§ Mr. DALTONWhen the consideration of this Bill was interrupted at 8.15 I 2448 was submitting to the Committee the principle that where the State gives a guarantee to a private enterprise it is only reasonable to ask that the public shall participate in the assets created. Under the procedure of the principal Act and also this amending Bill, the State undertakes a number of risks which would ordinarily be run by a private company, and it is only reasonable to ask that the State should participate in any new value created. We give a valuable guarantee, in some cases amounting to 3 per cent. of the capital created. I notice that the ordinary shares of some railway companies yield 8 per cent. to the investor. If a railway company got a guarantee under this Bill it would enable it to borrow money at 5 per cent., and, therefore, any company in a similar position to that of a railway company would be able to borrow at 3 per cent. cheaper as the result of this guarantee. In return for a gift of this value I submit that the community is entitled to some quid pro quo.
Let me say a word or two about the cost of the guarantee to the community. It is the fact that this guarantee is costly that makes it only reasonable that the community should receive some equivalent to the asset created as the result of the guarantee. It is sometimes supposed that the only cost to the community of this form of finance is the risk that the community may have to pay the capital or interest, or both, in the event of the enterprise proving unremunerative. I submit that is only part of the cost.
The greater part of the cost exists in the depressing effect on national credit of this kind of finance. We are proposing to add £5,000,000 of guarantees to the existing £70,000,000, a total of £75,000,000, leaving out of account the export credits. The effect of this is to create a large number of additional new gilt-edged securities. Securities guaranteed under this Bill become as good as War Loan, or any other form of trustee stock. The effect on national credit is that the gilt-edged securities market is overstocked, national credit is depreciated, and the Government has to borrow at a higher rate of interest than it would otherwise have to pay, owing to the fact that private enterprise is able to compete with the Government in the gilt-edged market. The Chancellor of 2449 the Exchequer, I presume, has been considering the possibility of funding the Floating Debt, and also the problem of meeting the Debt which will mature from year to year. The Floating Debt now is £700,000,000 which will all need to be funded sooner or later, and, the sooner the better in the interests of national credit. The maturities of other debts within the next four years, which must he met, amount to over £1,000,000,000. All that will have to be met by our reborrowing. I submit that the effect of this legislation is to depreciate national credit by making it more difficult and costly to fund the Floating Debt on the one hand, and to convert maturing debt to a lower level of interest. The result of that upon our national balance-sheet in future is likely to be shown in an increase in the interest charged on the debt above what would have to be met if these guarantees were not being given. In view of this burden which is imposed on the national credit and on the community by this legislation, it is high time that the community obtained some quid pro quo to balance the decrease in national credit.
When this case was put by some of my hon. Friends in relation to the beet-sugar subsidy, the then President of the Board of Agriculture, who has since been appointed Viceroy of India, was able to meet the argument only by saying that if the argument were accepted it would he a form of Socialism. That might well be. But these guarantees are a form of inverted or perverted Socialism, in which the community foots the bill and the power of communal credit is being used for the benefit of private enterprise without any return being obtained in a direct form. For that reason, if you go half way you ought to go the whole way. The truth is that the public finance at the present time shows enormous public debts and practically no public assets to set against them. The balance sheet of capitalism is a bankrupt balance sheet so far as the public finances of the country are concerned. [Interruption.] I thought it was common knowledge, until my argument was interrupted. Whereas the National Debt is not far short of 8,000 millions, the national assets are not far above nil.
§ Major KINDERSLEYDoes the hon. Gentleman not consider that our credit is a slight asset?
§ Mr. DALTONOur credit is a great asset, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done me the honour to listen to my previous remarks, he would have heard that my complaint was that our credit is being depreciated by this form of finance, and that as a result we must look to some counter-balancing advantage on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThat argument may be good, but I am afraid that there is slender foundation for it in this Amendment.
§ Mr. DALTONI am sorry that I have been led by the interest of hon. Members opposite in my argument to develop it, as you say, to a rather large extent. Putting the matter in a nutshell our contention is that we should begin at once the large process which I have indicated, by at any rate creating some public assets under the shelter of these guarantees to be set against the enormous public debts which at present overbalance the national balance-sheet.
In the earlier part of my remarks, I suggested there were various ways in which this Amendment could be given effect if it were accepted. We might have a condition that every concern which received a guarantee, should be required to set apart a certain number of shares to be owned by the public, the interest on which should go into the public Treasury in the form of annual revenue. That I think would be quite a satisfactory solution, so far as we are concerned. Failing that, I have no doubt the ingenuity of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can devise many alternative ways in which, if he is prepared to accept the principle we are putting forward, it can be carried out in practice. My contention is that where the enormous power of State credits and guarantees, with the whole taxable wealth of the country behind it, is set in motion for the benefit of particular favoured private concerns, those private concerns should be required as a condition of obtaining guarantees to render some quid pro quo to the community by the setting apart of some portion of the added wealth which they are able to create by means of those guaran- 2451 tees, for the benefit of the community, in the form of publicly-owned assets.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in the larger aspects of the question which he endeavoured to open—an endeavour in which he was promptly frustrated by the Chairman. I do not propose to examine his proposition that the balance-sheet of capitalism is a bankrupt one. I do not think it necessary to do so, as long as we are punctually paying the interest upon the National Debt. Nor do I think it necessary to suggest, in reply to him, the possibly awful condition we might be in if we had an opportunity of testing what a Socialist balance-sheet would be.
§ The CHAIRMANI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not develop that argument further, or the effect on our bed-time may be serious.
§ Mr. WALLHEADPromptly frustrated!
§ Mr. McNEILLI am interested to know why this Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). His is not the first name which stands on the Order Paper in support of this Amendment. I do not know whether it was an act of political patronage or of generosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in whose name the Amendment stands, that he allowed the hon. Member for Peckham to take his place as the Mover of the Amendment, but my very suspicious mind suggests another reason. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) moved an Amendment in almost identical terms last year, when a similar Bill was before the House, but he probably knew quite well that if he moved it to-day my researches would have brought out the fact that, while he moved this Amendment last year, he was careful not to do it in the one year when he could have given effect to it.
It is certainly remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a distinguished ornament of the Socialist party, should have refrained from doing anything of the kind when he occupied the position which I am in to-day, and 2452 when he could have not merely moved the Amendment but accepted it. The next comment I have to make on the Amendment is that the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have carefully refrained from, suggesting how this device can be carried out. The hon. Member, no doubt feeling a difficulty in the utter and complete vagueness of the Amendment, throwing out a mere suggestion that somehow or other, but he had not the slightest idea how—
§ Mr. DALTONI think I stated—in fact, I am certain I did state—that the obvious way of giving effect to the Amendment would be that every private enterprise enjoying the benefit of the guarantee should be required to allot a certain number of shares which should be owned by the State, and I went on to say that there might be other alternative methods which the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman himself might suggest, if he preferred them.
§ Mr. McNEILLI am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but I was so much attracted by his compliment to myself when he so kindly threw upon me the responsibility of, by my ingenuity, discovering how to give effect to his Amendment, that I am afraid I overlooked the suggestion he appears to have made in the earlier part of his speech. According to the hon. Member, what he suggests is this, that wherever a guarantee is given to some undertaking under this legislation, the State should acquire a certain amount of the capital in that concern. I suppose that what he means is that it should hold a certain amount of ordinary shares in the company. Well, of course, there are examples known of cases in which the State has done that. The State, interested in certain great undertakings, has from time to time acquired a certain holding in the share capital. The most conspicuous example of that, of course, is the Suez Canal, but in the few cases where that has been done, it has been done for totally different reasons from those in the minds of the hon. Member and those who support him. There is no analogy between the holding by the State of Suez Canal shares and the holding of the share capital in ordinary undertakings to be guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act.
