you want them to go back? You want us to help you to send these men back to economic slavery. These men, according to your own Commission, do not earn a reasonable living at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "They can go back at the same wages!"] There is not a single coalfield in the country that has offered the men the same wages. Every one of the owners has gone back on wages. Your party cannot even make a gentlemen's agreement with these coalowners. The Prime Minister himself attempted to make a bargain with them over the Eight Hours Bill, and, as I pointed out the other day, before the Bill became law, the gentlemanly owners of coal, with whom you are attempting to come to a gentlemen's agreement, have gone back on the men and imposed conditions which they dared not put before the Prime Minister when they were making their deal. The Prime Minister may be pretty bad, but he is not so bad as that, and he dared not do it for the sake of his own party. He must save some rag of decency for it, because it must appeal to the country, sooner or later We are getting messages from the various districts in which men tell us they are living on one meal a day.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt is not our fault. It is the fault of this Government, that dare not act upon the Report of their own Commission, and have repudiated the findings of every Coal Commission that this House has set up, all of them declaring that the coal trade is in a state of chaos. The Government have not done anything to redeem it, so far as that chaos or any scheme of organisation is concerned. This House has been engaged prior to this Resolution in formulating a scheme, but the owners laugh at them, and they are no more than sloppy sentimentality and sloppy eye wash. This Resolution ought to be defeated, and, as far as we are concerned, we will fight it as long as we possibly can and the forms of this House permit. While there is a form or a Parliamentary method of procedure that we can use for the purpose of delaying 172 and hindering the passage of your Bills and Measures and Resolutions, in your attempt to deal a knock-out blow to these men who are fighting so gallantly to defend their standard of life, if we can stop you assisting the mineowners to give what they call a "damned good hiding" to the miners, with your connivance and assistance, we will do it to the limit of our ability and power.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI do not think I can follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) in his wide range over the whole question of the coal dispute, but I will try to limit my remarks to the Supplementary Estimate which we are discussing, and I should like first of all to repudiate the remark made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), when he said that this was merely another method for defeating the miners.
§ Colonel LANE FOXHon. Members opposite should consider other people's opinions besides their own; those who do not do so do not go very far. I should like to point out that any Government faced with a great stoppage in the coal industry would be absolutely bound to take the course, which we are taking, of arranging for this reserve supply of coal. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) raised a point about local authorities having power to buy coal and distribute it. I think he must have misunderstood the answer I gave to a question. I have not got either the question or the answer before me now, but I will tell the House the method by which we intend to proceed. As the House has already been told, it is not intended that the Government should carry all the big undertakings, the railway companies, the big gas companies and the big local authorities, and so on. They can look after themselves, but there are a certain number of smaller authorities which are not capable of making arrangements at a distance for buying foreign coal, and securing that the people in their immediate neighbourhood are saved from serious trouble and distress. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a reserve supply, and the object of this Estimate is to make sure that where any weaker local 173 authority, or small gas company, or whatever it may be, is in need and cannot get coal elsewhere, there shall be this supply which the Government can sell to them. We shall in all cases try to sell to cover the costs and expenses of distribution, but not to make a profit.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYHas the right hon. Gentleman calculated the overhead charges? What does he reckon the cost is going to be per £100,000, for instance? He can tell me quite well without giving any of the prices.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI cannot give the hon. and gallant Member any details of that sort. I can only tell him that the Government are satisfied that they will be covered, and that the arrangements which they have made are in every way satisfactory and better than those which were made on the last occasion, which was in 1921, I think. We have profited by some of the mistakes that were then made, and we have been able thereby to make better arrangements now than were possible then. The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question as to the smaller local authorities. In the ordinary case, when there is any undertaking which needs coal, that coal will be sold direct to it, and in cases where local authorities require to buy coal for distribution to households in the ordinary course, every local authority, as a rule, is anxious to use the ordinary means of distribution, for the simple reason that it saves them a great deal of trouble and makes the distribution very much easier, but where that cannot be done the local authorities will be able to buy from the Government and arrange to distribute it themselves. The point will always be kept in mind, however, that wherever Government coal is sold some undertaking will be secured by which that coal will not be allowed to be sold at a profiteering price, and with the coal in our possession we can secure the undertaking from those to whom we sell that the coal sold to them shall not be sold by them at a profiteering price. One big result of this Government undertaking, therefore, will be that, whereas a great deal of private importation of foreign coal is going on, and some hon. Gentleman has suggested that some of the imported coal will be sold at an enhanced profit, the fact that Government coal will 174 be being sold at a reasonable price will tend to keep the general level of prices down.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe right hon. Gentleman said that the Government can prevent profiteering. Have they taken any steps actually to prevent it up till now?
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs it the, intention of the Government to compete with private buyers in the purchase of foreign coal?
§ Colonel LANE FOXOne of the strongest reasons for the secrecy that the Government are observing is that the fact of Government buying may not raise the price against the private buyer. The Government do not want to do anything to discourage private importation of coal, for the simple reason that the more coal there is privately brought into the country the greater the competition and the greater chance there will be for those who are buying it.
§ Mr. WALLHEADAre the Government selling this coal at a price to cover any loss?
§ Colonel LANE FOXThe hon. Gentleman does not want coal to come into the country, and he wants all the small authorities to be prevented from getting coal to the poor people. Failing that, the next best thing, he thinks, is to raise the price of coal all over the country, and he wants to achieve his end in that way. I only hope that he will not get his wish in this matter. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr.Batey)—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
§ Colonel LANE FOXThe hon. Member for Spennymoor, several times during his speech, consigned the Government to outer darkness; I can only hope that he will be as bad a prophet in this matter as in most other respects. He also referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on the occasion of the last strike, but the country, suggested the hon. Member, was annoyed over the action of that right hon. Gentleman and he was struck from power. I was always under the impression that it was the action of the 175 Conservative party that drove the right hon. Gentleman from office—and they succeeded him—although they had supported his action in importing coal—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot go into that matter now.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI am sorry, but perhaps I was led away by the irrelevancies of the hon. Member for Spennymoor.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI do not think there is anything else I can deal with in the Estimate. The hon. Member for Spennymoor asked: "Why do you not take over the collieries and run them yourselves?" The hon. Member does not expect an answer to that question, does he?
§ Colonel LANE FOXIf the hon. Member does, then there is an excellent chapter in the Report of the Coal Commission which I would commend to the hon. Gentleman to read, if he has not already done so. The object of the action of the Government, in submitting this Estimate, is to avoid preventible suffering. It is in no sense because of any desire to defeat the miners or anybody else, but to obtain coal for those who could not obtain it otherwise than at excessive prices. Therefore, I ask those who vote against this Resolution to realise what they are doing.
§ Mr. SULLIVANVarious questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to ask him one or two. Is it the intention of the Government to enter into competition on the Continent with private buyers? Are the Government going to set up agencies for themselves, or are they going to utilise the existing agencies, for there is experience in the past to warn them on this head? Personally I differ to a great extent from some of my colleagues here in that I think the miners should make up their minds to stop getting coal altogether. The miners should simply give it up and let the Government get the coal wherever they think fit. The action of the Government is opening the eyes, not only of the miners, but of the general community. The present situation is that the country 176 requires coal and the action of the Government proves that the country requires coal. What attitude are the Government taking? They are not compelling the mineowners to open their pits, they are not giving the miner a fair chance to get the coal, but they are rushing to the Continent or somewhere else to get the coal. Things were said here with regard to another foreign importation, that of money from another country. They are very strong on that and would like to keep it out, but their own supporters and their spokesmen on the Front Bench have no shame whatever in saying that they will pay other people for coal while they keep their own pits idle and while our own people starve.
