Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking)
In presenting this Supplementary Estimate I do not think I should be warranted in embarking on any long discussion as to the value of Supplementary Estimates in principle. My reasons are twofold. In the first place, if I were to do so you, Mr. Chairman, would no doubt rule me out of order; and in the second place, the members of this Committee are not all in complete agreement on that subject, in spite of the weighty arguments used by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury 12 months ago—they are not in agreement as to the value of Supplementary Estimates, and I do not wish on this occasion to strike any note of disagreement.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be in order in pursuing this aspect of the matter.
§ Captain HACKING
I quite understand that, Sir, and that is why I am going on at once to consider these Supplementary Estimates. I know that I cannot strike any note of discord if I stick rigidly to the extra expenditure I am asking the Committee to sanction. It is quite clear from the paper which has been presented to the Committee, and I hope it will be made abundantly clear 780 after my short explanation, that the amount which I ask for is not only necessary, but could not possibly have been foreseen. The original Estimate of the Office of Works was for a sum of £5,000,000. The Supplementary Estimate for which I am asking amounts to £79,473, an increase of only 1.4 per cent. on the original Estimate. Such accuracy obviously shows care in the preparation of the original Estimate, which, but for the coal stoppage, would have been almost completely accurate.
The first Vote I ask the Committee to consider is Class I, Vote 8, and I ask them to grant £37,000 for extra expenditure in Post Office and telegraph buildings for fuel and household articles. The original net Estimate, as mentioned on page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates, was for £1,325,100. The Vote I am asking for is an increase of only 2.8 per cent. on the original Estimate. The increase is solely due to the extra cost of fuel arising from the stoppage in the coalfield. The original Estimate for fuel was £120,000, and the revised Estimate is £189,000, the difference being £69,000, shown in the third column on page 4.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am sorry, but it is £140,000—unless I am looking at the wrong Estimate.
§ Captain HACKING
The original estimate for fuel, not for fuel and household articles, was £120,000. The revised estimate for fuel was £189,000. The sum of money, £140,000, which the hon. and gallant Member is looking at is fuel and household articles. The revised estimate for fuel is £189,000, making a difference of £69,000, the amount shown in the third column. The coal dispute lasted from May to December. We started, at the beginning of the dispute, with a stock of 5,000 tons of fuel in London, and that lasted until September. It may interest the Committee to know that the consumption normally throughout all services is approximately 300,000 tons. So great was the economy brought to bear by the Office of Works that only 70,000 tons of foreign fuel were purchased in the three months, which are usually three very heavy ninths for the consumption of fuel.
§ Captain HACKING
As far as the Office of Works is concerned. The Office of Works supplies most of the Departments. Prices were very much increased, and the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is that we had to pay approximately twice as much for foreign coal as for English coal; and the same thing applies, approximately, to coke. The anticipatory savings on other subhead's amount to £32,000. They accrue under Subhead N of the main estimate, which deals with new works, post office buildings, etc., and are due to a slowing down of the work owing to the difficulty of obtaining steel and other building materials consequent upon the stoppage of production caused by the industrial upheaval. Roughly, 60 building schemes were affected by the shortage of materials. That is really all there is to say about this estimate. There is nothing hidden at all; everything is on the surface. I can assure the Committee that the only excess expenditure is due to the extra cost of fuel which we had to purchase from abroad. I have taken the Committee completely into my confidence, because they have a right to know the facts, and I hope they will show their appreciation of my frankness by allowing me to have this sum of money without much discussion.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I am sure we are very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his lucid explanation of this increase. There is only one question I wish to put. Is the contract for coal for public buildings made over a long period? Was it necessary to go into the open market during the coal stoppage to buy coal at the prices then ruling? If it be not the practice of the Office of Works to make yearly contracts, then they are not adopting a practice which is generally followed by other public bodies; and if they do make contracts then I would like to know from what date and for what length of time those contracts were made. If contracts are made, assuming they had been for 12 months, this demand to-day for money for the increased price of coal would have been obviated altogether.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The hon. and gallant Member began in a very interesting way, and I am sorry he was out of order, but I must say I think it is rather unusual for a Minister 782 to attack the question of the right of Parliament to examine Supplementary Estimates. I have been in the House as many years as the hon. and gallant Member, and he has not heard, nor have I ever heard, a Minister question the right of Parliament, or try to question the right of Parliament, to discuss Estimates. That would have been an interesting discussion for a private Member's night, and I must try to oblige the hon. and gallant Member on some occasion, and we can then have a Debate on the matter As he told us, he was remarkably frank. He told us that this Supplementary Estimate is occasioned by the increase in the price of fuel arising out of the events of last year.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to say that the whole estimate was some millions of pounds. The whole cost of Class 1 is £1,325,000, and there is only an increase of £69,000 on this vast Estimate. The argument which has been used is a little vague, because this increase is more than 50 per cent. on the cost of fuel, household articles and candles, and only £120,000 is spent on fuel. Therefore, on £120,000 it is a very large amount to pay an extra £69,000, and that is quite a different story. It is really over 50 per cent. increase.
This raises one or two points of great importance, and I shall endeavour to show how useful and necessary it is for the House of Commons to examine very closely the Supplementary Estimates. It may appear that this is a small sum when part of it relates to savings. The Office of Works bought 70,000 tons of coal from abroad, but the Government actually bought 5,000,000 tons of coal from abroad. We have another Estimate for that, and it was purchased so as to be available for certain services and weak municipalities in order that they would not have to pay through the nose for their coal supply. Apparently, it was not noticed that the Office of Works was one of these weak corporations, because they went into the market themselves and bought foreign coal through the nose to the extent of over 60 per cent.