2453 Great questions of policy, world-wide policy, and strategy, and matters of that sort come into account there which are entirely absent in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. What he is suggesting is that we should acquire a certain amount of the ordinary share capital wherever we have given a guarantee. The first answer that I have to make to that is that it would entirely defeat the object which we have in view in this legislation. The object we have in view in giving a State guarantee to help and encourage certain undertakings is for the purpose, and the sole purpose, of creating or encouraging employment. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were carried out it must involve a certain amount of control by the State; for I do not think he suggests that the Government could possibly hold share capital in an undertaking without either incurring responsibility or undertaking control, and the effect would be that, instead of being an attraction to the ordinary directors of the undertaking, giving it encouragement and help, we should simply frighten them away from making the application, and we should consequently defeat the very object that we have in view.
I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee to-night in showing how disastrous it would be if the Government were to undertake control in the sense that would be involved if this proposal were carried out. Those hon. Members who have read the Debate that took place upon this subject last year will not have forgotten the very remarkable speech that was made on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), in which he showed, with a unique knowledge of these commercial matters, the difficulty that would be involved in the mere elementary project of securing directors who would represent the Government in order to carry on the necessary control. I commend to the attention of the hon. Member and those who are associated with him the speech to which I have alluded, which I must say is perfectly conclusive on the disadvantages that would be incurred if we were to embark upon this system of control by the Government of ordinary commercial undertakings. It would involve, as he pointed out, practically a paralysis of the directorate of the great undertakings 2454 which we desire to help, instead of promoting their prosperity and the employment which that prosperity would give.
There is another reason which I should like to suggest. How does the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him propose to earmark the benefit which an undertaking derives from the guarantee? The Government give a guarantee by which a certain amount of capital is procurable in the market at a rate rather lower than the undertaking could secure without that guarantee. Thereafter the undertaking, we will say, succeeds, profits are earned, and employment is given; but there is no way of saying exactly how much of the increased prosperity is due to the guarantee. You cannot separate it from the success which the undertaking would have had even if there had been no guarantee at all, and therefore it is impossible to say that so much is due to the guarantee, and there fore so much, or such and such a proportion, is legitimately due to the State in virtue of that guarantee. Unless you can do that, I cannot see that there is either justice or logic in the proposition, stated generally, that because the State gives a guarantee it is entitled to this particular form of asset which the hon. Gentleman proposes to appropriate. And, of course, he is entirely mistaken, if I may say so, in assuming that the State does not get a fair proportion of the prosperity as it is. If in consequence of the guarantee an undertaking is carried on prosperously and employment is given, the result comes back to the State in the form of taxation. We get a return in Income Tax, and in Super-tax if there is sufficient profit. Therefore, it is not at all true to say or suggest that the State is merely giving something to these private enterprise undertakings, and getting nothing in return. The State is getting something in return, and my suggestion to the Committee is not only that it gets something, but that that return is an adequate and a fair return for what the State gives to these undertakings.
We are not subscribing here to capital. We are not making grants out of the Exchequer. All that we are doing is by the use of the national credit to enable these undertakings to raise capital for themselves in the ordinary Money Market. It is quite a fair and adequate return that the State gets for that by the natural 2455 increment which comes into the Exchequer through the prosperity of that commercial undertaking. Therefore I see no reason whatever for accepting an Amendment of this sort. I hope I am not going to say anything offensive, or anything that hon. Members will consider insulting; if I say that I detect the flavour of Socialism about this. Further, I would say to hon. Members that this is one of a long series of Acts of Parliament, starting in 1921. We have had these Acts renewed ever since, from year to year, practically in the same form. Apart from anything else, it would be utterly out of reason that now, when I confess—I have already confessed—that I hope we are nearing the time that we shall be able to dispense with this legislation altogether—I think it would be absurd that we should now, for the first time, depart from the principle upon which the sum of £70,000,000 have been guaranteed because we have to guarantee another £10,000,000 this year—that we should introduce an entirely new, fatal, mischievous and, to my mind, a radically wrong principle, that is, the principle of Socialism.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given expression to a view of benefit conferred by the Trade Facilities Act, and the guarantees that. I venture to say, will not be recognised anywhere outside the House of Commons. He appears to think that there is nothing conferred by the State; that the guarantee is not capable of being assessed. If there is anything that you can assess more accurately than another in the commercial world it is the Money Market. It is well known that the concerns which have obtained these guarantees have been able to get their money at less cost—at 5¼ and 5½ per cent. while if they had borrowed in the Money Market it is doubtful if they could have obtained the money, in some cases at all events, lower than 8 per cent. The amounts would have been advanced in many cases have been so enormous that it is doubtful whether anyone who had the money to lend would have granted it had it not been guaranteed by the State. The benefits can be assessed accurately. They are known by everybody who takes the 2456 trouble to look into, or who has intimate knowledge of the business concerns. It does not matter what may be the class of business that has received the benefit of these guarantees. Those who are in them know perfectly well the exact value of the guarantees that have been granted. The first point made by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot measure accurately what is the benefit of the State guarantee has no foundation in fact.
§ Mr. McNEILLOf course I did not suggest for a moment that you could not assess the difference between the rates of interest at which you could form, with and without the guarantee. What I meant to say was that allowing for the difference—whatever it might be—it was not possible to ear-mark the value to the company of the use they made of the money.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman there Take the case of one of the most recent guarantees, which amounted to £2,500,000 I have not the least hesitation in saying that the company would not have got their money at anything less than 2 per cent. more than it has cost them under the guarantee. The exact amount that is added, therefore, to the net revenue of that concern is 2 per cent. on £2,500,000. The amount is not only ascertainable, but it is perfectly well known, and it can be shown by any accountant who takes the trouble to go into their accounts year by year. The next point made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the State at present gets an adequate return, and that adequate return is the taxation which is taken by his department out of the profits of the various companies. If that adequate return be a justification for the granting of a guarantee, there is no reason why guarantees should not be universal. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would never think of proposing that; indeed, I know he recognizes the fact that as we are returning almost to the normal, the time is rapidly approaching when we should get rid of the guarantees altogether. But if there be an adequate return, why get rid of them? The adequate return argument of my right hon. Friend is not enough. We ought to see, when we are granting these privileges and making these gifts to various 2457 selected companies, that the State gets full value for the gift it confers. The only justification the right hon. Gentleman has for recommending these grants without any provision being made for the State to participate directly, is that they do provide employment for those who otherwise would have no work.
I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman would carry that, but I have said in the House before, and I repeat it to-night, that that contention is based on the theory that credit in this country is a purely elastic commodity, that it may go up to any figure you like, whereas it is strictly limited. Let me give a single illustration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, within the comparatively near future, will be considering refunding operations. He wants to refund a good deal of his debt on a cheaper basis. If there is not in the City of London or elsewhere a very large margin above the immediate amount that he requires for refunding, a large amount of available credit, or capital as it is sometimes called, for reinvestment, it is quite certain he will not be able to do this refunding at a lower rate of interest. But if the right hon. Gentleman is, by floating those loans under guarantees, to soak up out of the available funds which are in the hands of private individuals, or insurance offices, or financial corporations, the money which is available for investment in trust securities, he will have all the less left as a margin for his refunding operations. That is a practical illustration of the truth that credit is a limited commodity, and not an unlimited commodity; and the right hon. Gentleman is gradually taking more and more of this commodity out of the market and earmarking it for certain specially selected concerns, selected not on any sound economic principle, but selected largely because of the pressure which can be brought to bear in one direction or another, or the dramatic skill with which the case is put before the Committee.
That kind of commendation of this scheme, without any adequate return for the State, is now out of date. There was a time when we were prepared to pay a great deal to tide over the purely temporary hardships. That time is passing away, if it has not already passed away, and what we see now is that every time 2458 the guarantee is given in one direction it means that less work is provided in another. A case was brought before the House quite recently by my hon. friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) in which he pointed out that the guarantee given in the case of Kent coal was actually going to reduce the amount of employment in South Wales and Northumberland and Durham, so that in fact, we shall add nothing even under the head of employment to the benefits the State has bought by these guarantees. The truth is that by giving a guarantee in one direction you may be creating favourable conditions in one part of the country and unfavourable conditions in another part and at the same time you may be diminishing the number employed in the same trade under more favourable conditions as in the case of South Wales, the Midlands and Durham in the coal industry. That kind of illustration shows that you do not get an adequate return by way of increased employment because while you may be providing more employment in one district, you are diminishing it in another.
