HC Deb 27 July 1926 vol 198 cc2014-47

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

Clause 22 is entirely new to the House. It was not in existence when the Second Reading of the Bill was passed. It refers to the conditions under which examinations take place for the grant of certificates of competency, first and second class certificates, in the management of mines. I can imagine no matter of greater importance to the well-being of the mining population or to the safe working of the mines than the examination necessary to find out the competency of those who are to take part in the management of the mines, and in the control of the lives of the miners. The whole question of the conditions of examination for those who aspire to become mine managers goes back more than half a century.

When the Second Reading of the Bill was obtained, there was no intimation that such a Clause was to be put in, and it seems to me somewhat unfair, to use no stronger expression, that the whole course of mining examinations and the experience that has been built upon half a century of mining conditions should be overturned, or should he liable to be overturned, at the will of the President of the Board of Trade, who may be a very admirable man but who in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him, will be purely a bureaucrat. Let me tell the House what happened in 1872, when the first great Coal Mines Regulation Act was passed. Up to that time, there had been a terrible accident rate in the mines. There had been many grievous explosions; the accident and disablement rate was terrible, and it was forced upon the attention of Parliament that men who might possess practical experience but who did not possess technical experience were not in themselves competent to undertake the management of mines, because of the absence of the joint qualification.

Practical experience is very good, and it is essential, but it is necessary to combine knowledge of gases, chemical knowledge, knowledge of mechanics, knowledge of chemical forces, and a hundred and one things which are necessary if a man is to be a competent mine manager, having regard, not merely to the product of the mine, but to the safety of the lives of the men. Therefore, a system of examination was set up, which recognised that those men who had been engaged in the management of mines inasmuch as they had given long years of service, should have a certificate granted to them. Fifteen years later, in 1887, a consolidating Act was passed, which strengthened the method of examination, increased very substantially the qualifications necessary, made the examinations more stiff, and called upon those who were aspiring to the management of mines to possess, not merely practical knowledge of a high degree, but technical knowledge. That was entirely on the right lines. Before any amending Act was passed, 24 years elapsed I am speaking of that of which I have first-hand knowledge, when I say that the Regulations at present existing in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911, are the result of joint agreement between employers and workmen. I sat upon the Committee and consulted for many weeks, while the Act was being passed through Grand Committee upstairs, with the coalowners upon the Regulations at present existing in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, which are the result of joint agreement between the employers and the workmen.

It may very well be said that that does not of necessity make the Regulations any better. In consequence of the highly improved and greatly raised standard of examination, five years' practical experience was made necessary in the case of those who did not possess an approved diploma or an approved degree. They had to put in five years' practical experience in the getting of coal and the working of a mine. If, however, a person has educated himself to such a degree as to be able to obtain a diploma from an approved institution or university he can have two years taken off the five, making three years in all, and for one year and seven months only out of these three years is it necessary for him to work in the mine at the face, or in direct supervision over the other workers. He need not actually get coal, but he must work in the mine. These conditions have had the result of bringing into the management of the mines a class of man as skilled in the management of mines as any class in any country on earth.

When we pay compliments, or rather when we speak the truth, we are asked, "How on earth is it that the mines are so inefficient if these men are so competent?" These men have nothing at all to do with the commercial management of the mines. They look after the ventilation, control the output, and the conditions under which the men work below and at the surface. They are almost wholly cut off from the commercial direction of the undertaking. The two qualifications, one which makes for high commercial success, and the other which makes for the safe conduct of the mine and the safety of the men below, are entirely distinct, and I say quite frankly that since 1911, when this examination was established on its present basis, we have developed a class of man in control of the underground workings of our mines that cannot be bettered by any nation on earth. Here, again, I suppose the Government will base themselves on the Commission's Report. It is really wonderful how, whenever it suits their purpose, they can find something in the Report with which to sustain themselves, but with equal celerity they can turn anything down in the Report which does not suit them. On this point, the Commission says: The managers and under-managers alike must hold certificates of competency, issued after examinations held in accordance with the Coal Mines Act of 1911, and Regulations made under the Act. For under-managers a second-class certificate is sufficient; the examination for this is required by statute to be 'suitable for practical working miners.' For managers a first-class certificate is required; there is nothing in the statute which, as for the second-class certificate, could he interpreted as excluding the application of any test of good general education, but by custom the examinations here also are purely technical. For both classes of certificates it is a condition of sitting for examination at all that the candidate should have had either five years' practical experience in mining, or three years of such practical experience if he holds an approved degree or diploma; half of this five or three years must have been spent in 'actual practical work' at the face or elsewhere underground, or in its direct supervision or direction.

Colonel LANE FOX

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the paragraph which follows?

Mr. WALSH (reading)

The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education who are likely to be drawn into the industry. In practice, entry into the managerial side of coal mining is made far from easy to men of general education not already having family connections with it. I will stop there. The Commissioners say that men of good general education find it far from easy to pass the examination that is set. That may be true of men like myself, who have not had a university education and who know very little beyond the rules of arithmetic, but there are hundreds of miners working below, who have never had a university education, who have never come within sight of a college, who themselves have passed the technical education required for a certificate as first-class managers, and how the Commissioners arrive at their conclusion that it is far from easy for a man of good general education to pass these examinations, I fail to understand. As a matter of fact, it is comparatively easy for a man with a good general education and the technical education required, and the only thing that is required is that they shall have at least one year and seven months' practical experience down below in order to acquaint themselves with the dangers and difficulties that encompass a miner's life. "No," says the Commission—perhaps it is the Government— "men of little education are to be brought into the management of mines; it is far from easy to men of general education'; we will, therefore, make it unnecessary, whenever the President of the Board of Trade is disposed, for them to have the practical experience."

Colonel LANE FOX

When did the Government say that?


I have not heard the Government say that, but I say that, as the Clause is drawn, the President of the Board of Trade has the power any time to vary Sections 9 and 10 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, after consultation with the Board of Mining Examinations. The Secretary for Mines knows that this Board is a child of his own, that it can be set aside by the President of the Board of Trade at any time—and he is the President of the Board of Trade in this instance. The Secretary for Mines is the operating authority, and he may, after consultation with the Board, vary or modify the provisions of Sections 9 and 10.