The night before the general stoppage I spoke on this aspect. At that time I was appealing to the Government to assist those men who were trying to keep peace in the coalfield. Unfortunately, the Government did nothing, and we made a mistake in appealing to them because the psychology of their supporters is such that if people appeal to them they think they are weak and afraid. They do not give us credit for having the welfare of the country at heart as much has they have. The Government have rushed from blunder to blunder in connection with this dispute. You may be nearer the end by the number of weeks that have elapsed since, hut, so far as the miners' power of resistance is concerned, it is as strong to-day as it was at the beginning. I do not share those alarming suggestions that some people make that our men are going to be beaten. I believe the conditions as to the men are such that no self-respecting miner can accept them. The Government, instead of being neutral, have taken sides openly on the part of the employer. No friend of the Government can stand up and say that they are neutral in this dispute. The Prime Minister interfered with proposals that were almost an insult to the working man. Those were the proposals that the miners turned down. Because the miners rejected those proposals they came to the House for an extension of the working time. The followers of the Government and their Press told them that that was all that they required to do and that the miners would be drifting back to work. As a matter of fact, you have hardened the resistance of the miners, and there is no danger of 177 their going back on the conditions laid down.
I have never been deceived in connection with this dispute. The coalowners wanted a stoppage. They had a Conservative Government in power that was very subservient—to coalowners at least—and they wanted a stoppage. They wanted to get rid of the things that were suggested in the way of reorganisation. They were prepared to fight. One of them told me that assuming the strike lasted four months—he said three months at first and I said it would be longer than that—it was better to fight on this issue and get rid of the other suggestions. They have no intention of reorganising the coal industry. I do not think that the party on the other side of the House is very serious in that. There is only one thing which the coalowner sees, the wages earned by the workmen. He overlooks the fact that an ill-paid worker is never a good worker, and that it reduces the spending power of the people. I travelled in the train to-day with some people who were not Labour, who were very strong in connection with this strike, and who were telling some visitors from the United States about the extreme people that were fomenting strikes in this country. Those people were very angry and they would have been angrier only that I suggested that a miner here got as much in a week as a miner in the United States got in a day. They could not understand why, but the facts are there. The miner is getting seven dollars a day in the United States and about the same amount is being offered here for a full week's work. I sincerely hope, even at this late hour, that those on the Government Benches will reconsider their action. They have taken up the employers' side from the first. That is another blunder added to the rest.
This country is bleeding to death. One of our main exports was coal and, instead of exporting coal, the Government are beginning to import coal. It is immaterial how much we quarrel among ourselves, for the fact is that the nation as a nation is becoming poorer under the rule of a Conservative Government. The Secretary for Mines would not agree to a suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor, that the mines should be worked. Why should not the mines be worked? I thoroughly believe 178 that that was the solution from the beginning. I have never believed in those losses in connection with coal. I know they can supply us with figures giving their losses, but, taking everything in connection with the coal trade, I have never believed in those losses. If the Government had been strong enough to make a settlement with the miners on the lines of the Commission's Report and to send them back on the wages they had and on the same working conditions, then they could have gone on with the policy of re-organisation. If the minowners had refused to agree, then the Government should have told them to stand aside and have taken charge of the mines until such time as they came to their senses. I do not believe the employers would ever have allowed that. They would have gone on with it and our difficulties would be much less than at the present time.
Now the Government are introducing legislation extending the working time. They are going to buy coal with the miners idle and likely to be idle. Yet every day with the miners idle the country as a whole is becoming poorer. I hope that the people in the country are paying close attention to the work of the Government in connection with this dispute. I am one of those men who believed in the honesty of your Prime Minister. I always liked to feel that he was a very good man who had got into bad company. I am convinced now that he has failed in this, and I do not think it will be any use his trying to bring about a settlement so far as the miner is concerned. They have no faith whatever in him, and I am not sure that they have much more in the Secretary for Mines. The Secretary for Mines made a reference to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) being turned down by something that happened in the ranks of the Conservative party. Is your Conservative party as strong to-day as you want us to believe on this side of the House? Is the Conservative party as strong to-day? [HON, MEMBERS: "Stronger!"] You are so strong that you are looking for another Prime Minister.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI would remind the hon. Member that I stopped the Secretary for Mines when he strayed into the path of general political speculation.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI want to convince the Government that the methods they are adopting are curing nothing. It is said the people whom I live amongst are not suffering seriously. In some cases it is starvation. I know hon. Members opposite say that everybody goes to the parish who cannot get money. I want to tell them there are people who have not gone to the parish, and will not go to the parish. Those people are suffering as a result of the action of the Government. The Government have no right to take sides. They have allied themselves with their friends, and the miners have no faith in them, and I feel that the people of the country are beginning to share the feelings of the miners. The Government have run from blunder to blunder. One of the effects of the Government's purchase of coal will be much the same as in 1921. Your methods of buying are defective. Your methods of buying must be defective, because your friends that buy for you will take care that they get something out of the deal. When we get a settlement, the people who take the coal will be quite willing to get rid of it. After all, foreigners only buy our coal because they need it, and it is a better coal. The coal they sell us is not suitable for quite a lot of things. The railways will not praise it, the people who control gas works will not praise it; they take it only because they cannot get anything else; but whenever we begin to produce coal again, if ever we do, that foreign coal will then only be regarded as lumber and rubbish. I sincerely hope this action of yours to-night will make more positive the feeling of resistance that the miners have shown. In the mining districts the miners are more bitter to-day than they were at the beginning. If the Government want to buy coal I would let them go on buying as much as they liked, and I would advise the miners to give up their occupation and let the people who want coal go and get it at the wage offered.
§ Mr. TINKERI agree with the Secretary for Mines upon one point in his speech, and that is that the Government's purpose is to look after the essential services, but I wish to criticise them on their claim that they have done their duty and tried to settle the dispute. I maintain that at no period in the dispute have they handled it in the right way. If they had done so, there would have 180 been no question of voting money to buy coal, because the British miners would have been giving of their best. How have the Government attempted to handle the situation? They did say, first of all, that they were willing to accept the findings of the Royal Commission, if and when the other two parties agreed. That was only a tentative offer, and immediately they got the chance they slipped away from it, and we find now they have made the very worst offer that could be put before the miners, namely, an extension of the working day. It is the worst blunder any Government could have made. I was attending meetings yesterday to find out what the position was likely to be. I understand the Government thought that if they passed this Bill into law the miners would return to work. I wish the Government to watch the situation from now onwards, and if there is any sign of weakening in. the ranks of the miners on the hours question I shall be very much surprised. In asking for this £3,000,000 are the Government preparing for a long struggle? If that be their intention, they are not doing the right thing; if, on the other hand, they are thinking of a settlement, then they ought not to have asked for so much money. They might have been content with asking for £1,000,000, and seeing how far that would go. As they have asked for this large sum, I can only think they are anticipating a long struggle and are prepared to carry on.
I hope they realise that the British miner is entitled to have the situation thoroughly examined, and the most charitable thing I can say is that the Government have taken up their present attitude because they do not understand the actual position in which the miners are. Last week the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) was criticising the wages of the miners and quoted a statement from one of the Members on this side. He said they were earning wages of from £6 to £13 a week. I would like to give one or two instances of what they actually do earn. Just before the stoppage I had occasion, as miners' agent, to take two cases into the County Court. One case meant an examination of the wages as between a day wage man and a collier in order to assess the amount of compensation that was due to a man who was only able to do day 181 work as against collier's work. The judge, after examining the whole of the wages for that district, agreed that the figures were 43s. for a day wage man and 55s. for a piece-rate coal getter.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESThat is for a week, not a day.