My first question is, Why did the Office of Works not purchase their coal from the Government out of this 5,000,000 tons which they have purchased abroad? Then they would have saved the nation having to pay this extra amount. On 783 the other hand, if they did buy from the Government, how is it that we have now to shoulder this loss? At Question Time today the President of the Board of Trade was asked a question as to the loss or otherwise in connection with the purchase of foreign coal by the Government, and we were told that there had been no loss. Then I asked if there had been any profit, but we did not receive any answer to that question. I think it is necessary to have these explanations on the Supplementary Estimates. If the Government have, in fact, made a profit on the purchase of this 5,000,000 tons, they should show us where the profit comes in. Otherwise, we are bound to assume that they have "sold a pup," so to speak, to the Office of Works, and we are now asked to foot the bill. We have to find this £69,000 in order that the Board of Trade may show a spectacular profit on their total purchase of 5,000,000 tons of coal. If this be what the Office of Works has done, we may be sure the other Government Departments have been doing the same thing. Why is it that each Government Department buys coal separately? It is a fact that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force combine to buy coal.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That question would be more appropriate on going into Committee of Supply on the annual Estimates. We are dealing now only with this particular Office of Works Vote.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
When the Office of Works found themselves short of coal, why did they not go to some other Government Department like the Admiralty or the War Office and combine with them to buy coal? Why is it necessary for them to buy, coal direct? Of course, if they go into the market to buy a small packet of coal like this, they must expect to pay a higher price. I am told that the Borough of West Ram purchases twice this amount of coal. It is really only the case of a poor woman who has to buy coal by the sack from a man going round with a lorry, and of course she has to pay a higher price. If the Office of Works buy a large quantity of coal when there is a shortage, naturally they would have to pay more, and I contend that that is bad business. Those are the two questions I would like to put, and, 784 if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can make it clear through whom this coal was bought, and show me that none of this money has gone in middlemen's profits, I shall be satisfied.
I want to know whether the Government bought this coal abroad in bulk, or whether it was said to certain coal factors who sold it again to the Office of Works. I shall be glad to be assured that that was not done, and that no unfair profit was made. I do want to make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, I do not intend to allow the Government to ride off on the excuse that the coal stoppage meant extra expense, because they will use that argument for years if we do not check them. It is very much like the War, after which everything was put down to the War. Small as this sum of money is, a very large principle is involved, and this Committee is only doing its duty in making certain that everything is done to the best possible advantage.
Mr. HILTON YOUNG
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) asked an interesting question in regard to the coal contract. I think we are sure to find that there was no real way of protecting the Government against loss in contracts of this kind. Either the contracts were short-term contracts or long-term contracts, and if they were long-term contracts then they no doubt contained "strike and lock-out" clauses.
It would protect the vendor against loss. Throughout the coal-using world, long term contracts were in existence while the purchaser of coal was unable to enforce the conditions because that would have the effect of ruining the vendor. Throughout these Estimates we have charges arising owing to the coal strike, and this is one instance. May we not ask for a return in all these Supplementary Estimates of the total extra cost owing to the coal strike.
This particular Estimate shows only a single phase of the matter 785 in question, and I wish to call attention to the fact that we are dealing with only one aspect of a matter which will constantly occur throughout these Estimates, the additional cost thrown upon the nation owing to the stoppage in the coal trade. At present we have no complete view of the total cost of the coal stoppage.
§ Mr. GILLETT
I do not want to touch upon the point which has been raised by the last speaker, but I wish to refer to the anticipated savings. The Under-Secretary gave us no information as to how the savings had been effected. With regard to the item dealing with new works and alterations, I should like to have heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman why so large a sum of money has been technically saved. If a building has been commenced, the sooner it is finished the better, and we should like to know why so much money has been saved on these particular buildings.
There is one particular instance to which I desire to allude. For years the Government have owned land on one of these sites which is lying vacant. Near by there is a small post office in private hands, which it is the intention of the Government ultimately to do away with, and combine the private post office with the Government building. Years go by and this land continues to lie idle, and very slow progress is being made with the building. It does not seem to me that savings of that kind are of any advantage whatever, because when you estimate the loss on the vacant land, it will be seen that it would be far better to have the whole thing finished off at once. The building I refer to is well known to the Under-Secretary—
§ The CHAIRMAN
When a saving arises in connection with a Supplementary Estimate, hon. Members cannot discuss the policy of the Department. Inquiries may be made as to the reason for the saving, but the general policy cannot be discussed.
§ Mr. GILLETT
Perhaps the Under- Secretary will say how these savings have occurred. I know the Mount Pleasant Post Office is connected with this matter. I would like to know if any delay has come about in connection with the finishing of this particular building, and whether it has been decided to carry 786 through the whole scheme. That is the essential point upon which I want information. I hope we shall not have to go away with the impression that buildings of this kind are being delayed in regard to their final construction in consequence of these savings.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I confess that I am rather confused if the figures which have been given to us are in accordance with the actual facts. The Office of Works is responsible for 300,000 tons of coal. We have been referred to the Vote in the annual Estimates for fuel, which he says amounts to £126,000. That would imply that the Office of Works, previous to the dispute, were purchasing their fuel at less than 10s. per ton, but, since the dispute arose and they required 70,000 tons more fuel, they had to pay £69,000 extra for it. First of all, it seems to me that the Government, who, after all, were in no way totally excluded from the dispute, were before the dispute obtaining their coal at a comparatively cheap rate.