This is equally true with regard to some of the other trades. Take the case of the shipping industry. Even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this proposal would not think of pressing the point that when orders for a couple of ships are given to firms on the Clyde, Belfast or on the East Coast under a trade guarantee, those ships would not otherwise have been built because those firms are executing those orders ahead of the usual programme, whereas under ordinary circumstances the orders are given just in advance of requirements. In one instance money has been guaranteed for a new shipping line between New York and South America in competition with two English lines already established. You may have had a few extra orders from this new line but you have diminished the number of orders which must have been placed by the two lines together, and this is simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other, and the adequate return under the heading of employment is not present. If you cannot get an adequate return of this expenditure out of the taxes or out of employment then you must devise some other scheme whereby the State gets full value for the gift it confers. That is a 2459 consecutive argument well worthy of the consideration of the House.
The mover of this Amendment asked why the State should not have a certain number of the ordinary shares in these concerns which it has financed and the Financial Secretary dismissed the suggestion as though it was a novel idea. I cannot think, however, that it was so absent from the right hon. Gentleman's memory as he leads us to suppose, because he must have been aware of the case of the Deutsche Bank which always took good care when providing cheap money for great concerns in Germany to get some return by holding in its own name a large number of shares. This was also done by other banks on the Continent and it was attempted in this country in one case with disastrous results. The proposal which has been made from the front Bench opposite would not make quite certain that the state would get full value for its gift although it would have a chance where the enterprise had been successful, and I cannot see anything particularly wrong in that. I am not a socialist but I am an individualist, yet it makes me somewhat indignant when I see the State giving great financial benefits and getting nothing in return. As an individualist I dislike seeing these advantages conferred in one quarter and not in another and in some instances they are detrimental to the interests of the nation as a whole. This system of giving British credit is creating increased competition among our own people. There is a matter which comes under the Board of Trade to which I wish
§ to refer, and that is flag discrimination against the British mercantile marine which reached an unknown height in Italy at the very time when the Government made a large gift to an Italian shipping firm. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Dalton) would propose to deal with the case of the Italian Company to which I have just referred. Would he say that the British Government should hold shares in the Italian limited company? I can only suggest that if they did so they might not be quite sure of getting as full a dividend as they would under the British flag. There really, however, is only one reply to the proposal made from the Front Opposition Bench, and that is that, if the State is not going to get a full return for the gift it confers, the State ought to cease making the gift. On every ground we can say quite justifiably that, as you do not like the alternative proposed from the Front Opposition Bench, and can bring forward no complete argument against it, the proper thing to do is to nave an end made to all these guarantees, and terminate the Trade Facilities scheme at the earliest possible moment—to wind up these artificial means for trying to create employment in one direction when you are only diminishing it in another, and not to yield to the temptation offered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench to socialise British industry.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes. 90; Noes, 198.
2461| Division No. 79.] | AYES. | [11.42 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Graham D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton) | Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm(Edin., Cent.) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Greenall, T. | Kennedy, T. |
| Barr, J. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lawson, John James |
| Batey, Joseph | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, John James |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Groves, T. | Mackinder, W. |
| Broad, F. A. | Grundy, T. W. | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Bromfield, William | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maxton, James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hardie, George D. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Buchanan, G. | Harris, Percy A. | Montague, Frederick |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hayday, Arthur | Paling, W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hayes, John Henry | Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Henderson, Right Hon, A. (Burnley) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hirst, G. H. | Potts, John S. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Purcell, A. A. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Duncan, C. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Riley, Ben |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | John, William(Rhondda, West) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thurtle, E. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Townend, A. E. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Snell, Harry | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) | Varley, Frank B. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Stamford, T. W. | Wallhead, Richard C. | |
| Stephen, Campbell | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Taylor, R. A. | Warne, G. H. | Mr. Barnes and Mr. Benjamin Smith. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pielou, D. P. |
| Albery, Irving James | Grotrian, H. Brent | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Preston, William |
| Astor, Maj Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Raine, W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Harland, A. | Ramsden, E. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Remer, J. R. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hartington, Marquess of | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Haslam, Henry C. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hawke, John Anthony | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hills, Major John Waller | Sandon, Lord |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hilton, Cecil | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Savery, S. S. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Holland, Sir Arthur | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W) |
| Burman, J. B. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Jephcott, A. R. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Christie, J. A. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lamb, J. Q. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Cope. Major William | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Couper, J. B. | Loder, J. de V. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Looker, Herbert William | Templeton, W. P. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Lumley, L. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) | MacIntyre, Ian | Tinne, J. A. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Macmillan, Captain H. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Wells, S. R. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Neville, R. J. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Forrest, W. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nuttall, Ellis | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Oakley, T. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Pennefather, Sir John | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Penny, Frederick George | |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson. |
§ Mr. LAWSONI beg to move in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that no further guarantee shall be given under the said section one in respect of any loan for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, whilst promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea it is scarcely necessary for me to make further explanation of the object of my amendment. As the Financial Secretary has said, the object of the Trade Facilities Act is to Add to the sum total of employment in the country, and to that extent and in so far as it does that, I think there would be no Member of the House who would not support it. But from the illustration the right hon. gentleman gave and from the cases which have been given in this House, it has been shown to be a fact there there are cases where the guarantees have been given in which while they would seem to create employment in one part of the country they would actually reduce employment in another part.If I may deal for a moment with the Kent illustration, here is a guarantee given for the development of a coalfield, and I wish to say, as far as I am concerned, if the circumstances and conditions were normal, I would sooner see the average miner living amid the natural surroundings of Kent than I would see him living in the grimy and gloomy conditions and climate that most of the miners have to live in, I would say further, and I say it after careful thought, that if you are going to have those conditions repeated in Kent—and we have no definite guarantee that they are not—well, Kent had better be inundated altogether, for it would be much better for the people concerned there.
At the time this guarantee was given for the development of the coalfields in Kent, the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry was sitting. Here is a position created whereby a Commission has to sit because there is a great lack of employment in that industry. They say here in the Report—which those of us who have stood in the queue at the Vote Office now 2464 have—that the depression in the British coal export trade is, in the main, part of the general depression affecting almost all European coal-producing countries, and the excess of supply over demand is caused partly by the impoverishment of our customers, partly by the development of new coalfields, and partly by the increased use of substitutes. The coal-owners themselves, in their proposals, suggest that 100,000 men will have to leave the coal industry. It is at this particular time, when the whole country is awaiting this Report on the coal industry, that, without regard to the Royal Commission, the Treasury Committee actually guarantees £2,000,000 to the Kent Coal Company for the purpose of developing that coalfield. It was evident that the result must be that if the Kent coalfield is developed at a time when the coal subsidy is being taken away, if we carry out the proposal of the Commission, that we shall be probably closing collieries with good plant, while this new company would be developing the Kent coalfield, with a £2,000,000 State guarantee behind it. In Kent they have about 1,000 men working. They have taken skilled men from here and there and they have taken their unskilled men from the surrounding districts in Kent. As the coalfield develops, they will take a few skilled men from other coalfields, may be from Wales, may be from the North of England, and they will clear the land of labourers in Kent, and also take unskilled labour from the surrounding industries. The guarantee given for the development of the Kent coalfield will have the effect, if it is successful, and that is saying a big thing in regard to the Kent coalfield, of closing mines in South Wales or in Durham. It will leave the population there derelict, while in Kent there will be overcrowding in parts.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTDoes the hon. Member suggest that the mining industry is so attractive that men will leave other walks of life in Kent in order to go into coal mining?
§ Mr. LAWSONI am not suggesting that it is so attractive, but I am suggesting that the agricultural industry and its wages are not attractive. Housing conditions are already acute. I may be told that this is not in order.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is in order on the question of unemployment, but if he goes into the housing question, that would be a proper matter to raise in Committee of Supply. It is a matter for administration by the Department concerned.
§ 12.0 M.
§ Mr. LAWSONMy point is that if this Company is to employ more men who are to be brought from other parts of the country, they will have to provide housing accommodation. Already from the North of England and from Wales men are going to other coalfields. There are no houses for them, and there is overcrowding to a dreadful extent. Many houses in these new areas are being turned into boarding houses. Some of the difficulties which have arisen are due to the fact that the thing which a Britisher loves, and a miner as much as anybody—his home—is made an impossibility.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment is to insert the words.