Colonel LANE FOX

What he suggested was that the Government proposed to do away with the qualification of practical experience. Nothing of the kind.


If I suggested that—and I hope I did not say that—what I meant to convey to the House was that the power was vested in the President of the Board of Trade to do so, if he cared to do it, and that the power contained in this Clause was purely bureaucratic. Hitherto the practice was dependent upon a definite Section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. That law was laid down after long deliberation and mutual agreement between employers and workmen, and this Clause provides that the practice at present is carried out in accordance with a definite law, will become entirely subject to the will of a bureaucrat. I am not saying that the bureaucrat is necessarily a bad person. Bureaucrats may be extremely amiable persons, and in the case of either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War or my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, I would not raise strong objection, because I feel that they would be animated by the best motives. But when a Labour Government comes in, how will you go on? How will this matter stand when such a disaster as that falls upon the country? In any case, is it denied that this power is vested in the President of the Board of Trade? It cannot be denied. You cannot argue that proposals of this kind passed in this House shall only be considered in the light of what good-meaning people may do. You have to debate these powers on the assumption that they may be exercised by ill-minded people.

For what purpose can this Clause have been introduced? My right hon. Friend admits it is not for the purpose of bringing in men of greater practical experience, or of higher technical knowledge. It is not to bring in men with these high qualifications combined in a high degree. It is to bring in men who have neither practical experience nor technical knowledge, so long as they possess that particular kind of liberal education which will satisfy the President of the Board of Trade for the time being. The statement of the Commission upon this point is not really a recommendation at all. Notice what they say: In coal mining, as in every other occupation, a balance has to be struck between the advantages of practical experience and those of ability and liberal education, between organising the industry so as to give a free avenue for promotion of exceptional ability from the bottom to the top and organising it so as to draw in, well above the bottom, men fitted to be its leaders. Whether, in coal mining, this balance has been rightly struck or inclines too much in the direction of favouring practical experience at the expense of general education, we cannot say, for we have taken no evidence upon the matter. We are deeply impressed, however, by the necessity of securing in this vital industry its full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation and of men of broad views and imagination.


Will the right hon. Gentleman read two more lines?


Yes. They continue: We are not certain that this is likely to happen under the existing regulations. We recommend accordingly—


The right hon. Gentleman might finish that sentence.


It is— We recommend accordingly that the Minas Department should at an early date take the regulations into further consideration from this point of view. But they do not say that the Department are to take the Act of Parliament into consideration. The Regulations could have been expanded or narrowed by the Board for mining examinations. I have sat upon the Board myself since 1912, and I know that we have shortened the period of practical experience and generally expanded the Regulations in other respects. It does not say here—even they in their backboneless and indeterminate manner do not say—that the Act of Parliament shall be overturned. They say that the Regulations governing the granting of certificates and examinations for certificates of competency are to he reviewed and taken into consideration from this point of view.

I do not wish to use any strong language, but this is a most reactionary proposal. If there is one industry on earth in which men of practical experience, combined with technical knowledge, are necessary for the safety of the men employed, it is coal mining. Terrible disasters which have taken place, even under the most skilled management, are too recent in our memories for us to agree easily to this proposal or to view without the greatest alarm a Clause of this character. A liberal education may he very well, and I suppose is very well, for the commercial management of great undertakings but in dealing with the dangers that lurk underground and with conditions involving the safety of tens of thousands of lives, you must have men of practical experience, men who know what the inside of a mine is and who have the necessary technical knowledge. A liberal education is good for many purposes but it is not good for the work of managing mines. Has there been any demand for this change by the employers of the country? Next to the workpeople they are most intimately concerned. I have had no consultation with one of them. I had consultations in past years with scores of them and Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1911 were agreed upon between the employers and ourselves. From that day to this not one single word of objection has been taken to those Sections of the Act, and I venture to say that not a single colliery owner has ever asked for those Sections to be altered. But here, in this indeterminate Report, which says that they have taken no evidence on the point, they recommend a certain course. In this is involved the safety of our people, and that alone is a fundamental consideration that ought to determine the Government to abandon the Clause. There has been no call for it on the part of the employers or even of men of liberal education. The workpeople, I am certain, are unanimously opposed to such a Clause, and, after all, it is their voice that ought to be the determining factor.


I suppose, even though I have no hope whatever that this Bill will do anything to reorganise the industry, I can be disappointed at the insertion of a Clause like this. It would be impossible for me to deal with the history of coal mining comparably with the manner in which it has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). I do not suppose there is any Member of the House, in any party, who has a more intimate knowledge of the industry than he has to deal with the legislation for that industry over a generation in this House. I am sorry the Government have inserted this Clause, and I hope that before we pass from the Report stage to-night, we may hear that they are not going to insist upon it. I make that appeal, even though I have no faith whatever in the Government or in this Bill to do anything in the direction of reorganising the industry. When this Bill had been passed in Committee a few days ago, one Member of the Committee, a very prominent Conservative Member, came to me and said: "This Clause is what I should describe as one to provide jobs for nobs." It would be impossible for me to give a more correct description than that of this Clause, which seeks to give power to the Minister of Mines or the Board of Trade to vary Regulations so that jobs may be provided for, I should say not only nobs, but snobs, because that is really what is contained in this proposal.

I have no objection whatever to the best possible education being given to anyone, and we are anxious to see that every facility is given in the way of education to those who are engaged in the manual side of industry, and of our own particular industry. I think it can be said that in that industry there has been a development which is incomparable with that in any other industry during the last five or six years. Let me give the House what is the position which is sought to be varied by this new Clause. In Section 9, Sub-section (2, b) of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, it is provided: That no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he—

  1. (i) is twenty-three years of age or upwards; and
  2. (ii) has had such practical experience in mining (either in the United Kingdom or partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere) as may be required by the rules for a period of not less than five years, or (in the case of an applicant who 2022 has received an approved diploma, or has taken an approved degree) of not less than three years; and
  3. (iii) has given satisfactory evidence his sobriety, experience, and general good conduct."
That is the Sub-section which applies to those who have to seek examinations to secure a certificate at the present time, and there are in the mines of this country thousands of men who have, through study and sometimes through great hardships to follow that study—men who have lived miles away from any means of transit, except walking, to their classes—won for themselves certificates in mining, and become surveyors, managers, and so on. I know a good number of men of that character, who are of the best in the management of mines, and if this Clause is to be carried, I should say that I know some others for whom this Clause is meant to provide, who have had that liberal education which has made them remarkable men, on paper, but thoroughly unqualified to take the management of a mine or of any portion of any industry whatever. It does not follow at all that, because a man has had a liberal education, as it is understood by the Government in this Clause, he is competent to manage a colliery, and I look upon this Clause, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince, as playing loosely with the matter of management and the safety of the men employed in this industry. There is nothing on earth that we feel more painful about than the fact that there are such a large death roll and such a large accident roll in the mining industry, and we say that we should not relax Regulations in this way simply to provide for a class of individuals who have no other qualification than that of having had a good liberal education to make them colliery managers.