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will say where the Government purchased this coal from. We ought to know that. We ought to know whether it was purchased direct or from importers who were importing coal during that period and, indeed, are importing coal to-day at the expense of 100,000 or 200,000 miners who are out of work. We want to know whether the Government have been dealing with importers, and if so we ought to be told what the price of the coal was in the foreign country from which this 70,000 tons were purchased prior to the dispute. We want to know what price the importers paid during the dispute, and what price per ton the Government paid to the importer, so that we shall have some idea as to how these patriotic importers exploited the nation during the coal dispute. Then we are entitled to know what was the cost of transport compared with the pre-stoppage price? We ought to know whether the patriotic shipowners took advantage of the opportunity further to exploit the nation. It is true that £37,000 out of an estimate of £1,325,000 is comparatively small, but, at least, we are entitled to know where the money went and to what extent the Government Departments, which are responsible for the purchase and use of the fuel, have lent themselves to unneces- 787 sary exploitation by these super-patriots who were condemning the miners. After all, we find the Government were buying very dear foreign coal instead of very cheap British coal, and we ought to know, before we allow the Vote to go through, why the very men who have been called upon to suffer such hardships should be called upon to pay these extra sums to foreigners. I want to ask further what proportion of this £69,000 was actually expended on the purchase of coal, and what proportion upon candles.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us whether any proportion of the £69,000 was expended on articles for offices. The items referred to are fuel and household articles for offices, or fuel, candles and articles for offices. What I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can clear our minds upon is this: We have the figures of the consumption of coal per annum prior to the dispute, the amount purchased during the dispute and the figure here of £69,000, presumably for the various articles. We are entitled to know if the whole of the £69,000 was exclusively expended on this extra fuel, this extra 70,000 tons, which shows an increase of £1 for each ton purchased. If he can tell us that, we shall be able to satisfy ourselves whether or not the price is a legitimate one. I do not want to argue at all against meeting an obligation which has been contracted during an extraordinary period in our industrial life, but at least we are entitled to know, first of all, how it is that the Government which could secure British coal apparently at less than 10s. a ton prior to the dispute have lent themselves on one side of the dispute, and then have bought coal from foreign ports and paid more than three times as much for it as they could obtain coal, probably of a better quality, in Britain. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us anything about that, perhaps we shall be satisfied to let him have his Vote.
§ Colonel WOODCOCK
How the hon. Member can adduce the fact that this coal cost an extra £1 a ton, I cannot make out, either from the figures the Minister gave us or from the figures that 788 appear on the Estimate. He is making a calculation of £69,000 for 70,000 tons. If he will look below, he will find, "Fuel and household articles less anticipated savings on other sub-heads." We want to know the proportion of that. I should also like to ask as to the provision which was made for this great strike that we had in May. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lockout!"] I am referring to the strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was no strike in May!"] I wish to know whether the articles that were purchased, the candles and household articles, were only purchased in anticipation of the strike being prolonged or whether they are still in stock, and can be used during the subsequent months. If that is so, that will ever further reduce the Supplementary Estimate of £37,000.
§ Mr. ROBERT YOUNG
I think the Committee is getting a little fogged. As far as I can make out, there is £69,000 additional for fuel. I gather that is the position of the Minister. The words "household articles and candles" are down here, but there is no real expenditure under these heads £69,000 is the actual cost to the nation as the result, we are told, of the necessity for having additional fuel. What I want to question is the form, although I suppose it is the correct form, in this case a technical form, of saving there is a saving of £32,000. That is only a saving so far as the work is not done. The money will have to be expended to carry out the work which was anticipated. Consequently we are actually up against this sum of £69,000, because when I turn over to the other Estimates, I notice that a deficiency is stated in some parts, and that means that more money has been expended than was estimated for. In this case it is really £69,000 increased expenditure in connection with the fuel supplied. It is therefore very essential that we should know whether the coal came from the Government supply or was directly purchased from the Office of Works.
§ Mr. W. BAKER
About this time last year I joined with some of my colleagues in an appeal for a fuller and more explanatory statement from the Minister in placing a Supplementary Estimate before the House, and the hon. Gentleman went a considerable way to meet the request that was made. Having regard 789 to the force with which the inquiries concerning coal have been placed before the Committee, I merely desire to associate myself with those inquiries. No one so far has dealt with the suspension of work upon the various buildings. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say work had been suspended on 60 buildings owing to the coal stoppage. On reference to the main Estimate, I find that the number of works in progress totalled 90, and that the works proposed were 26, making a total of 116. I am led to believe that the stoppage was complete. To cease work on 60 buildings out of a total of 116 seems to be rather a large proportion, especially when it is remembered that in every case those buildings would be part of a programme which has been delayed very largely because of the war, and the resulting heavy national expenditure, and they have been delayed in many cases for quite a number of years. I shall be very grateful indeed if the hon. Gentleman could tell us which are the buildings that made that total of 60, and whether we can definitely understand that the work which was delayed, apparently for good reasons, has now been resumed, and that the time that was lost owing to the coal stoppage will be made up as rapidly as possible.
§ Mr. PALING
Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what stocks these were. Were they bought from abroad or were they British coal bought in London? Secondly I understood him to say that 300,000 tons of coal would have been used under normal circumstances, but that, owing to economy and other means being practised, the actual amount used was 70,000 tons. Am I right in understanding that the 300,000 tons is included in the figure of £140,350, and that the 70,000 tons which was actually used has cost the original £140,000 plus the £69,000 which is now being asked for? If that is so, could he tell us what was the Price of British coal before the lock-out started and what is the actual price paid for the 70,000 tone which have actually been used.
§ Mr. TAYLOR
Could the hon. Gentleman give us some further information as to the proportion of foreign and British coal represented by this Supplementary Estimate? It would appear on the face of it that if the additional £69,000 had 790 been paid, and only 70,000 tons of coal had been used, if the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) is anything like accurate, the Department must have paid very much more than the market price ruling during the period of the coal dispute. It would be a great advantage if he could tell us what was the average price paid month by month during the period these figures cover. Further, could he tell us what proportion of this coal came from Germany and the price paid for it, that we might compare that with the figure given some time ago by the President of the Board of Trade to see whether or not the Department has been buying at the market price. He might also give us some information as to the attitude of his Department during the period of this unfortunate dispute in the coal industry. We heard from him that it was almost entirely due to this unfortunate event. I should have thought that the Government had ample powers under the Emergency Regulations to ensure that the production of British coal should be carried on for the public services at a price certainly very much less than appears to have been paid by the Office of Works. I should like to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's chief used his influence in the Cabinet to prevent the continuance of this unfortunate dispute.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The question of what one Minister may have said to another cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.
§ Mr. TAYLOR
I was trying to relate that point to the Estimates before the Committee, because the Committee may be very unwilling to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman this Vote unless it felt that he had made every effort to secure coal for his Department at something like a reasonable price, based on the cost of production in this country. If that is out of order, I will not pursue it any further. I hope he will give us some definite information as to the proportion of foreign coal and the price paid for it month by month, so that we may see whether or not the supply of coal to his Department has been round about the market prices ruling from time to time.