Provided that no further guarantee shall be given under the said section one in respect of any loan for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, whilst promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.The point which the hon. Member is making, a matter concerning the social conditions of the people, is one which it would be only proper to raise in Committee of Supply but is irrelevant to this Amendment. The hon. Member is quite in Order in giving the example of Kent from the point of view of employment or unemployment elsewhere, but I have the suspicion that the Amendment is put down in order to discuss the question of social conditions. That would be out of Order on this occasion.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay it not be argued that one of the consequences of the development of the Kent coalfield is that it necessitates taking away labour from other parts of the country and causing unemployment in other parts, and would not that argument be perfectly valid?
§ The CHAIRMANIt appears to me to be valid in the other direction—that more employment would be created by the houses that are to be built. That is a question which can only be argued from the employment point of view on this 2466 occasion, and not from the point of view of the social conditions.
Mr. BECKETTThe hon. Member is arguing that this extension of Government facilities should be used for the purpose of providing better housing conditions in Kent, and surely that is in Order on the main question providing employment.
§ Mr. STEPHENI would like to submit in this connection that what my hon Friend has in view is that it would have the effect of taking away men from one district to another, men like plasterers, and consequently it would create more unemployment in other trades in the districts from which they were taken. In Scotland plasterers have been taken from one district to another, with the result that bricklayers and joiners have been thrown out of work.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is difficult to see how that part of the argument is relevant to this Amendment. It can wait until we get into Committee of Supply.
§ Mr. PALINGMay I point out that there is a great lack of houses in the Doncaster area now, and if these houses are to be built in Kent while there is still a lack of accommodation in other coalfields will it not create more unemployment?
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid not. Economic arguments as to the shifting of employment from one part of the country to another, and as to social conditions would not be relevant, on this Amendment, which is solely concerned with the question of the balance of employment, in this instance in the coal industry, in one part of the country compared with another.
§ Mr. LAWSONI accept your ruling. It is obvious that there is a living connection between the questions of employment and housing at the present time. We said, when Captain FitzRoy was in the Chair and my first Amendment was ruled out of Order, that we were going to take the opportunity of speaking on this Kent business, because it is a very important matter and there has never been an opportunity for the House to consider it. I do not think that the House ought to allow any business organisation to have a guarantee which is not going to give any employment at all, but is in 2467 practice going to aggravate unemployment in other parts of the country. There are many instances that could be given by Members of the House. This proposal is made at a time when there are very grave conditions in the mining industry, and help is to be given to Kent, of all areas in the country—Kent which, when there were good prices for years and after they had found coal, could not make any progress. This guarantee is brought forward when there is not work for good seams elsewhere, for good pits with good plants. Why Kent should have the benefit of this £2,000,000 guarantee, which will create unemployment in other parts of the country, passes the comprehension of a humble person like myself. Here is a quotation from the "Times" in 1912:
The first commercial deliveries of Kent coal. The vast wealth of Kent's great coalfields enters on a new era of commercial development. Miners are now taking coal from the veins, and more men are being added as fast as extensions of working are made ready for them.That was in 1912. The extract sounds very much like the wonderful articles of a fortnight ago that were the result of the boom given by this guarantee. I trust that the House of Commons, in this and other cases, will take steps to see that the Committee which grants these guarantees is properly controlled by this House, so that when they propose a guarantee under an Act which sets out to give more employment, they give the money definitely for that purpose and not for any other purpose. Certainly, as far as Kent is concerned, the primary consideration in giving this guarantee was not employment. I trust that the Amendment will be accepted. If it be not accepted, I am not particular as long as we get some definite undertaking that the Committee will be controlled by the House of Commons, and that the Committee will carry out definitely what was the original purpose of this Trade Facilities Act
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSI support this Amendment, on grounds which are perhaps, slightly wider than those suggested by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I do so in order to ask this Committee to register a caveat, as it were, against the Trade Facilities Committee granting loans to competitive industries at home. Trade 2468 facilities may be all very well for building bridges in Africa and undertakings of that sort which may provide work for our people here, but where they are used to create competitive business at home, then, as the Mover has said, they are simply causing employment in one place and unemployment in another. This proposal has the same evil as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whose scheme for dealing with unemployment was that unemployment pay should be used to subsidise an industry against its home competitors. That, I understand, was the chief objection of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has said, the present proposal is undoubtedly a proposal for a subsidy, and in the case of the Kent coalfield the subsidy will be, at least, £50,000 a year. It is also open to the objection which hon. Members on this side have urged against Government factories. Hon. Members opposite have asked: "Why not use the war factories for making boots?" Our reply has been: "If Government factories make boots, they will drive the people of Northampton out of employment." These proposals, in relation to competitive industry at home, have the the same evil. On these grounds, I feel they are wrong, and we ought to register a definite protest against them. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he smelt Socialism in the last Amendment. Some of us here have keener noses, and we smell Socialism in the whole of this Bill. As to the actual proposition in regard to the Kent coalfields, the Mover of the Amendment has referred to the history of this matter. I think the Government are going in for a tremendous gamble in this connexion. Such little experience as I have had in the coal trade has shown me that if there is a good proposition of this kind, the money is found without going to the public. If it is necessary to go to the public, the proposition is risky if it is necessary to go to the Government, the proposition must be hopeless. If this Kent scheme succeeds, it is going to be in competition with existing coalfields; if it fails, the taxpayers are going to bear the loss. I feel so strongly on this matter that I, personally, consider myself bound to vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLMy hon. Friend who has just spoken, supports the Amendment because he feels strongly that this legislation—especially having in view the Kent coalfields guarantee—even if it gives employment in one place, will create unemployment in another. The mover of the Amendment has also taken that view. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest that it would not be a very disastrous result, or at all events, a useless and futile result of this Measure if it were to cause unemployment in one place while giving employment in another. But what I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is: How in the world do they think they are going to affect that matter by this Amendment? Let me call the attention of the Committee to what the Amendment proposes. No guarantee is to be given, according to the Amendment,
for the purpose of any capital undertaking which, while promoting employment in one part of the United Kingdom, is calculated to aggravate unemployment in another part.Calculated by whom?
§ Mr. THURTLEBy the facts of the case.
§ Mr. McNEILLCalculated by whom? The mover of the Amendment must have somebody in his mind. There must be some tribunal. You must have somebody to decide that point. Does the hon. Member mean—[Interruption.]—I cannot carry on a dialogue with half-a-dozen Members at once. There must be somebody to decide whether or not the effect will be to cause unemployment in one place while giving employment in another.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt might be the Ministry of Mines in this case.
§ Mr. McNEILLThat is not suggested in the Amendment. If it were in the Amendment, I could deal with that point, but I am dealing with the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, and I am pointing out that the Amendment as it appears on the Paper is utterly futile and would have no such effect as that claimed for it by the party opposite. As a matter of fact, the existing law is exactly what the hon. Member is trying to make it by this Amendment. It is the law, under the Act of 1921, that no guarantee shall be given if it is calculated 2470 to aggravate unemployment in another part of the country. The Amendment is utterly unnecessary, for the original Act lays it down that the loan, if there be a loan guaranteed, must be calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom. Obviously, it does not promote employment in the United Kingdom if, by promoting employment in one place, it makes a corresponding or increased amount of unemployment in another place. The only people who can calculate what the effect is likely to be are the Members of the expert Committee which is set up under this Act. It is quite true that the judgment of that Committee, like that of every other committee, may be liable to error, and that that Committee, in deciding on a given scheme, might not in every ease concur with the hon. Member opposite. I am not concerned to say whether or not in a given case the expert knowledge and judgment of the hon. Member might not be quite as good as the knowledge and judgment of the Committee, but we cannot get away from the fact that we may have differences of opinion on this point. All that I am concerned to do, in dealing with this Amendment, is to show that it does not carry the case one iota beyond what the existing legislation has already done, and that, if it were put in the Bill to-morrow, it would have no effect whatever.