§ Mr. TINKERFor a week. I took it hon. Members would know that.
§ Mr. TINKERI give them more credit than you care to do. There was another case in Leigh County Court concerning a man named Flanagan, who fell down on his way home. The point which had to be fought in the County Court was whether he should get compensation or not. It was agreed with the colliery company that he was one of the best workmen, and that he attended the pit every day he could, and in that man's case the average wage for a week was 55s. There are two cases in two separate County Courts in Lancashire, one St. Helens and the other Leigh, where the top wage, on the average, was 55s. a week. I put that against the statement that the men get £6 to £13 a week. It is only in compensation claims that we are able to get the real average wage for the worker, and I wish the House to free their minds from any doubt as to what the wages of the men are to-day.
Another statement by the hon. Member for Penrith was that if we got different leaders from Cook and Smith, got men who were not so obstinate, there might be a settlement. That tale has been told to us time without number.
§ Mr. HANNONOn a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to ask if the hon. Member is in order in discussing on this Vote the merits of the dispute.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis is a new service of £3,000,000 for the importation of coal, and it is not out of order to discuss the reasons which make it necessary to purchase this coal.
§ Mr. TINKERI have been trying to keep within the rules of order as well as I possibly can. I was referring to the statement made by some of our critics to the effect that but for our leaders, Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook, the strike might be settled. I am prepared to say that those two leaders 182 are speaking the voice of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Cook has been all through the coalfields within the last fortnight addressing meetings, and 20,000 men have been present at some of the meetings, where a unanimous decision has been arrived at to carry on the struggle. Therefore it cannot be said that these two leaders do not represent the views of the miners. They are only following the same line that was taken up during the lock-out in 1921. Mr. Herbert Smith was a miners' leader in the 1921 lock-out. His colleagues were Messrs. Smillie and Hodges. They were criticised then as Messrs. Cook and Smith are being criticised at present, but we are now told that we had sound leaders in 1921. The leaders are- doing exactly what the men want them to do. The Home Secretary made an attack the other day and he said that what the-miners were now doing would mean that oil would supersede coal. I should welcome the day when oil would supersede coal, because it is almost degrading for anyone to work in the coal industry under present conditions. I would like to point out, however, that oil could be got from coal without the smallest difficulty.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think that is hardly in order on this Vote.
§ Mr. TINKERThe Home Secretary the other day mentioned the use of oil' in this connection, and he said that certain hotels were making use of oil, and the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to use that argument.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the Home Secretary made those observations on this particular Vote, then the hon. Member is quite in order in replying to them.
§ Mr. TINKERIf the Home Secretary would turn his atttntion to page 24 of the Coal Report, he would find there a very exhaustive account of what might happen if the Government would take up this question of extracting oil from coal, and then there would be no need for us to import oil from across the seas, and this would produce more employment in this country. I hope the Government will realise the position. I do not object to the Government looking after our essential services, but I object to the way in which they have managed the coal situation, and the necessity for 183 importing coal at the present time is due to the way in which the Government have handled this question.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI always listen with interest to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Leigh, because he generally speaks with moderation. On this occasion, however, I think he has gone beyond his usual mark. I want to point out that the opinions expressed by the last two speakers with regard to the purchase of coal are delivered by hon. Members representing mining constituencies, but they cannot speak, as some of us can, on behalf of districts not concerned with the coalowners or the miners, which want a supply of coal in order to carry on the industries. The fishing industry is one of our great industries, and we have to depend on coal to carry out the fishing, which is so necessary for bringing food to this country and providing work and wages for a large number of men. The larger owners of fishing vessels are able to send their ships across to foreign ports where they can take on cargoes of coal and then visit the fishing grounds, but the smaller boats cannot afford to do this, and they are a class of people who ought to be kept in employment, and possibly through this purchase of coal by the Government they will be able to carry on their avocation.
Another class have to receive some consideration, and that is the householders and the smaller traders. For these reasons I welcome the action of the Government. With regard to what has been said about the purchase of coal having anything to do with the^ Government siding with the mineowners, it is quite untrue because this foreign coal is being purchased in the interests of our home industries, and the Government would be lacking in its duty if it did not provide coal for our essential services. The hon. Member for Bothwell mentioned the fact that when the trouble was over, and British coal was available, the users of coal in this country would soon leave this rotten stuff alone. I am in touch with some of our greatest exporters of coal who have now become importers, and I want to point out to those connected with mining that the old story about the great superiority of British coal is beginning to be doubted by the people who are now using imported coal. Those who are deeply 184 interested financially in our coal trade have been very much impressed by the quality of the coal imported, and they are very much concerned about the future. I think the Government are doing their duty by asking for this Vote, and I cannot see why even miners' representatives should object because, after all, the working people are going to get the benefit of this policy.
§ Mr. WHITELEYI was very much surprised indeed to see these Supplementary Estimates. I have just returned from the Wallsend district where the miners have been told that they are locked out because the foreign miners arc blacklegging in. order to break the strike. That is what they are being told by the candidate representing the party opposite which has brought this Estimate forward. I would like to point out, however, that it is not the foreign miner who is black-legging, but those people who from morn till night are continually shouting "Buy British goods," and who are all the time seeking foreign coal merchants from whom to purchase coal in order to break the resistance of the British miners. Therefore, I say that this is the real answer to the Tory case in the Wallsend Division. Here is their own Government seeking to import coal for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the miners of this country.
The Secretary for Mines said it was their job to secure the importation of coal, either through Government agencies or by any other private means—and the more the merrier, in order to keep the price down—in order that they might attend to the essential services of the country. I do not think that that is the purpose of any Government in this country, when a trade dispute is going on of the kind with which we are faced to-day. I know that the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) will not agree with this, because he has interjected once or twice, " Why not send your men back?" I would ask him, is he prepared to send his folks down the pit to hew coal for 8½ hours a day for an average wage of 8s. 7d. and a subsistence wage for datal workers of 6s. 8½d. per day? I agree that a far better policy than is portrayed in this Supplementary Estimate would be to get the same gentlemen who were engaged in assisting the country during the general 185 strike to accept the same terms and produce coal in order to help the country in its present difficulty, but of course there is no possibility of that kind of thing ever being accomplished.
Then the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) says that the fishing industry ought to have consideration. I agree; the Government ought to give that industry consideration. The Government ought to treat fishermen just as they ought to treat the miners of this country, and not adopt a policy of this kind, which is simply a policy of trying to break the resistance of the miners and of forcing them to accept conditions which no man in this House can justify as conditions which citizens of this country ought to be compelled to accept for working either in the mines or anywhere else. Therefore, I say it would probably be well for the Government, rather than continuing a policy of this kind, to sit down and examine their own Command Papers which they issue quarter by quarter from the Mines Department. They will find there, if they have the desire to find it, a solution for the present difficulty in the coal mines of this country. They know as well as we do that the lengthening of hours and the reduction of wages is no possible solution for the present difficulty.