§ Mr. BATEY
I desire to move to reduce the Vote by £100. I am sorry that 791 I had not the advantage of hearing the Minister's statement, because I should like to have heard the defence of the Government for this Vote. This Supplementary Estimate would have been altogether unnecessary but for the policy pursued by the Government last year. The Government are now beginning to meet the bills which are coming in as a result of their policy last year. As I did not hear the Minister, perhaps I shall be pardoned if I put one or two questions to him. I am not very clear, but I rather think that he said to a colleague of mine, since I came in, that this £69,000 was wholly for fuel. As I read the Estimate, I think there were three things—fuel, candles and household articles for offices. I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us definitely whether this sum is only for fuel of if there is anything for candles—
§ Mr. BATEY
That makes the case for the Ministry worse. I did not think the case was so black against the Ministry as it now appears to be. As long as there were other items in the supplementary Estimate, an hon. Member might be led to believe that the bulk of this money was not for fuel but for the other articles. Some of us want to make our position in this matter perfectly clear. We regard what the Minister calls "fuel" as blackleg coal, which the Government brought into the country to defeat the miners last year. In every Estimate that comes before the House, in which one penny appears for this blackleg coal, we shall divide the House because, on principle, we are opposed to blackleg coal and to the Government spending a single penny of the British taxpayers' money for the purchase of such coal. In this matter we stand in the interests of the nation. [HON MEMBERS: "Question"] That is beyond question. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, speaking on public platforms, say that they stand in the interests of the nation. Here is a very glaring case, in which the Government acted against the interests of the nation, and we have to take a stand on behalf of those interests.
I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us when this coal was 792 bought. A rather important answer was given at Question time to the effect that from let December to the end of January, no less than 4,100,000 tons of blackleg coal were brought into this country. The 1st December was the time when our collieries restarted. From that time, there has been imported 4,100,000 tons of coal, which is equal to a week's production in this country. That means that our collieries have lain idle for a full week since their re-start on 1st December. I should like to know how much of this blackleg coal has been bought since 1st December. It was bad enough to buy it before that date, whether it was in September or October; it was bought then for the deliberate purpose of defeating the miners; but this is far worse.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot go into the general question of the importation of coal. He is quite it order in asking what the particular coal was and where it came from, but the general policy of buying foreign coal cannot be gone into.
§ Mr. BATEY
I was trying to be as careful as possible. I do not want to come into collision with the Chair, and I thought I was steering clear of the rocks in putting this matter in that way. We are entitled to know whether any of this coal was bought in Germany or not, a country with which, only a few years ago, Ministers said that they would never think of doing any business in future. We ought to know how much the coal cost per ton. One of my colleagues said that the increased cost was £1 per ton. The Minister must remember that the big price which the Office of Works had to pay for this coal was due to the Government's blundering. Before 1st May, the cost of a ton of coal produced in this country was only 17s. 3d. During the month of April that was the average cost, and the miners were satisfied with that. Therefore, if this coal has cost an exorbitant price, it has been due to the blunders of the Government. There was no need for it, the miners were prepared to go on at the old rates, which were an average of only 17s. 3d. a ton, because—
§ The CHAIRMAN
That sort of argument was relevant to the coal stoppage last year, but is not relevant to this Estimate.
§ Mr. BATEY
I do not want to be ruled out of Order, but I desire as much information on this matter as I can get. We tried to get information last year, but could not do so. Now the bill has come in to be paid, and we are entitled to have the information before we pay it, I submit that the Government are alone to blame for having to pay such a huge price for blackleg coal, and that, but for the foolish policy which they pursued last year, there would have been no need to have paid such a large price. The Minister should tell us how this coal came into this country and whether or not it came in British ships manned by British sailors. I remember reading, during the coal stoppage last year, that the shipowners saw their chance and had the time of their lives; that they made huge profits out of the increase in freights in bringing coal into this country from abroad. Shipowners never troubled to think a little bit about the interests of this country; they saw a chance of making wealth and they went out to make it. We should know whether the Government were caught by any of these shipowners in bringing in this coal. Again, what was the Government's experience in regard to this coal? Was some of it German lignite coal? Was it as good as British coal? We have our suspicions that it was not. Reports that we read in the Press stated that the experience in regard to the use in railway engines of this blackleg coal showed that it was not to be compared with British coal. The Minister ought to give us as much information on this Estimate as he possibly can.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
I will not follow the particular investigation which the Members of the Opposition are making as to the price of this coal. The last two speakers have made some observations on the matter. One asked whether the Minister had made every effort to impress on the Government the necessity of not using so much coal, and another asked whether the Government were using what he termed "blackleg coal." My only observation is to say that I think both those observations are somewhat belated. A great deal of this coal was used for heating this Chamber, and I heard not one single objection coming 794 from Members opposite that they would carry out their duties in this House in a cold atmosphere.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
On a point of Order. Should not this discussion come on the Vote for Parliament Buildings?
§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes. I do not think that any coal for the heating of this House is included in this Vote.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
I was only endeavouring to point out that the observations which have been made to-day might with more advantage have been made by way of question and answer while this coal was being burnt rather than after it had been burnt. I think that really the only relevant question which does arise on this Estimate is this. Everybody knows perfectly well that everybody cut down the amount of coal which they used. I think the Office of Works are to be congratulated on cutting down the amount of coal used by Government Departments, and they are to be congratulated that this Supplementary Estimate is no bigger than it is. I should like to ask whether the investigations which necessarily had to be made during the coal stoppage into the cutting down of the amount of coal used by the various Government Departments have been of such a nature that the Office of Works can see a saving in later years as a result of those investigations? If that is so, perhaps in this small respect the stoppage may have been a blessing in disguise. I suggest that that is really the only relevant question because the question of the price of coal is one, as hon. Members are quite aware, of the world market price that had to be paid owing to the coal stoppage.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I wish that I had happened to have been a miner or particularly interested in the coal trade in order that I might second the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to reduce this Vote by £100.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member for Spennymoor omitted to move that reduction at the end of his speech. Of course, it is open to the hon. Member to move.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member announced his intention of moving it at the beginning, and he did not conclude by moving it, but the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) is quite capable of moving the reduction.