Let me say just a word or two about the Kent coal case. I must say that the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite filled me with astonishment. Anyone listening to him who knew nothing what ever about our conditions would have thought from the hon. Member, with his great knowledge on these subjects, that it was quite clear that in England at present there can be hardly any unemployment, because his argument was that if you start a fresh undertaking in Kent—and it does not matter, from this point of view, whether it is with a Government guarantee or not—if you open up a new coalfield in Kent, so fully employed are all the people in the coal mining industry all over the country, that you cannot sink another pit without drawing off employed people from somewhere else.
§ Mr. LAWSONThat was not my argument.
§ Mr. McNEILLIt is all very well for hon. Members to jeer at that, but really I think that is a perfectly fair inference from the language which the hon. Member employed. I am going to submit the contrary. I do not profess, of course, to have a hundredth part of the expert knowledge on the subject that the hon. Member has, but I really suggest that it is common knowledge that in a great many coalfields of the country there is a very large amount of unemployment at the present time. Then why in the world should unemployment be created, in Wales or Durham or Scotland or any other coalfield, by the opening of a coal field in Kent? Might it not be that, if this Kent coalfield goes forward and becomes a success, it will draw off unemployed people from other parts of the country and give them employment? I submit that that is precisely the object of the guarantee, and that that will be the effect of the guarantee. [Interruption.] I really can not carry on an argument with half-a-dozen hon. Members at the same time, especially as, unfortunately, I am unable to hear what any one of them says when a number of them are speaking together.
§ Mr. LAWSONI thought I had made it clear that my own suggestion was that, if you are going to relieve unemployment at all, it is a question of taking people in communities. At present, what has happened in Kent is this, that they have taken a skilled man or two from different collieries in different parts of the country, and they have taken men off the land and from other industries round about Kent for doing the unskilled work.
§ Mr. McNEILLAs far as the workers in the mines are concerned, and so far as my knowledge goes—and I know something about it, because my own constituency is in that part of the country, although it is not immediately concerned, and I hear something about what is going on—in point of fact, the development is only just beginning. It is quite true—and I suppose it is always true in such cases—that where an industry of that sort is started, there is a certain amount of unskilled and lower paid labour from the land or elsewhere that is drawn into the higher paid industry, and I do not know that hon. Members opposite would object to that. I think that is inevitable, and I 2472 am not prepared to say it is not desirable; at all events, it is an advantage to those who, by the advent of an industry of this sort, procure better work and wages. But you cannot judge of a great work of this sort from its mere pioneer condition. The mere surface is being scratched in the development of the Kent coalfield, in which 250 square miles of coal-bearing seams are now known to be workable. I do not know, and no one can say, exactly what degree of unskilled and what degree of skilled labour will be required. I do not know enough about the industry to say, but I think it is quite clear that you cannot pretend that a great undertaking of that sort can go forward, with new pits being sunk and, as they are sunk, worked, without giving employment. The hon. Member's case is that employment can be got by drawing people away who are employed elsewhere.
§ Mr. LAWSONNo.
§ Mr. McNEILLIn that case, then, I think there is not much dividing us. If the hon. Member does not take that point of view, he perhaps agrees with me that a great many men will find employment in this undertaking, and if they are not to be drawn away, as I apparently wrongly understood him to mean, from employment elsewhere, it means that they are to be drawn from the unemployed, and I think that that is probably what the actual result will be. There is no need to go into the details in regard to the merits or demerits of a particular undertaking. Speaking on the Financial Resolution I reminded the Committee that in 1921 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day laid down—and I think rightly—the sound principle that in the selection of the undertakings that were to obtain the benefit of the guarantee that the Government and the Treasury were going to stand aside so that the Committee might carry out their work. What I do submit is that we in the House of Commons are not the best judges of the merits of a particular undertaking, and as to whether or not it should be granted the guarantee. Apart from the general criticism of legislation as a whole—I am not dealing with that at the moment and I am assuming that this legislation has to stand—I really do suggest, whatever may be our view on occasion of the Advisory Committee, that we shall arrive 2473 at better results by accepting the decision of the Committee than we shall do by attempting by ourselves to judge the particular merits of the undertakings about whom a great many of us have very little knowledge and about which we are not likely to arrive at any very great agreement.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESStatements about the Kent coalfields require to be received with care, as when we are told that there are 250 square miles of seams in the coal measures which have been discovered. There is considerable disagreement on the part of the experts in the matter. The expert of the Government Department estimates that the total quantity of coal may run to 2,000,000,000 tons. Professor Stanley Jevons, in his book, "British Coalfields," estimates the minimum quantity to be at least 6,000,000,000 tons, and suggests that it may be as high as 9,000,000,000. Here you have the experts disagreeing with such a huge gap between them. Then I would remind the Committee that this coalfield is unique in the history of British mining. There is no other coalfield in Great Britain like it. British mining has developed in the past 200 years very, very gradually from the coal seams that were the outcrop near the surface, and we have gone deeper and deeper into the coal measures to develop the coalfields. This has been known throughout the coalfields for centuries, but in the case of Kent no one dreamed there was coal in Kent 100 years ago. It was only in 1846—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think the actual merits of the coalfield in Kent come under this Amendment at all.
§ Mr. JONESI thought I was entitled to show that the Kent coalfield was unique geologically and in its physical features, because that has a very important bearing upon whether it can absorb miners unemployed in other coalfields. It is a fact that nobody, not even the mining engineers in the few Kent pits working, know approximately what amount of coal is there.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss the merits of the coalfields in Kent. Kent can be used as an illustration only.
§ Mr. JONESThe number of miners that can be employed in any coalfield is very 2474 accurately estimated by the output, and it is borne out by the Report of the Committee. Four thousand miners working regularly produce 1,000,000 tons a year. In Kent, after 35 years development, there are 1,500 employed. As yet Kent has given little scope for employment. But assuming that it will develop on the most satisfactory lines, is it public policy for the Government at the present time to guarantee this £2,000,000 to Pearson and Norman Long to develop this coalfield for the specific purpose of finding employment? That is a matter of grave public policy in view of the present state of the coal industry and the onus rests upon the Government to prove that the development of the Kent coalfields will bring new markets and will absorb Kent coal without injuring the established coalfields which can produce coal at the same price and quality as is produced in Kent. That is a vital question of employment or unemployment to the coal mining industry. It is obvious that the Kent coalfield, with all its pits developed, cannot produce coal at as low a price, and of as good a quality, as the established coalfields of Great Britain.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWith regard to your ruling, Sir, you ruled the first Amendment out of Order and I think you then indicated that you were prepared to allow some latitude on this Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI said the question of the Kent coalfields might be used as an illustration and an illustration only. The hon. Member is dealing with another matter. Obviously if we discuss the merits of every industry to which a guarantee is given we shall never get to the end of this debate.
§ Mr. JONESI submit that forty Members of this House are ex-coal miners and 30 or 40 represent constituencies in which miners are a considerable proportion of the electorate. We therefore demand to know what is the policy of this Government in finding work for the unemployed 200,000 miners in this country. I want to point out that the only prospect of increased employment in the coal industry, if there is a development of the Kent coalfield, is to increase the world demand for British coal.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is all very well in its proper place, but it does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. JONESI will come to another point that does obviously bear upon this question and the aggravation of unemployment by the development of the Kent coalfields. Two hundred thousand miners are out of employment. If you develop the Kent coalfields, you will increase the total quantity of coal produced in this country, and you can only sell that coal, with a restricted market, by keeping out coal produced in other coalfields. In so far as you increase the output of coal in Kent, you are correspondingly reducing the output from other British coalfields, at least, in the same degree as you are finding employment in Kent. If you allow that kind of thing to go on, you are not only standing still, but going backwards, because you are creating more unemployment. We have no guarantee that the mine owners will only employ skilled miners in the Kent pits. They will be tempted, and will in future put on people who have never been down a mine before. They will employ the labour which is cheapest, while at the same time people are unemployed in the established coalfields. The development of Kent coalfields is going to aggravate unemployment, and is also going to increase the so-called inefficiency of mining operations, because the Kent coalfield is undoubtedly the most difficult coalfield in this country to develop.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe shall have plenty of discussions on the coal question without beginning them now.