I said just now that the miners have done a great deal with regard to mining education. It is only five or six years ago since the Miners' Welfare Fund was established, and the other day I put a question to the Minister for Mines to ask him how much of this fund had already been used for the purpose of mining education. His reply, given to me a day or two ago, was that the total amount allocated to date for the purpose of mining education was £540,805. I think that is a remarkable sum of money to have been allocated in the last five or six years for this purpose of mining education, and this year there has already been allocated for the same purpose from the Miners' Welfare Fund over £200,000. I do not complain—I am very pleased to know—that education in their particular industry is being taken up by those who work in the industry. I am very pleased to know that there are classes everywhere, that institutes have been established for the purpose of mining education, and that our county council education committees are finding, generally, good support for their classes in mining instruction. But what is going to happen? To-day I asked another question, and behind that question was this possible state of affairs, in my opinion, that many of these local welfare committees which have applied to the National Welfare Fund for a sum to support a scheme in their area will perhaps divert or change their scheme as a result of this Clause. That is what might happen.

Many areas in the country have applied for part of that £200,000 to provide mining education, being urged on by the young men working in the mines and by those interested in education; but when they see that these Regulations narrow the opportunity for them to become managers they will advocate other schemes, perhaps a recreation scheme or a nursing scheme, rather than the application of this money to mining education. As the Section of the 1911 Act has been working so satisfactorily I think it is preposterous for the Government to bring forward a Clause like this to weaken, and perhaps destroy, the growth of educational development in our industry. I am anxious that everything should be done to give young men who attend classes and obtain certificates the opportunity of rising from wielding the pick to positions of control. The idea of the Government is to reduce that opportunity; but I sincerely hope that the Government, realising the feeling of every one on this side who represents a, mining industry, will withdraw this Clause from the Bill. It is a most reactionary one, a most obnoxious one, and one which will not do anything to improve education or increase the possibility of protecting life and limb in the pits.

9.0 P.M.


I seriously suggest to the Government that, even at this late hour, it would be advisable, in the interests of the mining industry, not to press this Clause. The mover of the Amendment to delete the Clause, speaking from his long experience of the industry, outlined the advance in mining legislation from the Act of 1872 to the Act of 1887 and the Act of 1911. In the old days, before the appointment of officials in the mines was limited to men possessing a certificate proving that they had practical experience of mining, many of the men who held high and well paid positions in the industry, the nobs who got the jobs, were men of no experience in mining, and a great deal of the inefficiency and the lack of safety in those days was due to that state of affairs. The Acts of Parliament of 1872, 1887 and 1911 were passed as the result of the unanimous demand of the miners of Great Britain, supported by public opinion, for the measure of protection that would be afforded to them by the requirement that any man or body of men set over them in the management of the pits should be competent. One of the vital tests of competency is not their technical training in a university but their practical experience underground. If this Clause be allowed to go through, the President of the Board of Trade will have power, without coming to this House, to give a new definition of the qualifications required. The Commission say that at present the regulations debar a certain number of men of ability and liberal education from coming into the industry to organise it. It seems to be taken for granted that in the future the mining industry will be worked on a much bigger scale than in the past, and that with huge amalgamations and combinations there will be a more scientific system of working on the productive and utilisation side, and that we cannot recruit from the existing mining population, from either miners or mine managers, men who are fully equipped to undertake this work. I respectfully submit that we can. Our complaint is that there is no definition of what is to be the test of a liberal education. What is a liberal education? According to the Debates in Committee upstairs—


On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members to read in the House the latest news of the Test Match?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

It depends on the form in which the information is conveyed. It is not in order to read a newspaper in the House.


Interest in the Test Match is one test of a liberal education. One of the terms employed in the report of the Commission speaks of "a liberal education," and it is assumed that it means a university education. Are we to anticipate that in selecting men of ability and education one qualification will be a university education? Does one require to have been in residence at a university for a certain number of years, does one require a degree in the humanities or the arts and sciences, to be possessed of a liberal education? What is the test of a liberal education? A university education is no proof of it. As a rule a university education debars a man from having the broad mind which a liberal education bestows. Most of the, great minds this country has produced never had a university education. Shakespeare never had a university education. The man we were honouring last night, George Bernard Shaw, never had a university education. Many of the biggest men in the country to-day, as well as those of past generations, have never gone through a university, and venture to say there are many thousands—not a few hundreds, but many thousands—of miners working underground to-day who have had a more liberal education than many men in the universities. John Ruskin once said a man may read all the books in the British Museum and still be an uneducated man. What we are afraid of is that the President of the Board of Trade will propose regulations making a university training, or a certain number of years' residence in a university, the test of a liberal education.

I want to make it clear that we are not anxious that positions in the mining industry in future should be the preserve of those who are now in the industry. We will welcome any men of ability and liberal education who come in with those advantages, and who will be able to make the industry better in the future than it has been in the past; but I am opposing this Clause because the president will have the power to lay down what is to be regarded as a liberal education. It is much better to leave the law as it stands, and if there are men of ability and of a liberal education not now in the industry—not now connected with it by family ties, as is suggested in the Commission's Report—there will be scope for them to enter it and to assist in organising it without necessarily becoming managèrs of collieries.

The manager is the man responsible not only for efficiency from a commercial point of view of the productivity of the mine, but he is also responsible for the health and safety of the men in the mine. Therefore we want two types of manager, one possessing the engineering and the technical knowledge and the other abilities to be a captain of men. We want a man who understands the technical and geological side of the mine, and although you may get such a man from the university he may not necessarily he qualified to be a captain of men. There is plenty of scope for men to come into this business on the human side without making conditions such as are laid down in this Clause. Why cannot such men of ability as I have described have a seat on the board of directors, for they would he a blessing to the other members of the board, and they would introduce a little more human sympathy into the management. The difficulty is the lack of sympathy between the man at the top and the man who grinds every day in the mine. You could bring in these men through the board of directors, but do not lay down a condition that such and such a man is to become a manager simply because he has had a liberal education. Do not make the test that a man has been to Oxford or Cambridge, because that is no test of a man's ability or of his real education. There are in the coal industry plenty of men of ability and real education who could be recruited for the positions which the Commissioners have in mind. If it is thought that there are not enough such men then let them come in as members of the board of directors or let the board appoint men specifically as special advisers. There is plenty of scope in these various directions for men of ability without broadening the Regulations under the existing Mining Acts.

What will really happen will not be perhaps in every case, but in too many cases that favouritism will come in because the President will have the power to define a liberal education. The House is entitled to a definition as to what is to be considered the required ability and what is to be the real education provided for in the Regulation. I think we ought to see the Regulation before we are called upon to pass this Clause. I can assure the House that unless the Minister who is going to reply can tell us much more than was said by the Government in Committee on this point we shall still be dissatisfied. There is a real suspicion in the mind, not only of the ordinary miners, but among the men who are in managerial positions in the industry, that many of them will be actually shouldered by men who will be brought in under the method suggested in this Clause. By this proposal you are reverting to what was done in the past under the old conditions which applied prior to 1872. As miners we object to this and we hope the Government will reconsider this position and decide to withdraw this Clause.


I am in favour of this Amendment. I think this Clause which was introduced at the last moment by the Government is a very dangerous one. The meaning of the Clause, as I read it, is that, as far as Sections 9 and 10 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, are concerned, they can practically be abrogated or modified to any extent by administrative action. What are Sections 9 and 10 which are so to be dealt with? I understand that, after a long struggle, the miners succeeded in getting imported into that Statute a provision that managers and sub-managers and engineers, and all those in a superior position would not be foisted upon the men simply because they had had an academic training. As a result of length controversy and acute debate, these two Sections were put in which, in effect, said that the young gentlemen from Oxford and Cambridge, Sheffield and other districts should not be put over other men unless they have spent three years working in the pit. If men have not been so fortunate as to have had this academic education then they are to spend five years in the pit. It is very much the same in the legal profession, because, where a clerk becomes a solicitor, he has to have a longer apprenticeship than the man who is certified as possessing a certain amount of technical training.

What has been done in this case? This Bill contains a provision by which the advantages I have just enumerated can be entirely swept away by the action of the President of the Board of Trade. It is true that Sub-section (2) of this Clause says that the machinery for sweeping it away is somewhat of a protective character, but the President can of his own sweet will say to a young man from the University, "You need not, serve any practical apprenticeship at all." If a third of the miners make an objection then he has to send the matter before a referee, who can give any decision he likes. Therefore it comes to this, that these two sections which deal with the qualification of the men who are to be managers and govern the general body of miners, so far from being left as was intended to the view that Parliament felt to be necessary for qualification, is henceforth to be left to the view of the referee in the last resort. That is a very drastic and a very improper proceeding.

When one looks at Sub-section (1) it will be seen that it puts this matter rather innocently, "All we are asking is that some machinery should be introduced for removing the rigidity from Clauses 9 and 10 which we have in reference to other Clauses of the Act of 1911." What are the other Sections in the Act of 1911 which can be amplified or made more elastic by this administrative machinery? They are the Sections that have to do with Regulations for the safety of persons in mines and the good care of horses in mines. It is quite natural to give to a Minister or a referee power to deal with questions of the safety of horses and the safety of men in the mines, and, in fact, one wonders why it was necessary to put any Regulations at all into the Act of 1911. It would have been quite reasonable to say that, with regard to the safety of men and the care of horses in mines, it should be entirely a matter of regulation, altering from clay to day as the conditions change, and that the Minister could do it by Order in Council. But to say that that loose administrative method shall be applied to the qualifications of men who are to govern other men is a very different matter indeed.

I happened to be in the Committee at the time when this new Clause was proposed by the Minister, and I asked what was the meaning of it; what was the point of the proposal; what was intended to be done? If it were really meant that occasions might arise when it might be necessary quickly, before Parliament could express a view on the matter, to change the qualification for a manager, what put that into the heads of the Government? On consideration—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply will say whether I am entirely in the region of fancy or not—I saw that in Clause 18 of the Bill it was said that for the next two or three years, in the recruitment for the mines, a preference would be given to those who were at work at the time of the stoppage. That I regard as, shall I say, a sop to Cerberus. "We are doing a lot against you men, but this shows how friendly we are." That was put in, and nobody thought of the consequences of it for some days. Then, at the eleventh hour, the mineowners came to the Minister and said: "Do you know what the consequences of this recruitment Clause of yours are?" "No," said the Minister. "I will tell you," said the mineowner. "You see, at the present moment, if I want to get my son, or my cousin, or my friend to become a boss, a manager, a sub-manager, an engineer, or something of the kind, I have to put him to practical work for some years, and, now that you are giving preference, in a diminishing employment, to those who were at work at the time of the stoppage, there will he no Vacancy for him." "Oh," said the Minister, "we must not shut you out, and we will do two things at the eleventh hour, one of which will be a counterpoise to the other. We will put in, with a virtuous regard for the feelings of the heroes who have fought in the War, a Clause openly which says that this preference that is given to the men who were at work at the time of the stoppage shall not extend to these disabled ex-service men." They knew that that would be accepted by every patriotic person. But they also wanted to put in a provision that it should not apply to young gentlemen from the universities who also wanted to get in. "We will not," they said, "put that in openly, because, if we did, people would see what we were at. Therefore, we will use what, to the ordinary reader, are a number of algebraic signs" —and they referred to Section 86 and Section 117 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and Part I of the Second Schedule to that Act, which they said should have application to this Act. What they really meant was this: "We are now brought face to face, by the representation of the mineowners, with this difficulty that has been created by our sop to Cerebus, that we have shut out the way to our sons, and cousins, and nephews, and friends getting these nice billets that we intended for them, and, accordingly, we will put in this number of algebraic signs that will probably pass through Committee without anyone knowing what they will do—the Minister will just get up and say that this was merely put in to avoid rigidity."

They had something in their minds, and in my humble submission it was this. The Minister is now to be at liberty to say: "I would like to make this young man have practical experience as well as a university education, but I find that really there is no room for him in the pit, and so I will foist him upon you with this mere theoretical education." That was the notion. I do not want to delay the House too long, but it is astonishing that anyone, should get up in the presence of an assembly of common-sense individuals who know the world, and seriously argue, as I heard an hon. Gentleman in the Committee argue, before I had looked at the Clause and understood it: "Why place so much weight upon experience? After all, what you need in your manager, sub-manager, or boss of men, is that he should have a knowledge of the humanities, and be conversant with the big thoughts of the ancient writers." I myself had the misfortune to have a university education, but I also went through the world, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, if a man has to trust through life to what he has carried away with him from the university, he will be a poor thing. The only book that will teach a human being that tact, that sympathy, that discernment which makes him respected and appreciated by his subordinates, is the book of rife. No other book will do it, and .I therefore—


I am afraid this is getting rather far from the coal mines.


I am sorry. It may, perhaps, have been a little remote, but it was relevant logically. I, therefore, say seriously that we ought to reject this Clause. It is alien to the character of the Bill; it was not found necessary to import any such Clause to give symmetry to the original structure of the Bill. It is brought in at the last moment, and it is more likely to create among the miners. Their minds at this moment are filled with suspicion that the only voice listened to in the Cabinet is the voice of the mineowners. [An HON. MEMBER: "I think they are right!"] I am not saying whether they are right or wrong. Here you have now, quite foreign to the general purpose of the Bill, at the eleventh hour, imported into it a Clause which is perfectly meaningless, unless it is intended to do that which the miners have always rejected, foist upon them young men—excellent young men, no doubt—who have no practical knowledge of the work, and who simply use the cult and the accent and the academic learning which they bring from the university to impose a superiority that their knowledge of the busineses does not justify.


I have been surprised that the hon. Gentlemen opposite should have taken so strong a view against this Clause. The object of the Clause is to get the best brains of all classes with practical experience for mine managers. That is in direct accordance with the Royal Commission's Report. I am going to trouble the House with rather a long extract. Part of it has been quoted already. There have not been many speaking from this bench and there have been five or six from that bench. It is a matter of real importance. The Clause seems to be surrounded with a great deal of suspicion, and I really want to meet the case which has been made against it. I am more anxious to remove the suspicion than anything else in this connection, so I must make good the case from the Commission's Report. I want to get the best brains of all classes at the service of the industry. The Commission's Report says, on page 190: The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education who are likely to be drawn into the industry. That is their comment upon the present regulations, which are based upon the Act of 1911 which we are by this Clause seeking to vary. They say: Ws are deeply impressed, however, by the necessity of securing in this vital industry its full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation, and of men of broad views and imagination; we are not certain that this is likely to happen under the existing regulations.


Would the right hon. Gentleman mind reading the previous sentence which he has missed?


I do not want to read the whole Report. The previous sentence says: Whether in coal mining this balance has been rightly struck, or inclines too much in the direction of favouring practical experience at the expense of general education, we cannot say, for we have no evidence upon the matter. What they go on to say is this: We recommend accordingly that the Mines Department should, at an early date, take the regulations into further consideration from this point of view. The point of view is to get the full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation at the service of the industry. We have taken those Regulations into consideration. No one who has followed this Bill and its main objects, the assistance in the reorganisation of the industry and the creation of larger units, can fail to appreciate that, however good to-day's managers are, you ought not to restrict the scope from which you can get the managers of the future seeing that they are to have larger units and more and more complicated work to do. That is what we are trying to do by this Clause We are trying to remove the limits of the present law. Let us consider for moment what these limits are.

Under the Act of 1911 a man can get a manager's certificate if he has had three years in the pit or three years' experience and then has obtained either an approved diploma or an approved degree. That is the ladder upwards with which I entirely agree. I am not going to do anything which will take away the opportunity of those working in the pits to add to their practical experience a diploma which will give them the right to managers' certificates. I am not taking away. What I am hoping to do is to add to them men who start at the other end; not men who start in the pits, but men who start with a general education. The hon. Member opposite said they were snobs. Why should a man, who may be a miner's son or a son of other working men and gets a secondary education, goes to the university and then gets a degree in natural science perhaps, be deprived of getting the advantage of the three years' practical experience?


If he gets an approved degree or an approved diploma, one year and seven months' practical experience would be sufficient.


That is what he does not get. If he gets a degree in natural science, it is not an approved diploma and it is not an approved degree. As the Bill stands now, an approved degree is a degree of any university approved by the Secretary of State which involves training in and knowledge of scientific and mining subjects. I suggest to the House that it is very unwise that a man who has gone through, we will say, a secondary school has gone to the university and has got a high degree at the university, perhaps in natural science and chemistry, should be shut out from using that degree as a stepping stone to a manager's certificate unless he also has five years in a mine. What I would suggest is that both ends of the ladder should be put into operation so that the man could have his three years' practical experience first, and also that he could go in the other direction, get his degree first and then have three years' practical experience and be qualified.


Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the medical service will permit any man with any degree unless he has a degree in medicine to practise as a medical practitioner?


That is really not in the least parallel.


Yes, it is.


The hon. Member is entitled to think so. I submit that a man with such an education as I have suggested, who has three years' practical experience in the mine, is just as well qualified as the man who starts with three years, perhaps, as a pit boy or in the mine, and gets a. diploma in the course the hon. Member opposite has described.




We have the Third Reading still to come. We have had four or five speeches from the other side, and hon. Members might listen to one at least on this side. We ought to remove what is at present a limitation on the class of people who can get mine managers' certificates in that one way. One hon. Member has pointed out that the Minister is to be entitled to make Regulations. That is true. They are Regulations which will be subject to the provisions of the Mines Act of 1911. He has had that power in other directions for the last 15 years, and no one has complained. They are not Regulations which he can make without review. Every party who is affected by them has power to appeal to the referees, independent persons appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and if there is anything in the Regulations to which anyone can reasonably object, he can appeal to the referee appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not much care about legislation which includes Regulations which enable any Minister to vary an Act of Parliament. I frankly say that is not a form of legislation I very much like, but on the other hand, here in the mining industry it has been the practice for the last 15 years, and all we have done is to follow the practice which has been established there, and to put the Regulations the Minister can now make subject to exactly the same checks and safeguards as already exist. Hon. Members opposite now complain that in some way or another this is going to deprive men who are working in the mines of a reasonable prospect by their industry and education of rising to the position of managers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says that, and I am sure he believes it. Let us see what that means.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

We know it by experience.


Not yet, because the experience has not been had. Really what that means is that if there are two competitors for the post of manager, one coining direct from a university plus the practical experience subsequently gained, and the other competing after having gone through a previous course of experience first plus the diploma that is conferred, that man will be beaten by the man coming in the other direction. If that were the case—I see no reason why it should be—it means that he wishes to keep less skilled men, less well-educated men, less good men in a position which they cannot hold in competition with better men. I do not believe it is the case, but I am certain it is unwise to shut out from these positions any man who can qualify by both theoretical and practical experience. It is not reactionary; it is opening the door to talent, and I hope the House will not be misled, because I feel certain if there is greater competition—and I hope there will be—it means that better results will come from the better brains that are brought into the industry.


It appears to me the Government are approaching this Clause from an entirely different angle from what they have approached any other clause in the Report. The Report has made a good many suggestions, and a lot of the suggestions it has made have been left out of the Bill. One of the reasons for leaving them out was that sufficient time and care had not been given to them, and therefore it was not possible to embody them in the Bill until that time and care had been given. But the Government appear to have turned the question round as regards this Clause. In spite of the fact that the Commission say they do not recommend this because they have given little or no thought to it, and have taken no evidence upon it, the Government think it worth while to include such a Clause as this in the Bill. If it was good business to leave out other suggestions the Commission have made because they did not know enough about them, it would have been equally good business to omit this Clause, because on the Commission's own evidence they do not know enough about it. In the next place, what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the difficulty of a University student or a man who had a liberal education getting to be the manager of a mine, is not so great as he has tried to picture. The Report reads: The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education. I want to know, why should it? The right hon. Gentleman suggests, in order to prove his point, that it is the son of the worker who may have had the university education and may want to become a manager, but I suggest that they have not put this Clause in for the son of the worker. It has been put in for the sons of other people than workers, and in order to get these people manager's jobs without the necessity of going down a pit and having any practical experience. That is a part of the business that they do not relish, and it is intended to give the President of the Board of Trade power to cut that part of the business out. But supposing a young man does come from a university. What is to prevent him from becoming a manager, supposing he holds a diploma in natural science? Even then in the three years time that will be necessary he would be able to get, in addition, the university diploma connected with mining, and also to put in the practical experience that is necessary. He could complete both within the three years time, as a matter of fact if he had only been down the pit a year and seven months out of the entire three years. If it is possible for working lads brought up in the pit, working the whole of their time, to put in hours of study and to get a manager's certificate, why should it not be possible for a young man coming from a university to put in his practical experience and at the same time gain his mining diploma, which would allow him to have only to nut in three years of practical work? There is nothing to stop it, and if these people are so eager to come into the mining world, there is no reason why they should not have the practical experience in addition to the university education.

Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that one of the reasons for the decay of our industry is because the managers and the people in the high positions are not in sufficient personal touch with the men who have to perform the necessary work. This provision is going to carry that out still more. It will be possible for a man from a University to become the manager of a mine, or a higher official, without having had any experience of working men, with no personal touch whatever with them. It will be possible for a young man from the University to come into one of those posts without having known anything about working men, except those who have blacked his boots or touched their hats and called him "Sir." Such a man would probably be the man who would make the biggest failure in the business, mainly because be would lack the personal touch which personal experience would have enabled him to obtain. The Commission's Report says: In practice, entry into the managerial side of coal mining is made far from easy to men of general education not already having family connections with it. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there may be something in the question of family connections. There is no doubt that influence with those people who are connected with pits does have something to do with the appointment of men who are not the fittest men for the posts to which they are appointed. If the Government had restricted their operation into an inquiry into the question of how far family connections have put men into managerial posts for which they are not fitted, I do not think they would have found much opposition from this side of the House. I do not think there is any industry in this country which has a greater number of men working in it who have a finer technical knowledge of the industry than those in the mining industry. There are to-day thousands upon thousands of working men, holding certificates of competency, who do not stand the slightest chance of ever getting a job. If the door were to be open in the direction this Clause is going to open it, the opportunity of getting a job of any description will be more difficult in future even that it has been in the past.

I suggest that, while we may throw the door open to anybody, it is not too much to ask these people that, in addition to having a liberal education, they should have some practical experience before being allowed to take up a manager's position. I know some of the time, thought and labour which thousands of these men, working themselves up from the bottom, have put into this business, going to work for five or six days a week in probably the most arduous occupation in the land, spending their evenings at a night school, may be getting a scholarship to attend a local college at weekends, perhaps for three, four or five years, and then eventually gaining certificates of competency. There are to-day thousands of these men who find it impossible to get jobs, men who are as competent to take managerial posts as any man could be who came from the university with the most liberal education which could be imagined. If you are going to circumscribe these men in getting jobs, where they prove themselves efficient, by allowing men with liberal education to come in without any practical experience whatever, you are making the position of these men infinitely worse than at the present time. Because of that, we are asking the Government to reconsider this question, and to withdraw the Clause even at this late hour.


I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will yet see his way to withdraw this Clause, which has met with such strenuous opposition from Members on the benches on this side of the House. The Minister pointed out that the only object they had in view in inserting a Clause of this character was that there might he a higher degree of efficiency. I want to point out to the Minister in charge that the Members on this side of the House are just as anxious as he or anyone is to have as high a degree of efficiency as possible. Many Members on this side of the House have spent the greater part of their lives in the mining industry. They are still closely connected with that industry, and want to see it in as flourishing a condition as possible. We want to see the men who are to handle this industry as highly equipped as it is possible to have them. But the difference between the Secretary of State for War and Members on this side of the House is that we do not consider a man can be properly equipped to handle the mining industry unless he has practical experience in the mine.

We believe that practical experience is absolutely necessary for the man who has to handle an industry which has more danger connected with it than any other industry in the country. We believe that in order to take the necessary precautions to insure the safety of life and limb in this industry, the men to be in charge should have both practical experience and technical education. That is why some of us fought so strenuously in 1911 in order to get the two Sections in the Bill of 1911, which the Secretary for Mines, by this reactionary Clause, is destroying. All the arguments which the Secretary of State for War produced tonight were put forward 15 years ago against the insertion of those two Sections. Notwithstanding that the Government of that day took up the same position as the Government are taking today, we had mining men on both sides of the House joining together and inserting those two Sections. Not a single Member representing the owners on the other side of the House has said a word tonight regarding the Bill. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War has laid down the law to those people.




When no-one but the right hon. Gentleman himself has spoken from that side, it makes us very suspicious that the right hon. Gentleman has laid down the law. We were more fortunate in Committee. One or two took part, including the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and he gave the show away. He told us, that unless an Amendment of this kind were inserted in the Bill, the men who were receiving university education would have to wait, and they were not likely to wait for 12 years for one of the higher posts in mining. That gave the whole show away. It simply means that we are having a reactionary proposal of this kind put into the Bill for the special purpose of enabling the sons and relatives of those families who are engaged in mining to get the higher posts. These higher posts are at the disposal of the directors of the various companies and it is their own sons or their relatives who are to be put into these higher posts so that there is no competition at all. I would not fear the result if there were fair competition. A man who has been trained practically and technically in the work would easily secure the post in fair competition, but this is simply appoint- ment by favour of the directors of some of the mining companies, and the tragedy of the whole matter is that these higher posts are given to men by favour while our men's lives are at stake all the time. If there was only competition we should have no fear at all.

My final word of protest is this: this is not a question of competition at all, it is a question of reserving for certain families the higher posts in the mines. Within recent years scientific development has meant the creation of higher posts, and this Bill will mean the creation of still higher hosts. But these posts are to be reserved for certain people, and the men who have spent their lives in mining and who have taken, trouble and who have spent time and who have made sacrifices in order to qualify by practical experience and practical attention are to be kept in the lower posts, and the higher posts are to be reserved for the men who have passed through the universities and who have had no practical experience and no knowledge of mining. Their only qualification is that they have had a university education. I am not one of those who are against a university education. I want people to have the highest education possible, but a university education without practical experience is of no use at all for the mines. You might as well send people to a university and give then a general education and then appoint them to one of the big medical posts. You might do the same in regard to law. You might give a man a general education at the university and then make him Attorney-General or Solicitor-General without his having any practical legal experience or practical training. This is one of the most reactionary proposals in the Bill. I am not very sure that the Minister of Mines was very well aware of what he was doing. I would like to know who was behind him in making such a suggestion. The man who made that suggestion was no friend of the mining industry. I would like to know who was behind the Minister for Mines, whether it was a coalowner or not.

Colonel LANE FOX

The Royal Commission.

10.0 P.M.


It is very amusing to hear the Secretary for Mines or the Secretary for War or any member of the Government quoting the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When the Prime Minister intimated that this Bill would be introduced, he described it as a Bill to put into operation the Report of the Royal Commission. But it is a mere shadow of that Report. The essential things in that Report are not in the Bill. No attempt has been made in the Bill to put into operation the Report of the Commission. If the Minister of Mines is not prepared to withdraw this Section, I hope hon. Members will be guided by men of practical experience in mining, and that they will oppose these reactionary proposals which will only make for worse evil in the mining industry. I hope that there will be a sufficient number of supporters in the Division Lobby to enable us to defeat the Government if they are not prepared to withdraw.


May I ask hon. Members on the Government side before voting for this Clause to consider carefully all its implications? It seems very unfortunate that in a Bill brought in with the avowed intention of settling the dispute in the mining industry the Government should have introduced a Clause which can have no other result than to foment suspicion and to cause discontent and suspicion of the Government attitude to be even stronger than it is at present. As hon. Members and right hon. Members on this side associated with the industry have said, there is nothing which fills the miners' minds, or indeed the minds of any other workers, with more secret fear and doubt and dissatisfaction than when they see young men without experience brought into positions of responsibility in the industry. It is represented to us that that is the cause of the class bias on the part of the workmen.

I think hon. Members must delve rather deeper into the matter than that. When the workman whose life is involved in an industry finds that the higher control of that industry on which his living depends and, in the case of the mining industry, his actual safety and immunity from danger, is placed in the hands of people who have no other qualification except that they come from a certain limited class of the community and have a certain pull with the people who have the appointment to these posts, it simply means that you are absolutely putting a stopper on any progressive interests that the workmen can take in the industry at the present time. You are now going to put into the Bill a Clause which abolishes the workman's only safeguard against this great injustice. If the Secretary of State for War really wishes to do away with the suspicion which now exists he is going hopelessly wide of the mark in this Clause, and if hon. Members opposite are really sincere when they say that they want to do away with the suspicion in the minds of the mine workers that they are not getting a fair deal from this Government then, surely, a Clause like this which has no meaning whatever and which is not going to restrict to any extent the number of men available for these posts, should not be allowed to pass into law. Everyone who knows anything about the minefields knows that there are many men already fully qualified with diplomas who are unable to obtain the posts to which their diplomas and their knowledge entitles them, and therefore it is no good pretending that you have to rush this Clause through in order to throw open a field to still more men to obtain diplomas in order to obtain the position to which their diplomas entitle them. I would ask hon. Members, who are going to vote in the Division Lobby on this Bill, to consider whether it is wise to leave this Clause, which can only be a quite unasked, unrecommended and unsolicited class bias, in an Act which they claim, with very little justification, to be a conciliatory Measure on their part.


I would like to say a few words on this proposal, because I represent probably as many miners as any Member in this House, and I know the feeling among the miners, among those young men who have spent their limited leisure and scanty opportunities in equipping themselves to occupy the higher posts in the mining industry. I am not one of those who despise or profess to despise a university education. It has always been a matter of regret to me that I never had a chance of going to a university. At the same time I do not regard a university education as a full education. I do not believe that education consists merely of accent. I believe that a man trained in a university is only half equipped, and that full education means education of brain and hand combined. That is the fullest type of education. I know that men with a university education usually deride it, but that they take great care that their children get it and, therefore, I think that what is good enough for them is good enough for me. This is going to be an opening for men with an exclusively university education to the detriment of men who have not had that advantage. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. T. Williams) that it ought to be possible for a man coming from a university to earn his mining diplomas while he worked at the coal face, as it is for the miner to earn his diplomas coming from the bottom. The university man starts with a fully equipped mind and has a greater advantage, therefore, than a man who starts with only an elementary school education. Surely with that advantage this opportunity ought not to be taken away from the man at the bottom.

It is curious to note than the Government, in all the proposals they are making, when they come down to those of a positive character to deal with this coal crisis, have selected exactly those particular things which the men resent the most. This particular Bill does not exactly bristle with suggestions of a positive or mandatory character. There is much of a permissive character in it, too much so far as we are concerned, and it is therefore curious to note that this particular matter is not permissive but is mandatory. The same thing applies to the Government's proposals with regard to the Hours' Bill. Where there has been anything touching the owners it is permissive, but where it touches the men it is mandatory and positive. That is

the wickedness of the whole proposal that all the things affecting the miners are of a particularly positive character. This, for instance, is positive and there is nothing permissive about it. Everybody knows that, all things being equal, the class bias will tell in the appointment of mining managers. The pull will be on the social side and against the other side. It is a scandalous thing that the Government should now take away the poor little advantage that was given to the men some 15 years ago.

It is in line with many of the Government's other proposals. They are going back, they are retrograding. The men will resent this as much as anything that is done in this Bill. They have learned by bitter experience that the class to whom it is proposed to extend an additional privilege is the class that has done its level best to defeat them by every retrograde step in its power and by every despicable means possible. The miners regard this class, which is to be helped to occupy these positions, as a class that has blacklegged them. I am not sure that the Government and the owners are not in league to provide themselves with a class which is inimical to the miners from every point of view. I want to add my protest to those already made on this side, and I want my protest placed on record to show that we, on this side, did our level best, both men who are miners and those who are not, to protect our people against the injustice you propose to do them by this Clause in your wretched Reorganisation Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 130

Division No. 406.] AYES [10.12 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Betterton, Henry B. Burman, J. B.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Campbell, E. T.
Atttoll, Duchess of Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cassels, J. D.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Braithwaite, A. N. Chapman, Sir S.
Balniel, Lord Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Briggs, J. Harold Christie, J. A.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Brocklebank, C. E. R. Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Clarry, Reginald George
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Clayton, G. C.
Berry, Sir George Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby) Cobb, Sir Cyril
Bethel, A. Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cotton, Major Wm. Phillips Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major William Hums, Sir G. H. Rentoul, G. S.
Couper, J. B. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Huntingfield, Lord Rice, Sir Frederick
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hurd, Percy A. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hurst, Gerald B. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Croakshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Illffe, Sir Edward M. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rye, F. G.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Jacob, A. E. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sandeman, A. Stewart
Dalkeith, Earl of Jephcott, A. R. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Savery, S. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) King, Captain Henry Douglas Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Knox, Sir Alfred Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Shepperson, E. W.
Drewe, C. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Duckworth, John Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Skelton, A. N
Eden, Captain Anthony Little, Dr. E. Graham Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ellis, R. C Loder, .J. de V. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Elveden, Viscount Looker, Herbert William Smithers, Waldron
England, Colonel A. Lord, Walter Greaves- Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera Sprot, Sir Alexander
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir la Richard Harman Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Everard, W. Lindsay McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Macintyre, I. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Falle, Sir Bertram G. McLean, Major A. Storry-Deans, R.
Fielden, E. B. Macmillan, Captain H. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Forrest, W. Macquisten, F. A. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Foster, Sir Harry S. MacRobert, Alexander M. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Foxcrott, Captain C. T. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fraser, Captain Ian Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Frece, Sir Walter de Merriman F. B. Templeton, W. P.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E Meyer, Sir Frank Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Galbraith, .J. F. W. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Ganzoni, Sir John Moles, Thomas Tinne, J. A.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Moreing, Captain A. H. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Gower, Sir Robert Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Grace, John Murchison, C. K. Waddington, R.
Grant, Sir J. A. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nelson, Sir Frank Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Greene, W. P. Crawford Neville, R. J. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Grotrian, H. Brent Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Watts, Dr. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Wells, S. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Nuttall, Ellis Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hanbury, C. Pennefather, Sir John Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Harland, A. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Haslam, Henry C. Perring, Sir William George Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hawke, John Anthony Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wise, Sir Fredric
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) Pielou, D. P. Wolmer, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Pitcher, G. Womersley, W. J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Power, Sir John Cecil Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Hills, Major John Waller Preston, William Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hilton, Cecil Price, Major C. W. M. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Radford, E. A. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Raine, W. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Holland, Sir Arthur Ramsden, E.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Rawson, Sir Cooper TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Rees, Sir Beddoe Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Barnes, A. Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Ammon, Charles George Barr, J. Bondfield, Margaret
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Batty, Joseph Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Bromfield, William Hayes, John Henry Smillie, Robert
Bromley, J. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, G. H. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Buchanan, G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cape, Thomas Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Clowes, S. John, William (Rhondda, West) Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) Sullivan, Joseph
Compton, Joseph Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Jones, T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Cove, W. G. Kelly, W. T. Thomas, At. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Dalton, Hugh Kennedy, T. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Davies, David (Montgomery) Lawrence, Susan Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lee, F. Thurtle, Ernest
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Townend, A. E.
Duncan, C. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dunnico, H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Varley, Frank B.
Fenby, T.D. March, S. Viant, S. P.
Gardner, J. P. Montague, Frederick Wallhead, Richard C.
Gibbins, Joseph Morris, R. H. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gosling, Harry Oliver, George Harold Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Owen, Major G. Welsh, J. C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Westwood, J.
Greenall, T. Paling, W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Whiteley, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Wilkinson, Elien C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Potts, John S. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Grundy. T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Ritson, J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) Salter, Dr. Alfred Windsor, Walter
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton) Scrymgeour, E. Wright, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scurr, John Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Sexton, James
Hardie, George D. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Harney, E. A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Shiels, Dr. Drummond Charles Edwards.
Hayday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)