§ Mr. JONES
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Some people are born to fame and others receive it. Some do not deserve it, and I am one of the latter party, but I am quite in earnest in moving the reduction of this Estimate by £100, not merely because of the amount of the expenditure on this coal, but because I can remember hearing, when I first arrived in this House, in my ignorance and innocence, some hon. Members denounce in very round terms the enemy which we had to defeat. I never thought at that time, that when industrial troubles developed in this country, the first place we should run to to find allies to defeat the British miners would be the very people whom we had been denouncing up bill and down dale previously. Now we find that, apart altogether from normal expenditure, we are paying, on the average, nearly a ton more for German and foreign coal than we paid our own miners for the production of a better article. The people who wave the Union Jack in front of the union jackasses are now presenting the bill, and this is only one small Department, the smallest, perhaps, of all Government Departments. Here comes one with their little bill. It is a try-on a little bit of sugar for the bird £69,000 is the estimate over and above normal expenditure, and it is all for fuel. Hon. Members opposite talk about coke and the heating of this House. We can give this House all the heat it wants, and during the course of these Debates we hope to provide all the necessary means whereby the people opposite will get cold feet.
§ The CHAIRMAN
To speak of the ultimate destination of hon. Members of this House is still less in order.
§ Mr. JONES
I am moving this reduction because this is the first opportunity we have had of doing so. A lot of this coal, I understand, has been used at Woolwich. The Government Department concerned is one of the Departments which is not merely responsible for the buying of foreign coal but is responsible for cutting down necessary and essential work in order to save money. The Office of Works is responsible for the maintenance and repairs of all Government buildings. It is also responsible for the carrying out of great housing schemes in different parts of the country. One hundred and sixteen of these schemes have been adopted. Who by? Not by us. These building schemes have been adopted by the party opposite during their term of office or they have been the successors of schemes previously adopted by those who went before them, but we are told that, because of the coal dispute, these schemes had to be cut down to 60. We would like to know how many of these 60 schemes that they finally adopted are now being carried into effect. The coal dispute is over. So far as the home production of coal is concerned we have reached almost normal. There is, in addition, an amount of 400,000 tons of imported coal in this country, so that the stoppage of this great building work cannot be said to be due to the fact that we have no coal to go on with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] Hon. Members are no doubt greater authorities on this than I am, but they know as well as I do that this is simply a diplomatic excuse to place all the blame on those who happen to be thrown out of work. What the workers outside this House want to know is why you are paying this enormous price for foreign coal when 200,000 miners of this country are out of employment because you have a huge stock of coal for which you are paying exorbitant prices, brought from abroad. We are paving in the East End of London at present 3s. a cwt. for blackleg coal.
§ Mr. JONES
No, and it is a good job that the Office of Works and the Government are not using it. Perhaps they are 797 shifting it on to all the dogs, and we are the dogs. People in the East End are paying 3s. a cwt for this rubbish, and they cannot get anything else because they are told that stocks must be got rid of.
§ Mr. JONES
It is relevant to the fact that the Government have not been robbing themselves, but robbing the people of this country and this Estimate is an attempt to get out of it. I can only re-echo what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has said, that every time we get an opportunity of raising this we shall do so in order to show the patriotism of those who support it.
§ Captain HACKING
I ought not to complain of the reception which has been given to this Supplementary Estimate. The questions that have been asked are all questions which hon. Members have a perfect right to ask. I have to thank the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) for saying that he is pleased at my opening statement which, I am afraid, raised some practical difficulties. I think the hon. Member would have been less generous had we had a short discussion. On the other hand, if I had said nothing, the Opposition would have demanded a great deal more information. I will try to answer all the questions which have been put to me. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) did not offer his services as a heating agency to the Office of Works at an earlier date. Then we might have used them in substitution for imported coal for the heating of the revenue buildings. The first question asked was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who asked a question in regard to contracts. The yearly contracts actually in existence expired in June, 1926, and up to that moment we had not purchased any imported coal at all. We did not purchase any coal until September. That was a yearly contract. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) asked me a question in connection with the purchase of the coal. He wanted to know whether we bought this coat entirely on our own without any consultation with other Departments. As a matter of fact, every purchase of coal we 798 made was in full conjunction with the Ministry of Mines.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Yes, but that was not the object of my question. Does the Office of Works, with the knowledge of the Mines Department, go into the market and does the Admiralty go to work separately? Are all these Departments working separately, or are not they co-ordinated and is not the buying done by one Department?
§ Captain HACKING
I cannot answer, of course, for the Admiralty, but so far as the Office of Works is concerned we do purchase on our own, but on this occasion we purchased in conjunction with the Mines Department. I do not, of course, know what the stocks of the Admiralty were and I have no method at this moment of finding out whether we could have obtained any coal from them, but my own opinion is that the Navy were just as anxious to preserve their stock as we were to preserve ours. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether middlemen came into these transactions. The answer is in the negative; there were no middlemen's profits at all.
§ Captain HACKING
There were no middlemen's profits in the way that we ordinarily mean by that; there was only the usual commission on the Coal Exchange. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked why we did not complete the buildings. He was talking, I think, about the' anticipated saving under the other sub-heads. The reason why we did not complete the buildings was that we could not get the materials with which to complete them, owing to the coal stoppage, which prevented those materials from being manufactured. Immediately we could get the materials we required, we at once went on with the building, and I may say that there was no permanent saving —the saving was only effected in this particular financial year. Mount 799 Pleasant, to which I think the hon. Member referred, is included. There was a stoppage there, but I understand now that the work is being continued. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked where the coal was purchased from. It was purchased from various countries—from Germany, Belgium, Silesia, and Czechoslovakia. I do not know of any other country from which we purchased coal, but I know that we purchased from those countries.