§ Mr. JONESThis £2,000,000 is a guarantee of public money behind a private company which would not have developed that field without this guarantee.
§ Mr. ALBERYThe Amendment says "no further guarantee." The hon. Member is discussing a guarantee already given.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERWhile very anxious to get the proceedings conducted in accordance with the ruling of the Chairman, if, on an Amendment of this character, we are not enabled to say, from 2476 the experience of the guarantee given to the Kent coalfied, what we want to be prevented, it is futile to continue the Debate. I hope you, Sir, will allow much greater latitude than we have yet had.
Mr. RICHARDSONThis £2,000,000 guarantee to the Kent coalfields is going, in the long run, to be a wild-cat scheme They will never get their £2,000,000 back. Why should we not discuss that?
§ Mr. MARDY JONESI am not quite sure that the Government have given a guarantee, because, according to the White Paper, it is a statement of the guarantees which the Treasury have stated their willingness to give up to 31st December, 1925. That does not mean that they have given it. I want to find out from the Treasury whether it is too late for them to withdraw that guarantee altogether in view of the critical state of the coal trade.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI ruled the first Amendment out of Order as outside the scope of the Bill and obviously I cannot allow it to be discussed on this Amendment.
§ Mr. JONESMight I draw attention to the Financial Resolution bearing on this point, which states that the aggregate capital amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed under the Acts, is £70,000,000. The period during which the guarantees may be given will expire on 31st March, 1926, but then it goes on to say
It is estimated that after 31st March, 1926, authority for £5,000,000 of guarantees will be unused.We want to find out whether the £2,000,000 is in the £5,000,000 unused, and, if it is not too late, to get the Government to stop this guarantee for Kent. It goes on to say:It is proposed to extend the period during which the guarantees may be given to 31st March, 1927. It is further proposed to increase the total of £70,000,000 to £75,000,000.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member in reading from the White Paper issued as a statement on the Money Resolution. When the Money Resolution was under discussion, that would have been the time for him to make his speech, but not now.
§ Mr. JONESThen may I approach the question from another standpoint? I observe from the Royal Commission's Report, which has been placed in our hands this evening, the Royal Commission recommend—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot go on arguing with the hon. Member. Everything that is common property is not necessarily subject to discussion in this House.
Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order. Surely if any document is issued to Members of this House which contains paragraphs bearing on the matter under discussion, we are entitled to quote them. As you have not yet heard what the hon. Member was going to quote, you cannot—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order.]
§ Mr. JONESIf it is contrary to the Rules of Procedure to quote the Royal Commission's Report, we will have our satisfaction at the week-end. May I point out that it is relevant to this issue, where the granting of this £2,000,000 aggravates unemployment in another part of the country, to point out that the demand for British coal throughout the world has been reduced very seriously: In 1914 the British coal supply was 9.8 per cent of the world's demand, in 1924 it was 8.4 per cent., and in 1925, the last year for which we have the data, it fell to 7 per cent. How, therefore, can the Government, in the face of the reduction in the demand for British coal, deliberately guarantee public money to increase the output of coal and thereby to increase unemployment, which is bound to follow therefrom? I respectfully submit to the Government that they ought to come out of their shell. The Financial Secretary 2478 is like an oyster. We cannot open the oyster. We want to find out whether the contents are good or bad, and whether they contain the traditional pearl or not. If the Government are determined to develop the Kent coalfield along these lines, will they give us some guarantee that the people who are to be employed in the mines in Kent shall be brought from the coalfields where miners are thrown out of work because of the output of Kent, and not have the labour required for the Kent development raised from unskilled labour either from that county or anywhere else?
§ Mr. ROY BIRDOn a point of Order is it in Order for an hon. Member to play a jazz band?
§ Mr. JONESI think we are entitled to a statement from the Government tonight. It would be to their advantage to make that statement if they want to improve the harmony that is asked for between employers and employed in the coal industry. There is a very strong suspicion that the Kent coalfield has been developed, not wholly on its merits but for ulterior motives. We are entitled to that opinion and we want to know whether there is any truth in it or not. One renders a service to the Government by giving them an opportunity to believe it if it is not true. Will the right hon. gentleman also give us the assurance that the Kent coalfield shall be developed, not, as other coalfields have been developed, as a source of social unrest and discontent but as an example to the rest of the country?
§ Miss WILKINSONPrevious speakers have dealt with the coal industry. In this House I represent a constituency that is largely concerned in iron and steel, and it is from the point of view of the iron and steel industry that I would like to ask for some further information from the Financial Secretary. A previous speaker has objected to this Trade Facilities Bill on the ground that it is a kind of Socialism. We object to it just because it is not. I am informed by a very representative committee in my constituency that one of the guarantees that have been given has caused very serious feelings of alarm in the iron and steel industry. A guarantee of no less than £650,000 has been given to the Appleby Iron Company. The Appleby 2479 Iron Company is a firm that is solely concerned in the heavy end of the trade, and it is the heavy end of the iron and steel trade that is most depressed. The lighter ends—tinplate and so on—are in a fairly flourishing condition, but the greater part of unemployment that does exist in the iron and steel industry exists in the heavy end or the trade.
§ Mr. ALBERYOn a point of Order. I submit that these arguments have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment under discussion.
Mr. BECKETTIs the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) in the Chair, or are you, Sir? This is the third time he has interrupted.
§ Mr. THURTLEFurther to that point of Order. May I submit to you that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), in using this illustration, is endeavouring to show the pitfalls into which the Committee may fall unless it considers fully all the defects of making a grant of this sort, and she is citing this illustration of what may happen in the future.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWhen the point of Order was raised, I was trying to make out what the hon. Member was trying to show. I have not got at it yet.
§ Miss WILKINSONI think it is a little difficult in the course of the first half dozen sentences to put the whole of one's arguments. If the hon. Member would wait until I had completed my argument he might by then understand what I am trying to say. I am sorry to try his patience. The point that I want to get at is this. Here we have in the White Paper a certain grant that is being given to a certain firm dealing in heavy iron and steel. This is presumably a precedent for others. A very important firm in the iron and steel trade are regarding this position with very serious apprehension, and I am trying to show why. Take Middlesbrough, with which I am principally concerned, as a case in point. You have there great steel works that have been idle for the past three years. They have paid for stock as far as they can. They cannot get rid of their stock and the product they have, and now they are finding the 2480 Government are giving this enormous guarantee to a competitive firm in an exactly similar kind of work to themselves and they feel that the effect to them is that it is not only going to aggravate unemployment, but that this is not the time to subsidise a firm in the line of business where the market is already choked. Taking Middlesbrough again, a recent investigation by the Mayor of the town showed that even if the heavy iron and steel industry got back to normal conditions, about 4,000 men would never get work in that area. Under the new conditions and the tremendous strides taken during the War in the introduction of labour-saving machinery, employment in these trades is restricted. If the object of the Trades Facilities Act is to increase the possibilities of employment, why should the Government subsidise just those industries where employers are at their wits' end to get work for those men already in the industry?
Here the actual words state that this guarantee is given in order to extend plant. I am informed that the reason why this guarantee was given was because this particular firm had built new plant near the end of the War and the Government wanted to give them some quid pro quo. I know nothing about it, but that information was given to me. Certainly the principle of the Trade Facilities Act is hardly one that should be used for that particular purpose. The engineering trades, of all trades, are those that are suffering most from over-subsidy. Their plant is far in excess of the possible market and of all the trades, surely they are not the ones that need subsidies at the present time. What is needed is joint research between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and similar Government Departments to see whether new trades can be opened up. We have a very serious case in this part of the country. Under the Trade Facilities Act application was made for a sum—not a very large sum—of money for the opening up of brick works in this area. That was a case where it might have been possible—in fact, it would have been possible—to absorb some of those very men for whom we are trying to get work. I have gone into the matter very fully myself, and I have interested several other hon. Members belonging to various parties in this House. The whole 2481 matter seemed to be sound, but, without any reason being given whatever, the Advisory Committee dealing with the Act has turned this application down. We have asked for a reason, and no reason can be given. We are simply told that the Trades Facilities Advisory Committee cannot agree to the application. Where the most imperative necessity is to get new trades and to take men out of the engineering industry, where it is obvious that for many years they will not be able to get work, where the markets are choked, in that area where the imperative necessity is to remove these men from those trades and to start new works—that is just the area where new industries are being refused facilities under the Trade Facilities Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have from him some undertaking that not merely the stability of the firm and—to put it quite bluntly—not merely the political pull of the firm should be the sole things taken into account, but that some of the smaller firms might be considered, and that this Committee should show a little enterprise.