I do not intend to go over the whole of the ground in connection with this dispute, but I do say that, if the Government continue their present policy, and import coal through every avenue that they can, it will mean that, when the end of the dispute comes, if ever it does come, we are again going to be in the same position as in 1921, and thousands of our people are going to be still unemployed because the stocks of imported coal have not been got rid of. I say that a Government who are prepared to pay £3 a ton or more for foreign coal, and keep their own miners idle because they are not prepared to accept a starvation wage, are not fit to govern any country, and you may be sure that the men and women in the North of England have made up their minds to give the Government a real answer on this issue, which is the only issue that is being fought in the Wallsend Division. The facts are being put before these people, because you have men and women there who have gone through that experience for years, who are con- 186 nected with the mines, and I say to the Government that it will be in their own interest, even if they only take the ordinary narrow, selfish point of view, to cease adopting policies of this kind time after time in order to force men into a position which they themselves could not recommend their own friends to accept in similar circumstances. From the broader point of view, it will be well for the Government to look to the interests of the nation, and not to those of any particular section. The coalowners have done exceedingly well. These statements prove that from the end of the 1921 stoppage to the 30fch April of this year £60,000,000 profit has been made, which is 10 per cent, on the capital invested. It is as good a going concern as you will find, but the selfishness of those who are making these profits and want to continue making them, to the exclusion of those who are not in such a good position, shows that they have not the patriotism to stand together in the interest of the nation and give men decent wages and conditions, so that the coal industry might be used for the benefit of the whole of the people of this country.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HANN0NI should not have intervened in this Debate if it had not been for the somewhat impassioned appeal made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). This Vote is to enable the Government to provide for the public utility services of this country at one of the most critical moments in our industrial history, and it would, indeed, be an extraordinary situation if the Government were so to neglect this immediate national responsibility as to place the country in the position of having no coal with which to carry on the essential services that are immediately necessary for the life of our people, pending the settlement of this unhappy dispute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have devoted the whole of their speeches, not to the Vote itself, but to the merits of the coal stoppage as it now presents itself to the country. I must say that they have dealt with the subject with great moderation; indeed, the hon. Member for Blaydon always deals moderately and thoughtfully with questions in this House, and I have no complaint to make on that ground. But what is the position of the Government? I think every fair-minded man in 187 this country, even the miners themselves—not the extremists who go down on a Sunday and, in the heat and fury of the moment, address masses of 20,000 people, but the careful, cool, thoughtful miners—know very well that the whole of this economic tragedy is due to the stupid obstinacy of a few. Everyone who is familiar with the awful tragedy through which this country has passed since the very beginning of the trouble knows that the two so-called leaders—because I believe in my soul that if a ballot were taken of the miners of the country to-day the great majority would not follow them—these so-called leaders have taken up a-definite, stone-wall attitude against any modification of their original attitude towards the Report of the Royal Commission—[Interruption.] I never interrupt while hon. Gentlemen are making their speeches—
§ Mr. TINKEROh, yes; you interrupted me.
§ Mr. HANNONThat was merely to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point of Order, with regard to the limits of the hon. Gentleman's discourse. I hope I shall be allowed the opportunity of saying the few words I wish to say on this subject. I am speaking in this House for a considerable body of organised industry, and organised industry, at this moment is faced with the most embarrassing situation it has had to contend against for a century. When you think of the Black Country to-day, with all its blast furnaces damped; when you think of the conditions of enterprise all over the Midlands where the industries have no coal, and of the number of people who have been thrown out of employment from day to day because these industries have not been able to get coal—when you think of all that, I ask hon. Members opposite, does that make no appeal at all to those responsible for the policy of the Miners' Federation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I have not seen any manifestations of any sort or kind on the part of those responsible for the policy of the Miners' Federation towards the vast mass of those people in other branches of industry who have been thrown out of employment by this stoppage. I really think that in this tragic position in our country's history those 188 responsible for the policy of the miners ought to give some thought to the people who are engaged in other enterprises and whose continuity of employment depends upon coal. The whole of the Debate this evening has, in the speeches from the other side, been on the merits of the coal stoppage. Arguments relating to the immediate position have hardly been touched upon at all. In their speeches hon. Members who have challenged the attitude of the Government have taken up the position that they charge the Government with taking up the quarrel of the coalowners. In the whole history of industrial disputes I do not remember a Government of this country which has taken up a more detached and impartial attitude. I have discussed this matter with the miners, with the trade union leaders and with the representatives of the great industrial organisations, and every single, man with whom I have argued the pros and cons of this exasperating and worrying situation has said to me that the Prime Minister, from the beginning of this trouble up to the present moment, has had the most careful consideration for all the parties concerned and has endeavoured to hold the scales evenly between the two main parties.
I believe in a policy of give-and-take and in a policy of compromise in all the industrial situations which I have had during the last 10 or 12 years, and I have always endeavoured to promote understandings between employers and employés. I have been preaching for years the policy of round-table conferences and adjustment of relations by mutual understanding and the improvement of the conditions of the workers. But I would ask hon. Members opposite, how can you find a basis of understanding or negotiation when one of the parties to the dispute absolutely refuses to meet the other side on any terms whatever? How can you have an acceptance of the Report if one party on one side says that in no circumstances will they make any concession at all? The coalowners and the Government will have to restore the industry to the condition which existed when the stoppage took place and they will have to endeavour to find a solution when the present situation has passed. But in this House I think we ought to endeavour to bring common sense and understanding and all 189 the beneficent feeling we can into a settlement of this serious national trouble which is inflicting incalculable lose upon every industry in the country. How can you do that with no offer of a conciliatory character from the other aide? You cannot come to an understanding as long as those responsible for the guidance of the working men simply refuse to concede one single item beyond their original agreement. This country is suffering from economic paralysis. Our industry is becoming depressed and our position in the foreign markets is being reduced from day to day. Unless we can get a settlement to this dispute by a generous understanding without bitterness, and unless we try to come to grips with the real problem in a spirit of give and take, we cannot find a solution. But if we are prepared to bargain upon fair and reasonable and accommodating grounds we can settle this awful stoppage which is devastating our national life, and we can endeavour to arrive at a better understanding and to obtain a settlement on the basis of the Royal Commission's recommendations, which will form the basis for permanent settlement.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESIf the closing remarks of the last speaker were to be carried out, it might be that we should come to an understanding. But, like other hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Gentleman in his speech has revealed the attitude of mind which the coalowners and the Government have taken up in this matter from the very outset. They seem to have taken for granted that there is only one possible way out of the difficulty and only one possible way in which the industry can be put on an economic basis, and that is for the miners to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours.
§ Mr. HANNONTemporarily.
§ Mr. JONESBut the temporary period is to last at least for five years. Have the Government and the coalowners considered whether there is not some other possible way in which the coal industry may be put upon an economic basis without making this reduction in the standard of life of the miners either by wages or hours or both? I do not think that the House has as yet addressed itself seriously to that question in any way. It has not considered the question of another way out. The last Royal Commission and the 190 Sankey Commission have given very broad invitations that there are other ways out. We have emphasised frequently in this House that the Samuel Commission, while they suggested that the miners might have to make a sacrifice in the sense of a reduction of wages, said very strongly at the same time that there must be sacrifice from other quarters. The miners from the very beginning had said that the first thing required of the industry is to reorganise it, root and branch. When all those steps have been taken and put into operation then, if evidence can still be shown that the economic situation is still unsatisfactory, the miners have, said that they will be willing to meet the facts of the situation. If the industry were thoroughly reorganised along the lines of the Sankey recommendations and the Samuel recommendations, then the industry would be in a prosperous condition once again. But the Government have not faced that position. They have not made any proposal in that direction. All they have done in the Mining Industry bill is simply to take certain recommendations of the Commission and they have left out the most important recommendations which would have put the industry upon an economic basis. They have divided the recommendations of the Commission. They have thought that by forcing the Eight Hours Act upon the miners they could break the back of the Miners' Federation by dividing the miners against each other and by inducing them to make local and district arrangements with their own coalowners. But nothing of the sort is going to happen. The miners of Great Britain are more determined to-day to resist district agreements, reduction of wages, and extension of hours than they were on the very first day of the stoppage. I am talking from experience. I understand the miner. My people for generations have been in the mining industry on the labour side. They have contributed in life and limb for generations in a way which, I think, has done more for the service of Great Britain than the services of all the lords in the land.
I, for one, would welcome a settlement in the industry to-morrow. I would welcome a resumption of work at every colliery in the land. I would welcome a wage agreement which would last three or five years, and enable us to get down to regaining our lost markets abroad and 191 improving our markets at home. But if you want a wage agreement which is to last, and some of the old bitterness to be removed, and the new spirit of goodwill engendered and strengthened, you have to start off with the realisation of this simple fact, that the miners really and honestly believe, from their daily effort to earn their daily bread, that the wage rates and the standard of life they had at their command on 30th April last represent rock-bottom for the British miner, and that they could not go below that rock-bottom without putting themselves in a position of serfdom or semi-slavery and semi-starvation. That is the hard fact you have to get over, and you cannot convince British miners, because it is they, after all, who are down the mines hacking the coal and drawing the wages week by week, and it is their wives who have to spend those wages, and in face of the excessive cost of living, for rents, for high rates, for the necessaries of life, they know that the wages which obtained when the stoppage began are bed-rock.
It is no use anyone picking out isolated cases of men who have earned £5 to £13 a week. The Commission has frankly admitted that the average wage, high and low, when the stoppage came was less than 51s. per week. If hon. Members only realised the conditions under which the miners work they would quite understand that occasionally men may for a few weeks, perhaps for a few years, earn individually high wages, because the coal face may be in an exceptionally good condition for that period, but if you want to get the miner's standard of life and his average wages you have to take him, bad and good together, over a long period of time. You want to take the miner from the time he starts, as I did, at 12 years of age and trace his wages week by week, year by year, for good and bad periods and find out what that average is in his command of the needs of life, and we find that he has a very low standard indeed. A man who may for a few weeks or months earn very high wages at one given coal face may find that same coal face would then suddenly alter in such a way that where a seam was perhaps six feet, with a good hard roof and good bottom, the coal working easy, and clearance from the management, through no fault of his and through no fault of the managers, instead of having six feet 192 of coal he may have two feet, and he may have to work twice as hard to earn a third of the money he earned before under the old conditions. Those things are-beyond the control of the management and beyond the control of the miners.
If we are to maintain our position as a great coal producing country, producing the basic of fuel from which we derive the power, light and heat for all other industries, and transport, and for sale abroad to increase our purchasing power of the world's goods and our own raw materials, we have to realise that we have to produce at least 250,000,000 tons of coal per year, and the more we can produce above that level the better. And to get that 250,000,000 tons, whether you have private enterprise or public, whether through your colliery concerns as to-day or whether through amalgamation and unification, with a national Board in charge, as recommended by the Commission, the great fact stands out that to get those 250,000,000 tons as a minimum national output to meet the national needs for home and foreign trade you have to get it from some of the poorest as well as the richest coalfields, and from some of the poorest as well as the richest seams in each coalfield. No coalfield is rich enough or big enough and no seams in any coalfield are big enough to produce the total quantity of coal required. Therefore, somehow or other, we have to get the total quantity that will meet the cost of production from the worst seams and the worst coalfields as well as the best seams and the best coalfields, all of which must be kept in employment in order to maintain the total national output. That is a simple economic fact. What we say as miners is that it does not matter where the miner is employed, whether in the richest or the poorest coalfields or on the richest or the poorest seams, that miner gives his labour of hand and brain—and I want to say from my experience as a miner that it requires a great deal of brain as well as hand-work to be a skilful miner—and risks life and limb in getting Chat coal, and he is entitled, irrespective of the seam on which he works, to a living wage for that labour. That is what the miners are standing for. That is why they insist upon a national wage agreement, to make sure that, whether a man is employed in Somerset or Bristol, in York- 193 shire, South Wales, or Scotland, that on the average he is to get a living wage which will enable him to maintain himself and has family in decency.
If the Government can solve that problem, they will find no one more ready to go back to work than the British miner. Those of us who know the conditions of mining are annoyed because hon. Members opposite take it for granted that the only way to make the industry successful, and to put it on an economic basis, is for the miner to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours. We say that there is another way out. The Sankey Commission, the Macmillian Commission, the Buckmaster Commission and the Samuel Commission have all indicated from time to time a way out. We believe that the only ultimate way out is nationalisation, but we are not pressing that, because the Government would not agree to it, with all the power they have in this House and in the country. If they are not in favour of public enterprise with unification, why not go in for private enterprise with unification in the industry? The way we suggest that they should do it is the way that was adopted in connection with the railways and the method now being adopted in connection with electricity. Why not recognise the fact that it will take two, three, perhaps four or five years to carry out fully all the substantial recommendations in all these Commissions, before we get the full benefit of the re-equipment of the mines that are capable of being equipped, t-he closing down of the inefficient mines, and maintaining such mines as are necessary for the total national" output for national needs?
Why not realise that the cost of reorganisation for the next few years should be met not by asking the miners to accept a reduction of wages and an increase of hours, but by a State guarantee or a State loan, call it what you like, to cover the cost of the capital expenditure necessary for the re-equipment of the industry, root and branch, in all its departments, however long it may take, or however short a time it may take, and that that should be repaid, if necessary, on the principle of deferred payments, after a few years of loan? Suppose we strike an average for the sake of illustration and say that three years will be necessary to put the 194 industry on sound lines. For those three years, it would be unfair to ask the miners to accept a lower standard of life, and it would be unfair to ask the coalowners to accept less than a fair return on the genuine capital invested in the industry. Let us take all that for granted. Let us assume that it requires a sum of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000—it does not matter for my argument what the actual sum may be— to meet the total extra expenditure required to put the industry right on these lines. Let that be a charge upon the capital development of the mines. Let the repayment be deferred for the reasonable period required to put the reorganised mines into working condition, and then let the repayment be made gradually by annual instalments. That is all a question of actuarial adjustment.
If that were taken up and put into operation, I believe the Government would find that a very large number of coalowners in most of our coalfields would seriously consider that proposition. I know that some of them in certain coalfields, from conversations I and others have had with them, would seriously consider such a proposition. If some such proposal were made the Government would get the miners seriously to consider the situation, once they had convinced them that they meant business. Given that kind of proposal, and the atmosphere of good will which would be created among all parties, I think quite seriously that we should be able to promote a scheme, or schemes, that would embody the main features of the Sankey and the Samuel Reports. Get down to that and you will get a very early settlement, and a satisfactory settlement, to all interests concerned. While the coal industry of Great Britain has gone through periods of depression and prosperity in the past I believe, as one in the industry, that there is a greater future for the coal industry of Great Britain if we can utilise it to the full. There arc good economic reasons why it should be so. British coal, whether it is bituminous or semi-bituminous, or anthracite, is easily the best quality of any such coal anywhere in the world. There is no coal in Europe or America or anywhere else equal in quality, in calorific value and steam-raising value, to British coal, and the proof of that is that in the export mar- 195 kets of the world we can still sell British coal shillings per ton higher than any coal from any other country. Great Britain is the pioneer of mining in the world. We have taught all other countries most of all they know about mining to-day. No German or American mining engineer can teach anything to the British mining engineer.
We have at home in this small tight island the richest supply of coal relative to our size of any country in the world. That is our first advantage; quality. The second great advantage is the economic position of our coalfields in relation to the home and foreign markets. Our coalfields are scattered throughout England, Wales, and Scotland, and they are mostly on the seaboard, or near to it. All our great seaports, with the exception of London and Southampton, are very near the coalfields, and the cost of transport from the pit to the port should be relatively small. The cost of water transport is immensely cheaper than rail transport, and that is clear because we can send coal from South Wales and Northumberland and Durham cheaper to North Ger-German ports and the Baltic than the Germans can send it there themselves. In the economic position, of our coalfields, then, we have a great advantage. The third advantage we have, and I say this with all due modesty, is that the British miner, whether he is English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish, is the most skilled miner in the world.
We have these three great advantages, the best quality of coal, our coalfields in the best economic position to the markets at home and abroad, and the best skilled men in the mining world; whether from the general labourer to the general manager I care not. Having these three great advantages why not utilise them along these lines of amalgamation and unification? Instead of asking the miners to meet the cost of this reorganisation for the next few years, why not do what you are doing for electricity? You are going to standardise that system, and the Government have guaranteed over £33,000,000 to meet the cost. Why cannot the Government make a proposal to guarantee a loan on deferred payments to help the coal industry in the same way? It would not be a subsidy. It would not be money for nothing. It would be a 196 loan or guarantee to enable the industry to recover and to get on its feet again on the lines on which all experts are agreed. Unless you do something of that sort it is useless to expect the British miner to give in. They will not give in. It would be contrary to the entire record of their efforts for generations past.
It is really a great national danger that we should by an Act of this House extend the hours in any industry. When the League of Nations was built up and the Washington Conference met in America, this country claimed the credit of sincerity in the effort to bring the world round to a 48-hours week. Yet it is a British Government which is breaking away from that principle of a great world ideal. We are going the wrong way to meet future world competition. Instead of persuading other countries to come up to our level of shorter hours, if we put into operation the Eight Hours Act the miners of Germany, of Belgium and of France will do the same thing. What would be the advantage to us if they work extended hours? That is not the way. Do not lower the standard of life of the miner, but ask yourselves seriously the question, Is it not possible to raise the standard of life? You would then get a different mental and moral attitude on the part of the miners towards the Government of the country. I urge the Government seriously to consider the situation in face of the fact—whether they believe it or not, it is a fact—that the miner knows from experience that he is at rock-bottom. Do not drive him lower. Let him stay where he is, and he will do his best during reorganisation to make the industry a sound concern once again.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have just been wondering what we were discussing. I see that it is a grant of £3,000,000 for the purchase of coal. I hope that the House will endeavour to come a little nearer to the subject.
§ Mr. SPENCERI quite agree that, as far as the essential services have to be maintained, perhaps the Government are under a responsibility to maintain them. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) deplored the continuance of the stoppage, and said it was essential to make this purchase of coal. As far as I understand him, I endorse that remark. I further endorse his remark 197 when he said, "Cannot we bring this stoppage to an end?" How are you going to do that? For two or three minutes I shall apply my mind to seeking an answer to that question. I am certain that you are not going to bring it to an end by mutual recriminations. I cannot conceive anything worse at the present time than that that side or this should begin to seek to allot blame for the stoppage.
§ Mr. HANNONI did not make any recriminations.
§ Mr. SPENCERThe impression on my mind was that the hon. Member did so. He said that the leaders of the men have been very obstinate, that they did not move, and a lot of things of that kind which reflected discredit upon the chosen leaders of the men.
§ Mr. HANNONThat was not recrimination, but a statement of fact.
§ Mr. SPENCERThat is the unfortunate thing about all these remarks. We might from this side say that it was a statement of fact that the Government had blundered seriously. We should be supported by many of its leading newspaper writers and probably we might say that that was a statement of fact. I deplore the starting of a campaign of recrimination, whether from this side or the other side, at this time. The time may come and probably will come—as it ought to come—when we shall have to seek to allocate blame and to find out why there has not been an earlier settlement, but we are not going to show any good purpose by pursuing that policy in this House to-night. How are we going to settle the dispute? First, we have to find out what is the mentality of the men. Let us concede, if you like, that the Government have acted with the best intentions; that they thought the Eight Hours Act was going to have the effect of giving the men a choice which they would take with regard to lengthened hours rather than a reduction of wages. If I concede, for the purposes of argument, that the Government acted with the best possible intentions, they must admit that their action has failed, that the men are not responding to it and that, instead of making a way for the men to escape, it has had the effect of hardening the hearts and minds of the men. 198 If there is one question on which the workmen in the British coalfields are united it is on the question of opposition to the longer clay. Therefore, that being their position, if the Government and the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham are anxious to settle the dispute, the best thing they can do—as a gesture indicating their good intentions— is to withdraw the Eight-hours Act. In yesterday's "Observer"—I do not know who was the writer but I do not think it was Mr. Garvin himself—the contributor of "Notes by the Way" said that, in his opinion, this thing would have to be with-drawn, that we should have to start over again, go back to the Report and find in the Report the elements of settlement. I believe it is there we shall find a settlement and the best thing the Government supporters can do, if they are anxious for a settlement is to induce the Government to withdraw the Eight-hours Act and to say to the Miners' Federation and to the workmen, "This is an evidence of our good intentions towards you." The hon. Member for the Moseley Division said the Government had tried to act impartially and to steer an even keel. Unfortunately, the passing of the Eight-hours Act has revealed to the minor that the Government have gone upon the side of the coalowners.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow hon. Members to go back upon the Debates of last week dealing with a Measure which is now on the Statute Book. The same Rules apply in this case as in the Committee of Supply, and we are entitled now to discuss only the matter which is dealt within this Vote.
§ Mr. SPENCERI will not trespass further in that direction. My only anxiety is to show a way in which we can put an end to the importation of coal by restarting our own mines. I will obey your order, Sir, very strictly, and leave the matter there, only saying that, in my opinion, the step which I have suggested will have to be the first step taken if we are to put an end to this dispute. If that step were taken, it would show the men that the Government had the best possible intentions towards them, and we could then turn our minds to what is in the Report. The question that is put to me, when I speak of a settlement on the lines of the Report, is, "What evidence have you 199 that the Government will accept it? "I should like a clear declaration from the Government that, whatever anybody else may do, they will accept the Report in its entirety. I should like them to make clear to the world where they stand.
At present the miner does not know where the Government stand. He does not know where the coalowner stands, and I am not quite certain that he knows where we stand ourselves. That is the general situation. If the Government supporters are anxious for a stoppage of the dispute, let the Government itself first declare emphatically for the Report. Those who want to end the dispute will make it easier for Members on this side of the House, who also want a settlement, if they clearly state to the country that they will accept the Report. Unless you do that, I am certain that this thing has to drag on, and it is going to be most unfortunate, leaving in its train a very bad feeling. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division said he wanted to cultivate a better spirit and to see between workmen and masters that spirit of mutual trust and confidence which ought to animate all men one towards another. I will reciprocate sentiments of that character. I want to see them, but I am certain we are not going to get them if we let these things remain where they are. We shall get them if the Government again take the lead, as they ought to take the lead, and say that, as far as they are concerned, they are even now, at this late hour, willing to hold out the olive branch to the Miners' Federation in the way of accepting the Samuel Report.
§ Mr. SMILLIEPerhaps you may find it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to pull me up if I wander from the point on this Supplementary Estimate, which is for the purpose of importing coal. Why do we want to provide coal for the nation? Because there is a stoppage in the coal-mining industry. Who is to blame for the stoppage? The general Press of the country and hon. Members opposite have done everything in their power to fix the blame on the miners, but I want to appeal to the sense of justice and fair play of this House. The miners did not give notice that they desired to stop work. The mineowners gave notice that the mines would be shut down unless the miners 200 accepted certain conditions, which were made perfectly plain. Because of its nature, because of the dangers connected with it, the mining industry has received more legislative attention, starting right away back to 1845 and 1846, than any other branch of industry in this country. Never at any period in the history of this House, when dealing with mining legislation has it passed any Act or added a Section to any Act until convinced of the necessity for doing so, and when it is convinced of the necessity for doing so, it will take a great deal to make it change its mind and undo that legislation.
Now I want to call attention to the notices posted up in the mines of this country. The notices did not merely intimate reductions in miners' wages. They intimated that, if the miners desired to prevent further reductions than those stated, if they worked longer hours, the reduction in wages would be less. What is the meaning of the miners working longer hours? A Measure passed by this House, limiting the hours of the mine workers to a certain number of hours per day, was still on the Statute Book when the mineowners deliberately posted notices inviting the miners to break the law and work longer hours. I have raised the question before, and I put it to-day, because it has a dose connection with this £3,000,000 for the importation of coal into this country: Has there been any prosecution, either threatened or effected, up to the present lime, against a mineowner for trying to get miners to break the law?
I want to put it to hon. Members opposite, and to the House generally, that if the mineowners, when they posted their notices, had also said that the age at which boys were to descend the mine must be 10 years, and the womenfolk were to be permitted to work underground; if those notices had been placed at the pit bank as a condition of employment in the mines and the miners had stopped work, would right hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought in legislation here to legalise the employment of children of 10 underground? If not, why not? Because it is as much a breach of the Mines Act for the miners to work longer hours as it would have been to put women and children underground.
Suppose the mineowners, in posting their notices had said that because of 201 the cost of production they were going to limit the cost of officials, and were not going to employ, as provided by Parliament, certificated managers to manage the miners, and the miners had agreed to accept that? Would right hon. Gentlemen have agreed to implement that as against safety? I feel sure they would not. I feel sure their consciences would have been roused against the employment of children underground, or of women going back to the mine. It was just as much a breach of the law to ask the miners to work longer hours as it would be to do any of the things I have just mentioned.
§ Mr. HANNONBut what about the 60 days during which the miners are allowed to work?
§ Mr. SMILLIEThe mineowners, in putting their notices up, did not mention the fact that they desired to take advantage of the Clause in the old Bill for the men to work on the 60 days. Everyone on the opposite side of the House knows that. Their intention was to get the Government to pass an Eight Hours Bill, to change the law enacted in 1919, of seven hours, and they knew perfectly well that they could get the Government to do it. Whether they had an assurance beforehand or not I do not know, but they were convinced that the Government would pass the eight hours, in order to assist the mineowner, and not in order to bring about a settlement. In order to assist the mineowner to put the miners into the mine this House is going back on the legislation passed some years ago.
I am exceedingly anxious that there should be a settlement of the mining dispute. I was exceedingly anxious that the stoppage should not take place, if it could be avoided, but I have latterly been feeling, and feeling very strongly, that the men-folk, the women-folk and the children should not be under the necessity of having less than before. No matter how anxious I might be to avoid a dispute, I was not going to avoid a dispute at the expense of seeing the children getting less food and less clothing, or the mother getting less than she was then getting. For that reason I was prepared to back up as strongly as I possibly could the refusal of the men to start under the new conditions, when I knew from all experience of the mines that seven hours underground is quite sufficient for men and 202 boys to be employed. More than that, I feel very strongly that it having been proved to this House that seven hours was long enough, it was wrong for the employers to go back on it and that it was wrong for the House to try and go back on it. I am never guilty of saying bitter or provocative things and I deeply regret when I hear other say them. When it is said that Cook and Smith are chiefly to blame for this position, I remember that that has been said about every leader the miners have had. I am old enough to remember it being said about one of the most noble and upright men that ever sat in this House, Thomas Burt, who in the early days was reported to be the devil behind the scenes. The same thing was said of Benjamin Pickard; John Wilson was another. It was said that if the miners only got rid of them everything would have been all right. Then I and others came into the picture. Only a, few short years ago the blackest devil of them all was myself. I was supposed to be the man that was keeping the miners idle, although I and Burt and Pickard and Wilson and the others had settled 10 disputes for every one that was brought about, and although we have been the greatest factor in settling disputes.
It is not Herbert Smith or Cook that is to blame for this. This stoppage has been caused because the mine workers feel they ought not to work for lower wages than they were getting, that they ought not to work longer hours, and especially that they ought not to accept conditions laid down by the employers which were a deliberate breach of the Act of Parliament itself. This House, instead of condemning the miners, ought to have justified them and been behind them in refusing to break the law. I do not want to prophesy how long this dispute is going to continue. Personally I would almost give my life to see it satisfactorily settled at the earliest possible moment, or hour, or day, but it is not going to be settled on the terms offered by the employers within a few weeks. I know the employers as well as anybody, and I know that amongst them there are as upright and honourable men as ever lived on God's earth, and I know that there are others, to whom Cook and Herbert Smith could not Sold a candle for wickedness, who do not care how the 203 miners are housed, who do not care how the miners are fed, who care only for dividends. Unfortunately they are the chief movers on the other side in this dispute. If we have villains on our side, it is not our side only that has the villains of this piece.
I would desire, if there was any way out of this difficulty, to see a fair and reasonable settlement of it. I believe the position of the mineowners at the present time—I do not mean the decent ones, but 1 mean the leading mineowners—is that they feel now that the Government should keep their hands off. It is quite true that they would be in favour of the Government in the meantime passing this Estimate and spending £3,000,000 in importing coal here to keep some of our important industries going. But the position of the mineowners is that they desire that the Government should not do anything to settle this dispute. They want the Government to keep the ring open and they will fight the miners to a finish. They can fight the miners to a finish. There is no hunger in their homes, none of their children go about bare-footed. Their children are all well-fed, as children ought to be, well-housed and well-educated. Consequently they can starve the miners into subjection. It may take another 10 weeks; I believe it will take another 10 weeks. They may starve them into subjection, but I submit to this House, to the Minister of Mines, and to the Government that that never settled any dispute.
§ That is not the proper way to settle any dispute, whether between individuals or bodies of men. To count on the mere
204§ weakness or inability of one of the sides to hold out will not bring a truthful or righteous settlement of the dispute. I believe there could be a righteous settlement of it, and I believe the Government could secure it. I believe it is the duty of the Government to call both sides together again and endeavour to try to get a way out of this dispute which will not be through the final hunger and starvation of the men and the women and the children in the industry. If the dispute were settled by joint mutual agreement—with the intervention of the Government, it may be—then there is a likelihood that we might have a lasting peace in the mining industry. If it is settled by the starvation of the mining folk, there will be no lasting peace in the mining industry, and it is not in the interests of this country as a whole, and not in the interests of its industries, that from time to time we should have a stoppage in the most important industry of all. I look forward, when the settlement is brought about, if it is brought about on lines fair and reasonable to both parties, to its being a settlement which in all probability will pave the way to continued peace and harmony in the mining areas.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)I would appeal to the House now to come to a Division. We have had a long discussion to-day, following a very long discussion in Committee, and the Secretary for Mines has replied.
§ Question put, "That '£3,000,000' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 100.
207| Division No. 364.] | AYES. | [8.17 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt, Hon. Sir James T. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Albery, Irving James | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Herbert Dennis (Hertford. Watford) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Crawfurd, H. E. | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hills, Major John Walter |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W, Derby) | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Hogg, Rt.Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Apsley, Lord | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Holt, Capt. H. P. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Balniel. Lord | Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Dixey, A. C. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Drewe, C. | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Berry, Sir George | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Hutchison,G.A.Clack(Midl'n & P'bl's) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Ellis, R. G. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Elveden, Viscount | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Jacob, A. E. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Brass, Captain W. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Jones, G W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Ford, Sir P. J. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Forrest, W. | Kidd, J. (Linllthgow) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | King, Capt. Henry Douglas |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Fraser, Captain Ian | Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lamb, J. O. |
| Burman, J. B | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Ganzoni, Sir John | Little. Dr. E. Graham |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Loder, J. de V. |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Campbell, E. T. | Goff, Sir Park | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Gower, Sir Robert | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City) | Grace, John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Grant, Sir J. A. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Greene. W. P. Crawford | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Greenwood,Rt. Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w,E) | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Macintyre, Ian |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | McLean, Major A. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Grotrian, H. Brent. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Gunston, Captain D. W. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Christie, J. A. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hanbury, C. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Marriott, Sir J. A, R. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Harris, Percy A. | Meiler, R. J. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Harrison, G. J. C. | Merriman, F. B. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Collins Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Haslam, Henry C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hawke, John Anthony | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Cope, Major William | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Couper, J. B. | Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Morrison, K. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Murchison, C. K. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Rye, F. G. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Salmon, Major I. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Waddington, R. |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Oakley, T. | Savery, S. S. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Oman, Sir C. | Shaw, Lt.-Col A.D.Mcl. (Renfrew,W) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Wells, S. R. |
| Pennefather, Sir John | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Penny, Frederick George | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Skelton, A. N. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Perring, William George | Slaney, Major p. Kenyon | Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Philipson, Mabel | Smithers, Waldron | Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Pleiou, D. p. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Pilcher, G. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Withers, John James |
| Preston, William | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ramsden, E. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wood. E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Remer, J. R. | Storry-Deans, R. | Woodcock. Colonel H. C. |
| Remnant, Sir James | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Rentoul, G. S. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wragg, Herbert |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Rice, Sir Frederick | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich' |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel Gibbs. |
| Ropner, Major L. | Tasker, Major R. Inlgo | |
| NOES. | ||
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Riley, Ben |
| Amman, Charles George | Hayday, Arthur | Ritson. J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayes, John Henry | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, J. (Wolverthampton, Bilston) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Scurr, John |
| Barnes, A. | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smillie, Robert |
| Broad, F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Sullivan, J. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Kenyon, Barnet | Taylor, R A. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kirkwood, D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lansbury, George | Thurtle, E. |
| Dennison, R. | Lawrence, Susan | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Duncan, C. | Lawson, John James | Townend, A. E. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Lee, F. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gillett, George M. | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Gosling, Harry | MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Mackinder, W | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Greenall, T. | March, S. | Whitelev. W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Montague, Frederick | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Windsor, Waller |
| Groves, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton) | Purcell. A. A. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
| Hardle, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| division No. 365.] | AYES | [10.57 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Blades, Sir George Rowland | Campbell, E. T. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Blundell, F. N. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) |
| Albery, Irving James | Boothby, R. J. G. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart | Charterls. Brigadier-General J. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby) | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Christie, J, A. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Brass, Captain W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Apsley, Lord | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Clayton, G. C, |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Aster, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Briscoe. Richard George | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Brittain, Sir Harry | Conway, Sir W, Martin |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cope, Major William |
| Bainiel, Lord | Broun-Llndsay, Major H. | Couper, J. B. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Blown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Burman. J. B. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Cunllffe, sir Herbert |
| Better-ton, Henry B. | Butt, Sir Alfred | Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Daikeith, Earl of | Hume, Sir G. H. | Robinson, Sir T. [Lanes, Stretford) |
| Davidson,j.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Huntingfield, Lord | Ropner, Major L. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hurd, Percy A.' | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's) | Rye, F. G. |
| Davies, Ma). Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) | Illffe, Sir Edward M. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Jackson, Sir H, (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jacob, A. E. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Dixey, A. C. | Jephcott, A. R. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Drewe, C. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Savery, S. S. |
| Duckworth, John | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Livcrp'l, Exchange) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills, Westb'y) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Skeiton, A. N. |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Lamb, J. Q. | Slaney, Major p. Kenyon |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George H. | Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine.C.) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Smith-Carinoton, Neville W. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smithers, Waldron |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Loder, J. de v. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Looker, Herbert William | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Forrest, W. | Lougher, L. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sdon, E.) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Luce, Mai.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Weslm'eland) |
| Frece, Sir Waller de | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Stott, Lleut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Macintyre, Ian | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | McLean, Major A. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Ganzonl, sir John | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gates, Percy. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | MacRobert, Alexander M, | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Glimour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John | Maltiand, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Glyn, Major R G. C. | Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K. | Thomson, Rt. Hen. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Meller, R. J. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Merriman, F. B. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Gretton, Colonel Fit. Hon. John | Meyer, Sir Frank. | Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Guinness, Ht. Hon. Walter E. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Vaunhan-Morgan. Col. K. P |
| Gurston, Captain D. W. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Waddington, R. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Hanbury, C. | Murchison, C. K. | Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Welts, Dr. T. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Nelson, Sir Prank | Wells, S. R. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Nuttall, Ellis | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Headiam, Lient.-Colonel C. M. | Oakley, T. | Williams.. Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Oman, Sir C. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Heneage, Lleut.-Col. Arthur P. | Pennefnther, Sir John | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Penny, Frederick George | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Withers, John James |
| Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wood. E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Hilton, Cecil | Pleiou, D. P. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Hogg, Fit. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Preston, William | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Price, Major C. W. M. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Ramsden, E. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Hopkins. J. W. W. | Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington) | Young, Rt. Hon, Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Remer, J. R. | |
| Hore-Belksha, Leslie | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Colonel Gibbs and Captain Margesson. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Cape, Thomas |
| Ammon, Charles George | Broad, F, A. | Clowes, S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Bromfield, William | Cluse, W. S. |
| Barnes, A. | Bromley, J. | Compton, Joseph |
| Barr, J. | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Dalton, Hugh |
| Batey, Joseph | Buchanan, G. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Kennedy, T. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Duncan, C. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Kirkwood, D. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Lensbury, George | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan | Smillie, Robert |
| Gillett, George M. | Lee, F. | Snell, Harry |
| Gosling, Harry | Lindley F. W. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lowth, T. | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Greenall. T. | Lunn, William | Stephen, Campbell |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon) | Sullivan, J. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mackinder, W. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Grundy, T. W. | MacLaren, Andrew | Taylor, R. A. |
| Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | March, S. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton) | Murnin, H. | Townend, A. E. |
| Hardle, George D. | Naylor, T. E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Oliver, George Harold | Vlant, S. P. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Pethlck-Lawrence, F, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Hayes, John Henry | Ponsonby, Arthur | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Potts, John S. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Purcell, A. A. | Whiteley, W. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Riley, Ben | Windsor, Walter |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Saklatvala, Shapuril | |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Scrymgeour, E. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Scurr, John | |
| Kelly, W. T. | Sexton, James |
Second Resolution read a Second time.
§ Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
§ Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.
208§ The remaining Orders, were read, and postponed.