§ Captain HACKING
I do not think we bought any from America. The hon. Member for the Don Valley also asked how this coal was bought? I have already answered that question by saying that it was bought on the Coal Exchange. It was actually landed at various ports in this country—London, Hull, Newcastle, Grangemouth, Manchester, Cardiff, Newport, Plymouth. It was landed at the ports nearest to the places at which the coal would be actually consumed, in order to save payment for transport as far as possible.
§ Captain HACKING
The coal, certainly, had to be transported in some way. For example, the ships in which this coal came over could not get up to Birmingham, and we had to have other means of transport after landing it at the port. I was also asked as to prices. I have told the Committee that we had to pay twice as much for imported coal as for coal that we bought in this country. The average pre-stoppage price was 38s. per ton in cellars, and the price that we had to pay during the stoppage was, approximately, 80s. per ton in cellars. I may be told that if you multiply 70,000 tons—which was the quantity we had to buy—by an increase of £2 per ton, you do not get as a result the amount of £69,000 for which we are asking. There is a very easy answer to that. The Estimate was not arrived at by a simple multiplication of tonnage and average price. It never can be. If it were as simple as that, I could be in sole charge of the Estimates of the Office of Works, but it is not so simple as it 800 sounds. It is rather the result of a complete and detailed survey of the requirements of the various districts into which the country is divided for fuel purposes, and to assume that one could just multiply the tonnage by the average increase in price, and thus get at the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, is erroneous.
With regard to the actual price that we paid, the average was approximately 80s. per ton. Certain Members of the House have stated that they thought we had paid a very excessive price. It may be excessive in normal times, but I do not think the Committee can consider that it was excessive in the circumstances which existed at the moment, for I am told that retailers charged 112s. a ton during the same period. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is shear robbery!"] I am afraid it is not for me to judge, but the retailers' price was 112s. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock) about candles, but I think that question was quite conclusively answered by you, Mr. Hope, when you pointed out that no candles at all were accounted for in this Estimate. The hon. Member for East Bristol asked whether there was a complete stoppage of work on buildings. No, it was not necessarily a complete stoppage of work. We worked as much as ever we could until we were held up. We were held up for girders, which prevented any work being done, and, therefore, we had to stop, but whenever it was possible to put the men on other work we did so, and in almost every case now, I believe, the work is being resumed. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) asked what was the nature of the 5,000,000 tons. I am very sorry if I said "5,000,000 tons." I may have done so, but if I did it was a slip; what I intended to say was that 5,000 tons was the stock of coal. I am not sure if I did say "5,000,000," but if I did I apologise.
§ Captain HACKING
At the beginning of the dispute, in May. I have already answered the hon. Member's query in connection with prices. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) also asked about the average price paid 801 for the coal, and I have answered that. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked how much coal was bought after the 1st December. We entered into no contracts after the 1st December, and the last cargo on existing contracts was cleared on the 23rd December. I have already told the Committee where the coal was bought and how it was landed, about which the hon. Member also asked. He asked, too, what was our experience of the coal. The Committee knows that there is nothing so good as British coal, and our experience was not a happy one. We only hope we shall never have to repeat it. I think I have answered all the questions that have been put to me. I hope I have been frank and honest with the Committee, and that they will now let me have this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. PALING
May I just press one point? I With regard to the 38s. which was the pre-stoppage price in cellars, I would like to ask what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by that. Do I understand that the Government, who place huge contracts for coal—I think a figure of 300,000 tons was mentioned—are paying 38s. per ton delivered? In view of the fact, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), that coal was sold at the pithead in railway trucks before the stoppage at from 16s. 6d. to 18s. per ton, it appears to me that, when the Government are buying in huge quantities like this, 38s. per ton delivered is a very excessive price. May I ask whether that is what the Government actually paid for it, and how they buy it—whether they buy direct from the agents of the colliery companies, or through middlemen?
§ Captain HACKING
We purchase direct from the coal pits and, of course, carriage has to be added to the purchase price. I am assured that the average pre-stoppage price delivered in the cellar works out at 38s.
§ Mr. TAYLOR
Could we have some further explanation about the figure of 80s.? According to some figures which were given in the House not very long ago by the President of the Board of Trade in reply to a question, the average price of imported coal bought under the credit of £3,000,000 which was granted in a Supplementary Estimate of the 802 Board of Trade for the purpose of importing coal, or dealing in coal, shows a very great discrepancy. If my memory serves me correctly, that price was something between 40s. and 45s. a ton as imported at the ports in this country. I should like to know whether this coal has been bought from the Government, or from the agencies of the Government, under that credit of the Board of Trade, or whether it has been bought in the open market? If it has been bought from the Government Department, there must be some explanation of the tremendous difference between 45s. and 80s. a, ton, even making the most liberal allowance for cartage and so on, and it seems to me that we ought to have a much fuller explanation than we have yet had of what is embodied in the 80s.
§ Captain HACKING
I am glad to give as fully as possible the information that the hon. Members wants. I said that the average price was 80s., but that is not quite an average. The price of the imported coal, c.i.f. at English ports, varied from 55s. to 60s. a ton. That is at the port.
§ Mr. TAYLOR
That is the general average price ruling, but I am talking about the price paid by the Board of Trade under their credit of £3,000,000.
§ Captain HACKING
Of course, I do not know anything about the Board of Trade; I do not know how they purchased their coal. I have already explained that we purchased this coal on our own account in conjunction with the Mines Department, and we actually paid from 55s. to 60s. a ton c.i.f. at English ports. The average cost per ton for unloading, freight, cartage and delivery into cellars, was put down at from 15s. to 20s. per ton. That is how I get a maximum of 80s. per ton in cellars. Is that the information that the hon. Member wants?