§ Miss WILKINSONI am so sorry. I was merely trying to suggest, if I might, from expert advice that had been given me, lines that might prove useful in the future, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take them into account.
§ 1.0 A.M
§ Captain MACMILLANI do not like at this very late hour to intervene in the Debate and the very few remarks I feel it incumbent on me to make, I shall make as briefly as possible. I shall do so on this Amendment rather than on the later Amendment that stands in my name so as not to waste the time of the Committee. The hon. Lady has referred to the case of the guarantee which has been given under this Act to a very important firm in the iron and steel trade, and I think she has referred very temperately and moderately to the matter, having regard to the feeling that has been aroused by the granting of this guarantee. I would venture to utter my protest against the Government taking this Bill at a time that precludes the House from discussing it as fully as it should be discussed. The hon. Member who represents the Advisory Committee 2482 in this House appears to differ in toto from the Minister in charge as to the functions of the Committee. We have very little faith in the system on which this Committee conducts its operations. As regards the granting of the loan in question I think it is true to say that a very serious position has been raised for the whole of the heavy industry, particularly in the north-eastern area. There is a very strong feeling that it is a very unwise thing at a time when the plate-rolling plant in the country is capable of producing four times the existing demand. As I understand the plant, that will be introduced by this guarantee, is exactly the same, copied from existing plant in the same trade. We might ask the Government seriously to consider whether this system of Trade Facilities is really working. Although I very much hesitate to introduce purely local questions I ventured to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, the representative of the Treasury, as to whether it was the practice or whether it would be the practice of the Committee to consult the views of the trade concerned before making these guarantees, and I was told by the right hon. Gentleman in answer:—
It is not the practice of the Committee to consult or take the views of other firms engaged in the same business.That may seem a very natural course, because they might think that other firms would be naturally prejudiced. I have in my hand the copy of a letter written by the Secretary of the Trade Facilities Committee to a firm in my constituency which applied for assistance, and in this letter this firm were told thatapart from all other questions, when you have submitted your information on this point, the Committee will probably discuss the matter with the Ironmongers' Association or whoever is the proper representative.I venture to suggest that the attitude represented by the Committee in the letter I have quoted is wholly inconsistent with that taken up by the answers given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not wish to move the Amendment standing in my name. I wish to save as much time as possible but I venture to submit that what emerges from this debate is the danger to trade of this artificial means which will only probably end in the displacement of employment. If they were used at all 2483 they ought to be used in the closest consultation with the trade concerned. Suspicion has been created under which the Committee works. I think that suspicion is misplaced, but the creation of suspicion is a very bad thing, and hampers and impedes the proper and friendly relations of trade and the advance of trade. I recognise that the general debate shows, that we cannot alter the guarantees that have been given, but we do ask the Government to realise the very strong feeling there is arising in the most harassed trades in the country, and that the time has come, either for a very radical inquiry into the whole operation of the Act, or a very careful consideration as to whether it would not be better to let the whole system alone and allow trade to work upon its normal financial support.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)The speech of the hon. and gallant Member really is a plea that the whole of the Trade Facilities Act should be brought to an end. For that many arguments maybe advanced. The Government are only proposing to carry Trade Facilities on for a further year. The House has already decided the principle—
§ Mr. STEPHENOn a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order to turn his back on the Opposition in the House?
§ Sir HARRY BRITTAINHe must turn his back to somebody.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am afraid I am physically incapable of facing both ways. The House has decided, without a Division, the question of principle. On the whole, if I may venture to say so, I think the House is right to give just the minimum measure of assistance which may enable trade to pursue its course.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in Order in making astonishing noises?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWhen other expedients have been taken to deal with unemployment I think—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) was really a speech suitable for the Second Reading and not to this specific Amendment. So far as his argument was directed to the specific Amendment it was twofold. The first part, as I understood it, was that the Government should in some way control the Committee. That is exactly what the House on all previous occasions has been most insistent against from the very start of Trade Facilities or of Export Credits. The House laid down—and I think wisely laid down—that an impartial Committee of practical men should be invited to examine any proposal upon the financial and economic merits, and the House took the view that this was infinitely preferable.
§ Captain MACMILLANMay I point out that I did not suggest that the House should control the Committee but should lay down two definite principles—one that the trade should be consulted and the other that the demand should be considered in relation to the output.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt has been continued by each of the Governments. On the first point, I must say that I think my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong. I think the worst judges of a case in which they are interested are the representatives of that particular trade. Supposing you are going to place contracts, and decide the terms of placing contracts, the last who ought to have a say in that is the trade in which the contracts are going to be placed.
§ Mr. STEPHENIs the right hon. Gentleman in Order in carrying on a duel with the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him?
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt is very interesting to watch the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman is making to rescue a strayed Member of his party, but is he really in Order.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am replying to an argument which has considerable force which has been raised by two hon. Members.
Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order. Are there two rulings? The right hon. Gentleman is much more out of Order than my friend—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the right hon. Gentleman is out of order I shall call upon him. I am not sure, but I thought it would be possible, for the convenience of the Committee on these two Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan), which are with very little exception identical, if we had a discussion on the two at once.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESAre the two Amendments identical? We submit they are not. There are considerations in that of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees which are not in our Amendment, and which are very important and ought to be thoroughly discussed.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am entirely in the hands of the Committee. The suggestion was made, as I thought it would be, for the convenience of the Committee.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI thought it would be best to reply to the arguments advanced on both sides. It is a two-fold argument. The first part is that the trade itself should be consulted by the Committee.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESIs it understood we do not agree to the suggestion?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI understand that the other Amendment has not yet been moved.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI take it I am in order in replying to the speech you have ruled as being in Order. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply instead of making two identical speeches. I do not think it would be convenient that the industry should itself be consulted. Obviously, one would not consult, in the capacity of assessors or judges, the firm which had made the application. Equally, I think 2486 it would be improper to consult, in the capacity of assessors or judges, the firms who are competitors in the same industry. On the merits, I think you must have the impartial Committee judging. It is fairer. The judges should be without any interest. With regard to this particular case, let the Committee observe how this comes before the Government. The Committee are, in fact, charged by the Statute with exactly the duty which both Amendments seek to lay upon them. The Committee are charged with the duty of recommending and deciding whether a particular proposal is calculated to promote unemployment in the United Kingdom.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANYou, Sir, have already ruled that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) was not in Order in discussing whether this is likely to promote trade. There are four modern collieries in my district which two years ago produced 1,000 tons of coal a day each. If you develop the Kent Coalfield, is there any hope that you can sell any more coal and open these collieries in my district?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAt the moment that point of Order was raised the right hon. Gentleman was doing what he ought to-do—he was addressing me.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTEROn selfish grounds nothing would suit me better than that you would rule the argument out of Order, butt this particular point is what you have ruled to be in Order and The Act itself lays down that the test should be whether employment would be promoted thereby. It comes before the Treasury on the advice of their Committee. The Committee recommended—as absolutely impartial judges—that in fact by this guarantee you will be setting up as efficient a plant as can be set up in this or any other country. It is ideally situated as regards ore, limestone and coal; that the claim made in this particular case is confirmed by the experience of a similar company using the same ore, limestone and coal which is able to compete favourably with foreign competitors and get orders against foreign competitors, that if this plant is established it is reasonable, and indeed almost certain that the result will be, not 2487 so much that orders will be taken from some other firms but that the aggregate of orders coming to this country will be greater than before. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head, but that was the recommendation made to the. Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Trade Facilities Committee which the House set up. It was upon these findings by the Committee that the Government had to make up their minds whether they should take the very exceptional course of intervening and overruling the findings of this Committee and saying that this guarantee should not be given. The Committee advised that employment in the aggregate in this country would be improved by this plant and that it would mean that we would get foreign orders we were not getting to-day. As long as the Trade Facilities Act is in force, I say my right hon. Friend would really have been wrong to have intervened, and he would have been acting against the rules laid down by the House in this Act of Parliament if he had come in and said that that guarantee should not be given. Those were the circumstances of that particular case. The Kent coal case is an analogous case, and it is only in cases where the Committee recommends on the facts that employment—[Interruption.]—will be increased that a guarantee is given.