§ Mr. TAYLOR
No, Sir. The point I want to make clear is this: Did the Office of Works, as a Government Department, draw these supplies of coal from the scheme under which the Board of Trade imported coal into this country by means of Government credits, or did they buy their coal in the open market at the open market price? If so, it seems to me that the position really with regard to this Estimate is that the Government 803 were importing coal at a very much lower figure than the open market price, whereas this Department was paying the open market price at a time when the Government was actually importing at shillings below the market rate.
§ Captain HACKING
That, of course, is only a matter of bookkeeping. I do not know, but if by any chance the other Government Departments purchased coal and made a profit on it, while we happened to have paid rather more for it, it is only a question of bookkeeping between the various Departments. As far as the Treasury is concerned, it would be all right on balance.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
I had hoped that the explanations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be so adequate that we could pass from this Vote, as, of course, it is the first function of an Opposition to expedite Government business. I must confess, however, that his explanation has not entirely resolved some of the questions which have been addressed to him. He now informs us that his Department paid 60s. a ton for this coal at English ports, but I understood him previously to say that he paid 80s. a ton for it at the Coal Exchange in London.
§ Captain HACKING
No, I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. What I said, or intended to say, at any rate, was that this coal cost 80s. a ton in cellars. I think that is what I said.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
That would be the second explanation which we have just heard. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say previously that he had paid 80s. a ton for it in London. I now understand him to say that his Department bought the coal at the ports at 60s. per ton, and that the cost of freight, etc., came roughly to the extra 20s. per ton. Do I correctly apprehend him?
§ Captain HACKING
Yes. The hon. Member, of course, is not trying to make the best of what I have said, and he is not trying to make the best of what the Department has done. I can quote him other prices. I said the maximum was 60s. c.i.f., and the maximum carriage 20s., so that the maximum price in the 804 cellar was actually 80s., but I said that that was not quite the average; the average was a litle lower than that.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I merely want to be perfectly clear as to the exact figures of this transaction. He informed us that there were no middlemen profits of any kind. By that, presumably, he means that he eliminated the profits of the English middlemen. That is not the real complaint. What about the profits of the foreign middlemen? That is a very serious question. Surely, when the Government in these circumstances is taking steps to import coal from abroad, they are not going to pay more than is necessary in profits to the international ring which at that time was trying to hold us up. Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether he took any action of any kind to break the ring abroad, which wan profiting from the condition of this country to sell us coal at exorbitant prices?
He has not told us anything about the shipping freights. What was the cost of shipping this coal to this country? Were those freights normal or were they abnormal? He did not answer the question as to whether or not British ships brought the coal to this country. That was one of the many questions addressed to him in the course of this Debate which he has either failed to answer or has refrained from answering. Before we pass from this subject we certainly ought to know what ships brought the coal to this country, and whether the freights were normal or whether the shipping ring joined the coal ring in profiting at the expense of the country's troubles and the incompetence, possibly, of our measures for the importation of this coal.
If someone is making profits, it is better that they should be English middlemen who, at least, we can tax. We can get something back from them in taxation. It is better, therefore, that they should be English middlemen than foreign middlemen The hon. and gallant Member and his Department took these elaborate precautions to knock out the English middlemen, still leaving us completely exposed to the assaults of the foreign middlemen. If the hon. Member bad taken the sensible course and had bought on the foreign market and im- 805 ported directly under the auspices of the State to this country he would, of course, have come into conflict with some of his pet prejudices. He might have illustrated, inadvertently, that the State was capable of buying coal or any other commodity in the markets of the world, importing it to this country at a very considerable saving, and from that illustration would have arisen other arguments for the bulk purchase of commodities abroad for importation to this country under the direct auspices of the State.
Even when the Government were confronted by this great national menace, so strong were their prejudices, so bound were they by political considerations, that they could not do the very thing which the Government did in the late War, namely, to buy in the markets of the world and import direct to this country. We found in the Great War that the State undertook such operations with considerable success in the sphere of wool, wheat and of meat—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has been long enough a member of this House to know the impropriety of this extension of the argument.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
I bow at once to your ruling. I was merely treating that matter by way of illustration to show that had a different course been adopted in the handling of tins coal we might, from our experience, know that a considerable economy could have been effected. But the hon. and gallant Member waits until the coal has been delivered to the ports in this country, he waits until the shipping ring have demanded their exorbitant price, he waits until the international ring which combines against us in our time of difficulty has taken the maximum profits, and then he says, with triumph, that it is a brilliant stroke of business for his Department. He says: "I have stopped any more middlemen in this country taking still further profits from the nation in that very difficult situation." It is impossible to hear the hon. and gallant Member's explanation and to believe that this business has been conducted in the most efficient manner that was possible.
There are other factors in this Estimate which have not yet received comment. One interesting point that arises is the Government's miscalculation 806 as to the duration of the strike. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"] I beg pardon. The Government miscalculated the duration of the lock-out. There were two events, the general strike and the lock-out. Personally, I should argue that they were both lock-outs. [Laughter.] At any rate, I should argue that they both arose from the situation of the lock-out. However, in the confusion of terms which arise from the description of these two events we are liable to fall into error. The Government believe that in laying in a stock of 5,000 tons of coal they would see the whole business through. They thought that 5,000 tons of coal, for the purpose of Government Departments at any rate, was sufficient to break the resistance of the miners. They made a very serious miscalculation in regard to that great trade union. Surely, from that fact arises a consideration pregnant with warning for the future, that if they have so miscalculated the resistance of one union, they may very well during the present Session miscalculate the resistence of the whole of organised labour in this country.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
I will pass from that very interesting consideration, and express the hope that the Government may learn from their blunders of the past to conduct themselves in a more sensible manner in the future. I admit that, in holding that view, even the possibility of that view, I am an optimist. At the same time, may we not ask the Government to reflect how very seriously they miscalculated the duration of the coal stoppage, as is evidenced from the Estimate which we have now under consideration? If we were really to go to the root of this matter and to consider the reasons for this Estimate, we should have to consider every factor which was responsible for the prolongation of the coal stoppage, and I realise that that would not be within the scope of this Estimate. We should have to ask the Home Secretary to attend this Debate and to explain his action. Possibly, we should have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the "British Gazette." It is impossible within the narrow limits of the rules governing Supplementary Estimates really to go to 807 the heart of this matter and to bring home to the Government the responsibility which I believe to be theirs. But at such a time when the Government are, one hopes, deriving some warning from this Estimate, we may well seize the opportunity to bring home to them the bill which they now have to foot for the
§ blunders of the past and to repudiate any responsibility of any kind for that policy from these benches.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,900, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 250.809
|Division No. 4.]||AYES.||[5.41 p.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardie, George D.||Sexton, James|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harney, E. A.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Ammon, Charles George||Harris, Percy A.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Baker, Walter||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hayday, Arthur||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, Rennie (penistone)|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Snell, Harry|
|Broad, F. A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromfield, William||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Bromley, J.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Buxton, At. Hon. Noel||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sullivan, J.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kelly, W. T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kennedy, T.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clowes, S.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thomas, Ht. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kenyon, Barnet||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawrence, Susan||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Connolly, M.||Lee, F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cove, W. G.||Lindley, F. W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lowth, T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||MacLaren, Andrew||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||March, S.||Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen|
|Dennison, R.||Maxton, James||Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Montague, Frederick||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnico, H.||Morris, R. H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mosley, Oswald||Welsh, J. C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Naylor, T. E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Palin, John Henry||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)|
|Groves, T.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grundy T. W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Scurr, John|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Burman, J. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Burton, Colonel H. W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Berry, Sir George||Cadogar, Major Hon. Edward|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Bethel, A.||Carver, Major W. H.|
|Alexander Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Betterton, Henry B.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W Derby)||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Blundell, F. N.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Boothby, R. J. G.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Apsley, Lord||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Chilcott, Sir Warden|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Christie. J. A.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Briggs, J. Harold||Cohen, Major J. Brunei|
|Atkinson, C.||Briscoe, Richard George||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brittain, Sir Harry||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Balniel, Lord||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cope, Major William|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Buckingham, Sir H.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Bullock, Captain M.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurst, Gerald S.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Jacob, A E.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Jephcott, A. R.||Sandon, Lord|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Savery, S. S.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Edwards, J, Hugh (Accrington)||Lamb, J. Q.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Bellst)|
|England, Colonel A.||Looker, Herbert William||Skelton, A. N.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lougher, L.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Smithers, Waldron|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Lumley, L. R.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McLean, Major A.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Forrest, W.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Stanley, Han. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Malone, Major P. B.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Margesson, Captain D.||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Meller, R. J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Gates, Percy||Merriman, F. S.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Tasker, Major R. Inigo|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Grace, John||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Tinne, J. A.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Murchison, Sir C. K.||Tichfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Grotrian, H, Brent||Mall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Waddington, R.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Hanbury, C.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Harland, A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Pennefather, Sir John||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Percy, Lard Eustace (Hastings)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wells, S. R.|
|Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Philipson, Mabel||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Plicher, G.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Raine, W.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Withers, John James|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Rentoul, G. S.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Rice, Sir Frederick||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Huntingfield, Lord||Rye, F. G.||Captain Bowyer.|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Salmon, Major I.|
§ Original Question put.810
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 127.813
|Division No. 5.]||AYES.||[5.50 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Atholl, Duchess of||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Atkinson, C.||Birchall, Major J, Dearman|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Balniel, Lord||Blundell, F. N.|
|Albery, Irving James||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Braithwaite, Major A. N.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm., (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Brassey, Sir Leonard|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Briggs, J. Harold|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Briscoe, Richard George|
|Apsley, Lord||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Brittain, Sir Harry|
|Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Berry, Sir George||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bethel, A.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Burman, J. B.||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Holland, Sir Arthur||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Rye, F. G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Christie, J. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Sandon, Lord|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Savery, S. S.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Huntingfield, Lord||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Cope, Major William||Hurst, Gerald B.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Couper, J. B.||Jacob, A. E.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Jephcott, A. R.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Smithers, Waldron|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.||Lamb, J. Q.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lougher, L.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lumley, L. R.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|England, Colonel A.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacRobert, Alexander M||Tasker, Major R. Inigo|
|Fairfax, Capain J. G.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Margesson, Captain D.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Meller, R. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Merriman, F. B.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Forrest, W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Waddington, R.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Murchison, Sir C. K.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Gates, Percy||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Nelson, Sir Frank||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wells, S. R.|
|Grace, John||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Grenfell, Edward, C. (City of London)||Pennefather, Sir John||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Withers, John James|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Philipson, Mabel||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Pilcher, G.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hanbury, C.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Harland, A.||Raine, W.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Keneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Rentoul, G. S.||Capt. Bowyer.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Crawfurd H. E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Buchanan, G.||Dalton, Hugh|
|Ammon, Charles George||Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Baker, Walter||Cape, Thomas||Day, Colonel Harry|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Charleton, H. C.||Dennison, R.|
|Batey, Joseph||Clowes, S.||Duncan, C.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Dunnico, H.|
|Briant, Frank||Compton, Joseph||Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Broad, F. A.||Connolly, M.||Fenby, T. D.|
|Bromfield, William||Cove, W. G.||Gardner, J. P.|
|Bromley, J.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Gillett, George M.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||MacLaren, Andrew||Stephen, Campbell|
|Greenall, T,||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Stewart, J (St. Rollox)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||March, S.||Sullivan, J.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James||Sutton, J. E.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Montague, Frederick||Taylor, R. A.|
|Groves, T.||Morris, R. H.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Mosley, Oswald||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Naylor, T. E.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Palin, John Henry||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hardie, George D.||Paling, W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Harney, E. A.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Townend, A. E.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W,||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Potts, John S.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Viant, S. P.|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Rose, Frank H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Scrymgeour, E.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Scurr, John||Welsh, J. C.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sexton, James||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Whiteley, W.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Kennedy, T.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wright, W.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Lee, F.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Lindley, F. W.||Snell, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lowth, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.|
|Lunn, William||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|