§ Miss WILKINSONOn a point of Order. I wanted to ask your protection in this matter. I am very much interested in this matter, and I raised it along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). I was therefore hoping to (hear the President's reply; but, seeing that he has turned his back on this side of the Committee, it has for the last five minutes been utterly impossible to hear a word he has said. I ask you if you would be so kind as to suggest to the President that, having replied to the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton he should now give this side of the Committee the benefit of his, I am sure, very brilliant remarks.
§ Mr. TAYLORIs it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to continue the discourse with his back to the Opposition 2488 when the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has given repeated indications that he cannot hear a single word that is said?
§ Mr. THURTLEThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) was very scornful about this Amendment some time ago, and he suggested that the existing regulations were such as to make it quite unnecessary. I venture to submit to him that such is not the case. It is true that, according to existing regulations, the Committee has to satisfy itself that a grant would result in increased employment, but at the same time it is not under an obligation to see that that increased employment in one part of the country does not result in unemployment in other parts of the country. I want to convince the right hon. Gentleman by citing different cases where grants have already been made. They have looked at the matter from a short-sighted point of view, and have not taken into consideration the effect the grants are going to have in other parts of the country. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should wax so indignant at my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) because he ventured to move this Amendment. I think there was absolutely no reason at all why he should work himself up into a passion and metaphorically throw a book at the head of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLIs the hon. Member referring to me? I did not express the smallest indignation, nor did I feel it.
§ Mr. THURTLEI should not like, in that case, to hear the right hon. gentleman when he really is indignant. I wanted to convince the Committee that there have been cases in the past where grants to promote employment would have the effect of increasing unemployment in other parts of the country, and I would cite the case of the guarantee in the case of Raysheen, Ltd. This was for, the purpose of providing plant for an artificial silk factory in Northern Ireland. It is perfectly true that by providing that plant, work may have been given to the employés who had to make the machinery for the artificial silk factory. We admit that, but what is going to happen if we take the later effect of the grant? This factory is going to be established in Northern Ireland. It is 2489 not going to employ British labour; it is going to employ labour in Northern Ireland, and that labour is going to come into competition with the labour in this country. Already, we understand, there is too much competition in the artificial silk industry. I see the chairman of Courtaulds was remarking only the other day upon the fact that the competition in the artificial silk industry was becoming much more acute and was likely to be very much more acute in the future. It surely does follow that by financing this company in the North of Ireland you provide work for the workmen there which is going to be in competition with workers in this country and you are in effect likely to cause unemployment. There is a better illustration even than that.
I see that money is being provided for two Malay tin dredging companies for the purpose of providing additional dredges, whose purpose, of course, is to provide additional tin. We already have in this country a tin industry in the county of Cornwall, and for a very long time past that tin industry has suffered very acute depression because of the Malayan competition. It is revived slightly at the present time because of the great demand there is for tin, but now we are going out of our way deliberately, by means of a State guarantee, to increase the Malayan output of tin and to make it more difficult for the tin mines in Cornwall to pay their way. Again it is a shortsighted view of the situation. It is
§ perfectly true that in the work of manufacturing these additional dredges, employment is going to be provided in this country for a certain number of workpeople, but at the same time the ultimate effect of this is going to be to increase the competition in the tin industry and to increase unemployment in Cornwall as a consequence.
§ Major KINDERSLEYMight I ask the hon. Member if he knows what the present price of tin is?
§ Mr. THURTLEI believe it is about £290 a ton, but I am not quite certain. I was merely establishing my point that there are clear indications that in the past the Committee has made grants which, while increasing unemployment in one direction, tend to decrease it in another, and this Amendment has been moved in order to guard against that and to call the mind of the Committee to the fact that its duty is not to see these questions in a partial, restricted light, but to see them as a whole. I hope that on reconsideration, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. McNEILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 55.
2491| Division No. 80.] | AYES. | [1.30 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Couper, J. B. | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Herbert,S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hilton, Cecil |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Homan, C. W. J. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Ford, Sir P. J. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Burman, J. B. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Christie, J. A. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Harland, A. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Cope, Major William | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Lumley, L. R. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Templeton, W. P. |
| MacIntyre, Ian | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| MacMillan, Captain H. | Salmon, Major I. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tinne, J. A. |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Wells, S. R. |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sandon, Lord | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Neville, R. J. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Oakley, T. | Smithers, Waldron | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Pielou, D. P. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Preston, William | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | |
| Radford, E. A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ralne, W. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson. |
| Ramsden, E. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | |
| Remer, J. R. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayes, John Henry | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Thurtle, E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kelly, W. T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lawson, John James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacLaren, Andrew | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Purcell, A. A. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thomas Kennedy. |
| Hardie, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| Hayday, Arthur | Riley, Ben |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
2493| Division No. 81.] | AYES. | [1.40 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayday, Arthur | Riley Ben |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Thurtle, E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kelly, W. T. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Kennedy, T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawson, John James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacLaren, Andrew | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Purcell, A. A. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Benjamin Smith. |
| Hardie, George D. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Boothby, R. J. G. |
| Albery, Irving James | Bennett, A. J. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover) | Betterton, Henry B. | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Briscoe, Richard George |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Blundell, F. N. | Brittain, Sir Harry |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hills, Major John Waller | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Burman, J. B. | Hilton, Cecil | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Holland, Sir Arthur | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Homan, C. W. J. | Sandon, Lord |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Couper, J. B. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Smithers, Waldron |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lamb, J. Q. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd) | Loder, J. de V. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lumley, L. R. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacIntyre, Ian | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | MacMillan, Captain H. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wells, S. R. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Nuttall, Ellis | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Oakley, T. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Harland, A. | Pielou, D. P. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Preston, William | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Radford, E. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Raine, W. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Ramsden, E. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Remer, J. R. | |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Major Cope and Captain Margesson. |
§ Mr. McNEILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146: Noes, 52.
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| MacIntyre, I. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Templeton, W. P. |
| MacMillan, Captain H. | Salmon, Major I. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Tinne, J. A. |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sanders, Sir Robert A | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sandon, Lord | Wells, S. R. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Neville, R. J. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew,W) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Oakley, T. | Smithers, Waldron | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Pielou, D. P. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Preston, William | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Radford, E. A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | |
| Raine, W. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ramsden, E. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson. |
| Remer, J. R. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Riley, Ben |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayday, Arthur | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Thurtle, E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kelly, W. T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Kennedy, T. | Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawson, John James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacLaren, Andrew | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. | Hayes. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
| Division No. 83.] | AYES. | [1.55 a.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Albery, Irving James | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Homan, C. W. J. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Locker-Lampson, Com.O.(Handsw'th) |
| Burman, J. B. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Loder, J. de V. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Harland, A. | MacIntyre, I. |
| Christie, J. A. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | MacMillan, Captain H. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Harrison, G. J. C. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hartington, Marquess of | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Cope, Major William | Haslam, Henry C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Couper, J. B. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Neville, R. J. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 147; Noes, 52.
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Sandon, Lord | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Tinne, J. A. |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Oakley, T. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Wells, S. R. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Pielou, D. P. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Preston, William | Smithers, Waldron | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Radford, E. A. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central) |
| Raine, W. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Ramsden, E. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Remer, J. R. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Womersley, W. J |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Salmon, Major I. | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wragg, Herbert |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Sandeman, A. Stewart | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Templeton, W. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Riley, Ben |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayday, Arthur | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Thurtle, E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kelly, W. T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Kennedy, T. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawson, John James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacLaren, Andrew | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Maxton, James | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |