§ Order for Committee read.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Before the House proceeds to a Committee on this Bill, I have to deal with two Notices of Motion which have been put upon the Paper, one standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George),That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Coal Mines Bill that the Committee be empowered to consider Clauses providing for the acquisition of coal royalties and wayleaves,and the other standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salford West (Mr. Haycock) and other hon. Members,That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Coal Mines Bill that the Committee be empowered to consider Clauses providing for the transfer of the ownership of coal mines and the connected industries, as well as mineral rights, to a public authority constituted for this purpose.I can deal with both the Instructions together. I must rule both of them outside the scope of the Bill. If they were included in the Bill, they would undoubtedly impose a fresh charge and would consequently need a new Money Resolution, and it would mean that the King's Recommendation would be required. The existing Money Resolution which the House passed the ether day empowers the Committee to deal only with those proposals which are actually provided for in that Money Resolution. Therefore, I must rule both these Instructions out of order.
§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the chair.]
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)
I beg to move:That the consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or any Clause in that Part is mentioned) have been disposed of.This Motion is worded in a slightly different form from the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Before I come to the merits of this proposal, I think I might explain, quite 1722 simply, and, I trust, clearly, the precise way in which this change would work, and it will be necessary to ask, to some extent, the indulgence of the chairman of the Committee if, for the purposes of explanation, I go a little beyond the strict terms of this proposal. If the Committee agrees to this proposition that Part I be postponed, we shall proceed immediately to pass to that part of the Bill dealing with hours of work, and overtake the Amendments to Part II. We should then proceed to the consideration of Part III dealing with the Coal Mines National Industrial Board and Amendments to that Part; then Part IV of the Bill, which, as it is printed, is very largely explanatory, and is a Part to which few, if any, Amendments have been put on the Paper. That will cover Parts II, III and IV of the Bill with Amendments. We should then turn to new Clauses which do not relate to Part I, and dispose of these new Clauses, and, having covered the whole of the ground in that way, we come back under this proposal to Part I and the Clauses which bear upon that part of the Bill. I think the whole House will agree that we should get into hopeless confusion if any other course were followed.
I propose to deal quite frankly and quite plainly with the case for this proposal. There is not the slightest reason why I should not refer in general terms to discussions which have taken place with hon. Members in other parts of the House. I am bound, of course, to acknowledge at once—what, indeed, the Committee generally recognises—that this is a controversial Bill on which there is ample room for division of opinion, and to remind the House that the whole object of the Government is to get a perfectly fair and impartial examination of its terms. There is no doubt whatever that it might be easier from some points of view to begin with the marketing proposals, and to regard the rest of the Bill as built on that part, but a very strong case can be made out on the other side for postponement, provided I make the circumstances under which the Government agree to postponement perfectly plain. I can say at this stage that as regards hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches and on the Liberal benches, there is a strong sub- 1723 stantial agreement regarding three parts of the Bill. I should say there is substantial agreement regarding the hours of work, the National Industrial Board and the amalgamation proposals. That does not exclude the discussion of any of those parts and the analysis of such Amendments as may be proposed, but in the main there is agreement regarding three portions of the Bill.
We have always recognised that on the other side Part I and the marketing proposals were highly controversial, and there is not the slightest reason why I should not refer to discussions that have taken place for the purpose of trying to reach agreement regarding that part. In a matter of this kind relating to one of the great industries in the State, which has passed through times of remarkable difficulty, and is still exposed to very great risk in the markets at home and abroad, I should imagine that Parliament would wish to approach the problem in a constructive spirit, and, as far as we can do it at this Table, by laying aside party considerations. The Government attach the very greatest importance to Part I of the Bill. We have said all along that, having regard to the selling of coal, that is, the sale of coal at an unremunerative level, or a substantial part at a loss, some steps must be taken for the purpose of bringing the owners into line, preferably in district organisations, to dispose of their coal on terms which are fair and equitable, and which would avoid this weak selling and loss. Steps of that kind have been taken in other important industries in this country, but the real question, or the substantial problem, for the House of Commons, turns on the steps which, in our view, are necessary to bring in all owners in those districts, in other words, the compulsory element in order to make these schemes complete as regards the disposal of coal.
The position in the Government's view is that if Part I of this Bill is lost, that is, if these district schemes, which have for their object the prevention of sale of coal at a loss, and incidentally a loss falling not only on the side of ownership but on the side of a million men employed and those dependent on them—the Government's view is that if that is not to happen, then Part I sub- 1724 stantially in its present form is required. But, of course, we are still aware that any proposal which means a regulation or, I would almost prefer to say, a rationing of output raises very large problems, and, in particular, it would raise that problem of the regulation of the efficient units in this country to which that quota will apply and of their relations to other units in competition. During the Second Reading discussion on this Bill it was quite clear that hon. Members in various parts of the House were very much concerned lest the effect of the coal arrangements might be to give a fresh lease of life, not deserved and not in the national interest, to weak or inefficient units, and, accordingly, we had to address our minds to the consideration of that problem.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not quite sure how far the right hon. Gentleman is going to discuss the necessity for this alteration in connection with particular parts of the Bill, but he cannot discuss the merits of Part I.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
No, that is a decided difficulty in which I am placed. I was trying to state simply the differences of view which were expressed during the Second Reading Debate, but I proposed to pass almost immediately from that and to say that in making the Government proposal that we should postpone consideration of Part I, I want to make it quite clear that we regard Part I as essential. I should hope that this is the only substantial point of difference remaining between us. One of the advantages, quite plainly, of this postponement is that we can direct our minds to the further analysis of that proposition, and do our best to secure agreement if that can be obtained. There is another general advantage in postponement in that it would have the effect of shortening our proceedings, an advantage which, I am sure, would impress Members in all parts of the House.
Whatever view we take of the future of this industry, there is no doubt that conditions will be difficult as long as the uncertainty arising from this legislation remains. In the interests of owners and men, the industry is entitled to know at the earliest possible moment what exactly this Bill proposes to do. I would ask the Committee in all fairness not to give 1725 up its right to discussion, or anything like that, but to bear that constantly in mind in the analysis of this problem. I will not go beyond that this afternoon, because it is very difficult to obey the rules of Order and not stray away from the Motion. I, therefore, beg to move this Motion, which will have the effect of giving prior consideration to the other portions of the Bill.
§ Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN
I beg to move, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I recognise the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed, and I sympathise with his position. He found it difficult to say all that he desired under the Rules of Order, and, not for the first time, I come to the rescue of the Government. I move this Motion so that the Debate may widen out to allow of all these doubtful points being cleared up. I do not propose to go into any detail as to how this entirely novel procedure will affect all the discussions on the Bill, for I have not the technical knowledge of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has, or which some of my friends who will follow me have, but I do rise to speak on very broad grounds, and those grounds are these: I think the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time in his life, has treated the House of Commons and the Opposition with very scant courtesy, and, I may add, not with that fairness that we expect from him. This is, as he said, a Bill of great complexity and great difficulty. It is a Bill to which as a party we are strongly opposed, but as the Opposition—the principal part of the Opposition—we have been at pains to do what we can to suggest Amendments to make the Bill, from our point of view, a better Bill.
We may be right or we may be wrong in the Amendments which we have put down, but we have had on the Paper now for many days to enable the Government to consider them adequately, the Amendments we think proper to put down on the first part of the Bill. We have not yet troubled to put down Amendments to the other parts, not believing that those Clauses would be reached for some time, and we were not yet aware how far the Clauses themselves might be affected by what the House might do. In the same way, Part II is a very important 1726 part of the Bill. That, again, we were not prepared to discuss. We have not yet had time fully to consider all the points involved, and we did not consider it possible that Part II, a most important part, could possibly be taken before next week. That being the position, what do we find? We find the Government put down a Notice on the Paper which we see for the first time this morning. I take no exception—and I wish the Committee to mark this—to the fact that we were not consulted. I take exception to the fact that the first intimation we had was this morning.
My contention is that in a matter of this importance, the upsetting of the whole procedure on this Bill, that we should have had no warning, when the ordinary decencies of Parliamentary life would give us at least some days' notice, is a proceeding as novel as it is undesirable. One wonders very much how this eleventh-hour change is to be made. In seven months the Government have had time to consider these points, and to negotiate with their allies. They think it is a question of no importance what part of the Bill is taken first. I remember, some years ago, there was a most worthy Member of Parliament who sat for the Black Country, and I asked him once how he managed to get returned time after time. He said: "I have only one speech, but I begin at one place at the beginning; at the next place, I begin in the middle; and at the next place I begin at the end." The right hon. Gentleman is treating this Bill exactly as that most respected Member of the Liberal party in Victorian days treated his speech. I was very much amazed, although I need hardly say that I do not believe everything that I see in the newspapers, to note that the Government have set another precedent. Instead of asking a Leader of the Opposition to come to see them, they paid a visit to that Leader of the Opposition. I should like very much to know if that is true. I remember, although it is a good many years ago, that there was an Emperor Henry who paid a visit, at a very rough time of the year, to Canossa, which passed into a proverb and by-word in Europe for eight centuries.
What has this to do with the Coal Bill?
It has a good deal to do with the Coal Bill. Due submission was made by the Government to that leader of a section of the Opposition. The Government have been to Canossa, and it may well be that the results of that visit may be as grave in their ease as they were in the case of the Emperor. As far as I know, and I have been in this House a good many years, it is an absolutely unprecedented course that is suggested by the Government. I wish to make it quite clear that we have and can have no objection to any arrangement that may be come to between hon. and right hon. Members opposite and hon. and right hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House. That has nothing to do with us, but what we do ask for is the ordinary decency and courtesy of treatment which we have a right to expect and which, I trust, we showed when we were in office. I am sure that it is the last thing that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have done, if he had thought about it. It is not like him at all. It looks like being too clever, and he has never played that game. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration what I have said.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the Leader of the Opposition has been rather unreasonable. May I point out the circumstances? The Motion which has been moved by the President of the Board of Trade has been on the Order Paper for about three weeks, certainly for a fortnight. It was well known that it was being discussed between representatives of the Government and representatives of our party, and that it was quite possible that the Government, seeing how reasonable our proposal was, would recognise the advantage of it. I do not know to what extent I shall be entitled to discuss the merits of the proposal, but it is rather difficult to discuss the question to report Progress without showing how thoroughly reasonable the proposal is, and that no reasonable person would expect that it would not be moved ultimately and carried by the Committee. I should like a Ruling as to how far I shall be in order in discussing the proposal.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Question before the House is that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Reasons can be given why the Motion has been moved, and reasons can be given against it, but we cannot go into the merits of the Clauses affected.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I understand that. The notice has been or the Order Paper for at least a fortnight, possibly three weeks.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, but I happen to be a Member of this House, and as I have taken the trouble to go through the Amendments put down by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and have considered them very carefully, and what their effect will be, I naturally assumed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would extend the same courtesy to Amendments put down by us. It is a thoroughly reasonable Motion. What does it really mean? I will not go into the merits, but let us see what the three sections of the Bill mean. The sections which we shall reach to-night are the sections which impose obligations. If there are to be any burdens upon the mines, they are burdens which will be created by the two sections which we should reach to-night—the section relating to the curtailment of hours of labour and the section dealing with the Wages Board. The first section, Part I, is simply the provisions, by the Government to meet those obligations. It is in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons that this section should be postponed. Supply comes first and Ways and Means afterwards. We decide first what are the obligations to be imposed upon the minas of this country, and we proceed to take steps in regard to price and quotas. What for? To meet some obligation which has not yet been created.
Until we have disposed of Clauses 9 and 10 it would be reasonable from the business point of view and from the traditions of the House of Commons that the 1729 first thing we ought to discuss is the question whether we will impose those obligations, to begin with. Having decided to impose them, then we must decide on the extent of the obligations. I am not going to give any indication of our view beyond what I gave on the Second Reading. So far as we are concerned we will support the proposals in Clauses 9 and 10. It is for a Committee of the House of Commons to decide, not merely whether it will adopt the Clauses of the Government, but under what conditions and with what reservations. It is only when we know what form Clauses 9 and 10 will ultimately take that we can discuss the question of how we are going to meet the loss, if there is to be a loss, that will be imposed upon the mines by the addition of the obligations under Clauses 9 and 10.
Then I come to the third section. There are some of us who take the view that it will not be necessary to put up prices if we reorganise the industry. Therefore the Government come to the question of amalgamation, which is the method, in our judgment, of reconstruction, which will have the effect of saving overhead charges and enabling us to meet the cost of the curtailment of hours without imposing any burdens upon the community. That seems to be the logical way to deal with this problem. First, let the Committee decide whether it is going to put fresh burdens upon the mines by the curtailment of hours; secondly, let it consider how this is to be met. Can it be met without putting up the burden upon the consumer? That is where the new Clauses of the Government come in. If after the Committee has discussed that it is still felt that there is a burden left that will not be adequately met, at any rate for a couple of years, or whatever the time limit of the Government may be—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If at the end of discussions upon amalgamation it is felt by the Committee that there is still a burden of obligation which cannot be met for three years, without some other provision being made, then we are willing to consider that fairly and in a helpful spirit, but I certainly cannot accept the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to quota. I have a very strong 1730 feeling in regard to that, but it is premature to discuss it, and it would be out of order. Even if it were not out of order, I should have thought that this is not the stage at which we can discuss it. It would make further discussion very difficult if we were to anticipate that discussion at this stage. It would be very much better that that discussion should be postponed with a view to seeing whether something cannot be arranged which will enable the Government to get the Bill through as an agreed Bill. I do not despair of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen even on this side of the House. It is obviously to the advantage of industry that we should get an agreed Bill, if we can; it is to the advantage of the mineowners, the miners and the general community.
I cannot see why there should be so much deprecation of a private discussion on this matter. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did come to see me once, but I saw him many more times under certain conditions. I will not say that he dictated them, but he invited me. He paid the deference which is due to age and infirmity by meeting my convenience upon one occasion. This is regarded as a sin, but it will be forgiven him in this world and certainly in the next that he should have done so. I am very much obliged to him for his courtesy in meeting me on that one occasion. If there is no more serious argument against that course than that he extended courtesy to me I hope that we shall get on with business. Logically, the method suggested is the right one. Let there be first of all, Supply. What burdens are you going to incur?
Secondly, there comes Ways and Means. How are you going to meet that Supply? Thirdly, let us see whether we can meet it without putting any burden on the community, by cutting down overhead charges and simplifying reorganisation. If, after we have done that, there is something left, then let us proceed to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, especially in view of the time limit of three years, and find out whether it is necessary that something should be done and if so, what, to meet the remnants, during that limited period, of the burden that is to be cast upon the mines. That is the spirit in which we embark 1731 upon this question, and I trust that the Committee will take that very reasonable view.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER
The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misconceived the argument which my right hon. Friend has presented to the House. The argument of my right hon. Friend was that it was unusual to ask us to consider new Clauses and to adopt new procedure of which the Government has given us only 12 hours' notice. It is true that there was a Notice of Motion upon the Order Paper, which has been moved to-day by the President of the Board of Trade, but it was not in the name of the Government. We all know that under the ordinary procedure, if an Amendment or a Motion is put down to which the Government propose to agree, and they wish to give the usual notice to the House, the right hon. Gentleman could have gone the next day to the Table and added his name to the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the foot of the Motion. Then we should have been provided with three weeks' notice that the President of the Board of Trade had made an agreement and that he was proposing to adopt the Motion.
Why did he not do it? He did not do it because until last night he had no intention of agreeing to it. He was negotiating, apparently, and we make no complaint, up to the last moment, and even now we do not know the terms of the negotiations. They are to be put on the Order Paper. It certainly was not until last night that the decision was taken by the right hon. Gentleman to adopt this proposal. If he did, in fact, take that decision sooner than he ought in convenience to himself and courtesy to the House to have let us know, because we should have been prepared, if we had had that proposal before us, to put our amendments on the Paper and to debate this on its merits. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? I must take the Committee back to what he said on the Second Reading. The whole case of the right hon. Gentleman as presented to the House was that Part I was the key and kernel of this Bill, and the Prime Minister in winding up the Debate endorsed that view. The President of the Board of Trade, as his justification for 1732 Part I, said that unless Part I was passed quickly you could not justify the passing of Part II. In the coarse of the Debate the question of amalgamation was raised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and other speakers. It was treated as something entirely subsidiary to the main purpose of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said that he was going to have an inquiry. He thought he had the power to have it, and if not that he could put it into this Bill or into another Bill.
What happened? The President of the Board of Trade considered the position with regard to these new Clauses, which we are asked to consider at once, and he put these new Clauses, subsidiary Clauses as he described them on the Second Reading, on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman gave us very ample notice of the new Clauses he proposes to move at the end of the Bill. I make no complaint of that. We have put down some small amendments to them, but we should wish to consider them and others with a great deal more criticism when we reach them at the end of the Bill. He leaves the House under the impression that he rejects the proposal of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; and that the new Clauses on the Paper will be taken when we come to them in the ordinary course. Negotiations take place. The Committee does not in the least know what this agreement is, or how the new Clauses are going to be modified as a result of this agreement. It does not know how Part I is going to be modified as a result of the agreement. There is no Amendment down in the name of the President of the Board of Trade nor in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. All we are told is that there have been negotiations, that there is an agreement. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs told us the other day that needs must when two drive. Apparently needs must when one drives.
I am not sure that the President of the Board of Trade has got a good deal. What has he done? He has capitulated. He says, "I take your Clauses, and then Part I can come later on." If he was a better business man, or a, more astute dealer, I think he could have got a firm contract as to the Amendments to Part I and the Clauses which form the subject 1733 of the agreement. How he negotiates is a matter for himself. What is important for the Committee is the new plan of the Government. That is what we are entitled to know. The deal is not simply on the basis that the new Clauses standing in the name of the right hon. Member are all that are to go through. Presumably, the new Clauses are to be amended. Presumably, Part I is either to go or is to be drastically amended. There is a difference of opinion. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Government attach the utmost importance to Part I, and that substantially in its present form it is essential. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says he is a bitter opponent of the quota system, and reserves to himself rights under Part I. Where do we stand? Where does the Government stand? We are entitled to ask the Government at this, stage to move to report Progress, and give the Committee proper notice of the new Clauses which it is to be asked to consider as a result of this deal at party headquarters. We have a right to know the new Clauses that are going to be put down, and the Amendments to Part I, the essential part, that are going to be put down.
The President of the Board of Trade always treats the Committee with courtesy. He presented his Bill in great detail, and explained it at great length and with great ability. He gave us ample notice of the Committee stage and was good enough to answer a number of questions I put to him. That is very different from the way in which we are now to be treated. If he wishes to make any progress with his Bill—[Interruption]—he is much more likely—and he has been in the House longer than some of those who have interrupted—to make progress with the Bill if he treats the Committee in a reasonable manner and gives us reasonable notice. Therefore, I ask him to move to report Progress now and put on the Order Paper the new clauses which he will invite us to discuss and the recast of Part I, which is in some way to be recast, as a result of this deal. If he does not do that the House will quite plainly enter upon a discussion not only without notice but absolutely in the dark as to the plans of the Government. I think the Motion ought to be accepted in order that we may know 1734 the latest proposals of the Government. The proposal is not to postpone the whole of the Bill until the new clauses have been considered, but a proposal to postpone Part I, the essential part, until the new clauses are considered, and we are asked to go forward and discuss Part II which deals with hours before we have had any discussion on Part I. That is absolutely impossible, and I submit it is impossible not merely on my own authority but on the very arguments which the President of the Board of Trade himself, and the Prime Minister, advanced to the House on Second Reading. When the President of the Board of Trade was discussing the possibilities of amalgamation and the need for dealing with Part I at once, he said:We were pledged to restore the seven hours' day at the earliest opportunity and we offer part of that pledge this afternoon. I make no apology whatever for doing that together with a scheme of co-ordination, because they are bound up together. Only a fool would submit that they are not all bound up together. You cannot separate one from another in an industry like this. [Interruption.]—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1270, Vol. 233.]I am glad hon. Members opposite support my argument. My proposition is that if you are going to postpone any part of this Bill until you have dealt with some new clauses which we have not yet seen, you cannot merely postpone Part I but you must postpone Part II as well. Then we had the intervention of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in a most eloquent speech. He made an appeal to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, having had plenty of time to consider it—a day in between—speaking on the second day endorsed the importance of going on with Part I. He said a good deal about amalgamation. He said it was absurd—I am paraphrasing his words, but I think quite correctly—to suppose that you could get amalgamation through in time to make the change in this industry which was necessary if you are to shorten hours under Part II. The Prime Minister said:We see that Part II is going to reduce the hours of labour, and we are preparing the trade to enable it to stand the expense of the reduction of hours of labour. The expense can be stood, not by subsidies, but by so enabling the trade to get economic prices that wages can come out of the proceeds of those economic prices. There is 1735 no reason whatever for any reduction of wages when the shift is reduced to 7½ hours, and Part I provides the wherewithal for that to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1771, Vol. 233.]Speaking on amalgamation, he said:No one who has studied the time required for the completion of amalgamation really honestly, either to himself or this House, would say that amalgamation and the economies resulting from it can be reaped in time to enable the trade to readjust itself when the Eight Hours day has ceased to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1765, Vol. 233.]That was the considered judgment of the President of the Board of Trade when he introduced the Bill, and of the Prime Minister when he wound up the Debate on the Second Reading. Unless they have not only abdicated the function of leadership to the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, but also the whole of their judgment and their reconsidered judgment, we have a right to say that if the Debate on Part I is postponed then the Debate on Part II must certainly be postponed. Whatever they have abdicated they have not abdicated their duty to this Committee, which is to give us proper notice of the procedure they intend to adopt and of any plans they intend to lay before the Committee.
§ Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS
We have heard a good deal about the Government's position and about one section of the Opposition or another, but we have not heard anything so far with regard to the position of the coal trade itself or the difficulties that those who have the responsibilities of management of the industry are put into by these continual changes and uncertainties. It was last July that the right hon. Gentleman first stated that he was going to bring in and enforce—I think he almost said that he would stand or fall by it—a compulsory marketing scheme. We have now reached the month of February, and the uncertainty as to what is to be in that marketing scheme or in this Bill as a whole is greater than ever it was since last July. The President of the Board of Trade ought to realise the difficulties and the dangers that ensue from these delays. If people do not know under what scheme they are going to work, they are not able reasonably to make their arrangements for the future. The exporting agents and factors are having the greatest possible difficulty in knowing what to do. What 1736 is more, the right hon. Gentleman will find, as time goes on, that more and more of the value of Part I of the Bill will be gone, because people are taking advantage of this delay and uncertainty to make contracts into the distant future.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a very foolish thing to do, but the salesman is up against a very serious problem when he has to answer the question, "Will you make a contract with me for a couple of years ahead, or will you loose my business for ever"? That is what the delay is doing. The coal trade is entitled to know the Government's mind on Part I. It was fairly certain what would be in Parts II and III. There are to be amalgamation Schemes. There may be doubt, but that does not affect the immediate selling position so seriously. Part I is the Part in regard to which the uncertainty is the greatest, and it is the Part on which we should know the Government's mind as early as possible; it is the crux of the whole thing. If the Government and the Liberal party really desire to do a further injury to this trade and to make recovery more difficult, they will still further postpone re-consideration of Part I.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Surely we are going to have an answer from the Government to the reasonable request and protest which have been made from this side? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke in the sense that it might be an advantage if ultimately this Bill, now so much in dispute, emerged from the House of Commons as an agreed Bill to which all parties had made their contribution. Whether that possibility can ever be realised we do not know, but surely the Government, by taking the course that they are taking to-day, are placing a great and perhaps a fatal obstacle in the path of any general co-operation of the House. We make no complaint, and the Leader of the Opposition made no complaint, of the colloquies and discussions that have taken place between the Government and the Liberal party. People are perfectly free to discuss political action together, and to discuss the details of legislation together when they wish, but there are other questions at issue besides the relations between the Labour party and the Liberal party. There are questions affecting the rights 1737 of the House of Commons. After all, those who sit on these benches have some rights. They are far more numerous than those who sit on the Liberal benches, and they have at least a right to have accorded to them the ordinary consideration which is customary in the transaction of public business.
What is the point which is made by the Leader of the Opposition? Until this morning we had no reason to believe that the Government were going to adopt and submit to or acquiesce in the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon. The right hon. Gentleman said that those Amendments had been on the Paper for three weeks. We all have a great interest in his exceptional activities in this Parliament, but, after all, even taking the most favourable view of those exertions, an Amendment that stands in his name or that or his followers is not the same as an Amendment put down by the responsible Government of the day, which represents the largest party in the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will see the fallacy of the argument that he advanced against the Leader of the Opposition, that we have no ground of complaint and that no substantial difference had been made when, instead of his name being behind his Amendment, it is put forward on the authority of the Government.
I am assured that the bringing on of Part II of the Bill at this moment unexpectedly, and the withdrawal of Part I, mean that hon. Members on this side of the House have not had an opportunity of preparing and placing on the Paper their Amendments to Part II. For doing that they are entitled to a reasonable time. No long delay is necessary. There is no need to make a serious interruption of Government business. But for the ordinary and practical reasons of Debate there should be at least a single day's interlude, after so decisive a change by the Government, before we are asked to embark on the discussion of Part II. To come down, as a result of what I might call a side deal with one section of the House, and to alter the whole course of Government business, to confront us with the discussion of matters which no one who is not in the secrets of the Government or 1738 of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had contemplated would be a subject for Debate to-day—to ask us to do that is grossly unfair. It is more than unfair; it is unwise, because the Government are not themselves in so strong a position numerically in this House or in any other way that they can afford to ride rough-shod over the wishes and feelings of a very large number of Gentlemen sitting in this House.
We have a right to proper treatment. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should be so very inconsiderate to those who, like himself, sit on this side of the House. He may have fixed up some arrangement satisfactorily with the Government. He has, perhaps, compelled them to adopt the proposals which he has put forward. He has made them bend to his will. He has made them go to Canossa. He has made the Government, as the Foreign Secretary said on a previous occasion, "stand on the mat" and await admission. I can quite understand his being gratified. But surely in the moment of triumph, in the moment of satisfaction and glory, he might lnd some consideration for others who at any rate voted in the same Lobby as him the other evening. As far as this Bill is concerned, hitherto there has been virtual agreement and co-operation between the non-Socialist parties in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled, for reasons of his own, to come to some accommodation with the Government, but in embracing a new ally there is no need to spurn those with whom he has previously walked into the Lobby.
After all the right hon. Gentleman frequently talks to us about the interests of small parties in the House. He frequently addresses the Chair and on occasions speaks of how the Speaker and the chairman of Committees are the guardians of the rights of minorities in this House. In this matter why should he co-operate with the Government to secure unfair treatment of a party almost as large as the Government party? Surely he can deliver the goods to the Government under any arrangement that he has made without at the same time trampling on the fair procedure of the House of Commons and treating in a callous and uncivil manner 1739 other Members and parties who have been invited to take part in the discussion of this Bill.
I am sure that if the Government do not treat us fairly in this matter they will not accelerate their business. There are means and methods by which Government business and the progress of complicated Bills can be made much more rapid. But this method, according to all the experience I have had of the House, is most calculated to prolong and exacerbate our Debates. I am going to ask the Government not to sit still like stocks and stones and refuse to make no answer to any kind of appeal which is made to them. I ask them to give us a reasonable opportunity to consider the new situation created by the side-slipping of Part I, so that we can address ourselves to Part II with proper and reasonable Parliamentary notice. In that case I am sure that the loss of a single day will not mean the loss of time in the carrying forward of legislation. But if the Government treat us with scorn and contempt because they have made an arrangement, a very fleeting and precarious arrangement, with their political associates of the moment who at other times are then-political foes—if they think that because of that they can afford to disdain us and disdain those who wish to be contributory parties to this legislation, they will render their course of Parliamentary business infinitely troublesome and prolonged.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I am sure it must have been regrettable to every constitutionalist in this House to hear two Members of His Majesty's Privy Council in succession, presumably officially on behalf of the Conservative party, make threats to obstruct the business of the House. That, surely, is a matter for great regret to all of us who love to see things proceeding in an orderly fashion. When it is done in the name of protecting the rights of the House of Commons it seems rather surprising to those of us who heard an hon. and gallant Member, speaking for the Opposition and winding up the Unemployment Insurance Bill debate, threaten us with the powers of the House of Lords; and when yesterday we had the further experience of the Conservative party using the convention at 1740 the other end of the building to set at naught all the careful consideration that this House had given to that Bill. To appeal to us now on the ground that, in some way, the rights of the House of Commons are being interfered with, because the Tory party have not been able to think out their Amendments in view of the new-situation seems to me very childish indeed. I have known occasions when organisations less powerful than the Conservative party, would have put in all the necessary Amendments to a Bill of this description in the time in which we have been debating this Motion.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
We are asking to see the Government Amendments. The Government have done a deal, and have a new plan, and we are asking to see the new plan.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I think that on this Bill the situation will change from hour to hour. I do not see why the Conservative party should be jealous because the Liberal Government—[Laughter.]—I am afraid that was not very intelligent anticipation—because the Liberal party have come to the aid of the Government to-day. They know that they themselves on several occasions have come to the aid of the Government, and, having regard to their anxiety to avoid a General Election, I have not the faintest doubt that the Conservative party will come to the support of the Government again. If this were a new topic there would be some reason why the Conservatives should ask for time, but this topic has been with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) practically ever since he came into public life. He has been a responsible; Minister in nearly every Government which has tried to grapple with this question and the result to-day in the condition of the coalfields is a monument to his life's activities. He looks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) but at least that right hon. Gentleman is excused from the last 4½ years' operations in this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about this proposal being sprung upon the public, may I remind him that the most disastrous thing done in connection with the coal mining industry in this country, since I became interested in politics, was the disastrous 1741 act of the last Conservative Government when they broke off negotiations with the responsible trade union leaders of this country and when on a certain night at midnight—
§ Mr. MAXTON
I am trying to argue against the Motion to report Progress and against the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons is not being treated with proper courtesy in this matter. I want to ask to what extent was the House of Commons taken into the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when they were conducting their negotiations in Downing Street on the eve of the General Strike?
§ Mr. MAXTON
I accept your statement of policy, Sir, but I am afraid your memory is wrong, or you would remember that I did ask it, and if I had got a satisfactory answer it would be unnecssary for me to ask it now. One can only regret this Motion, and the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, as being obstructive. Those speeches are in pursuance of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite of laissez faire as far as coal is concerned. They are satisfied that the only way in which the coal industry can struggle back to prosperity is on the basis of long hours and starvation wages for the miners. That was their policy while they were in office, and we may take it that they consistently pursue that policy still. I hope the Government will resist even the request for an explanation which no hon. Members opposite really require.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I am sure the House has welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in the new role of a defender of the Government. But however great his influence may be in the party opposite, I think the time has arrived when the Leader of the House ought to be here to justify and defend the extraordinary course which the Government are taking. What is the position? An Amendment in 1742 the name of certain hon. Members below the Gangway was standing on the Paper for a great many days, and the Government had given no sign of accepting it. We all knew that there were negotiations going on and that very interesting things were happening behind the scenes, but not until the very last moment are we informed that the negotiations are finished, that a deal has been completed and that the Government have given way to the hon. Members below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used a most extraordinary argument. He tried to justify this course on the ground of expediency. He said it was necessary first to make sure that the obligation which Part I of the Bill is intended to pay for was incurred. Surely a reasonable man in ordinary business before he incurs a debt makes arrangements to pay for it first.
We have been told in previous discussions that Part I is the means by which the Government hope to liquidate the enormous and dangerous responsibility for loss on the industry which they are incurring. We know the great risks which the Government are taking by reducing hours and increasing wages at this time when the industry is just struggling out of a very difficult period. We know that the Government are taking a great responsibility and that the result of Part II of the Bill may be—we all hope it will not be—the closing of pits, that unemployment in the industry may become rampant and that we may have what is, perhaps, the greatest curse in the coalfields, namely, constant short time. If we are going to have a repetition of the period which we have already gone through, with pits working short time and consequently only very scanty wages being paid, it will reproduce the very worst of the conditions which we have all been deploring and which have caused so much suffering in the coalfields. I am not entitled to go into the merits of the question, but before we incur the extra obligation involved in this Bill, before we pile up this great debt and assume this great responsibility, the House ought to have an opportunity of examining the matter. We ought to have an opportunity of seeing how far the Government's plan for meeting that liability and providing against that responsibility is likely 1743 to be effective, and of advantage to the coal industry, instead of being a serious drawback to the industry, involving the infliction of worse difficulties on the industry, on the consumers as a whole, and on the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has, in my view, done an extraordinarily bad deal, but it is his business and not mine. He must know the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway about Part I, because that feeling has been freely expressed. If he is going to leave over Part I until the House has passed that part of the Bill which hon. Members below the Gangway are prepared to support—and which everybody knows must pass because of the alliance between the two parties—he then leaves it open to hon. Members below the Gangway afterwards to tear his improvement scheme to tatters. It means that the Government are going to be left with this great obligation, with the risk of causing unemployment, distress and suffering and are not going to be given the means which they have told us is the one means by which they hope to meet that obligation. That is a very dangerous position for the Government. I repudiate the suggestion that this course is for the convenience of the House. The Opposition who sit on these benches have been monstrously treated and when this has been done, merely on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, great as that responsibility is, we are justified in saying that we ought to know the view of the Leader of the House. We ought to have some justification for the extraordinary steps which are being taken, steps which may have a very bad effect on the course of the Bill, which are certainly not for the convenience of the House and are contrary to the traditions of courtesy which, during the many years that I have been here, have been customary as between one side and the other.
§ Captain BOURNE
No one will be inclined to question that first bringing this Motion to postpone the consideration of Part I to the notice of the Committee on the same day as the Motion itself is to be taken puts us in a very difficult position. We assumed, as we were entitled to assume, that unless we got notice from the Government that they proposed to vary the ordinary procedure, we would 1744 take the Bill in Committee in the ordinary way, commencing with Clause 1. This Bill is complicated and difficult and we have naturally concentrated our attention, in the first place, on those portions of the Bill with which we expected we should have to deal earliest. Not unnaturally we have postponed our consideration of the later portions of the Bill because, to some extent, the Amendments which we may or may not desire to move to the later Clauses will be dependent on the decision taken by the Committee on Part I. It has been admitted on all sides that Part I is the crux of the Bill. It is the Government's new scheme for dealing with the coal industry, and, until we know what is to be the decision of this Committee and the House of Commons on that part of the Bill, it is extraordinary difficult for us and even for His Majesty's Government to express any useful opinion on the remaining portions of the Bill.
As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) has just said, the cost of reducing hours is to be met by reconstituting the industry. We are now faced with the position that we have not the slightest idea of what is the plan of the Government to reconstitute the industry. It is true that we have certain new Clauses put down by the President of the Board of Trade, but I suggest that there would be some difficulty in dovetailing these Clauses, as at present drafted, into Part I of the Bill, unless Part I has been discussed and decided upon. We have not the slightest idea of what plan holds the field at the moment in the Government's estimation. That in itself makes it extraordinarily difficult for us to deal with this Bill. I submit that we are entitled to see the new Part I with the new Clauses in it. I presume that the Government have in their heads some very clear idea of the form which they hope Part I will ultimately receive, and I submit that it would be only following Parliamentary traditions and in keeping with the universal practice of this House, no matter what party might be in power, if that scheme were put as a whole on the Order Paper. I support this Motion to report Progress in order that the Government may have an opportunity of placing that scheme on the Order Paper for our con- 1745 sideration, in order that we may think what, if any, Amendments we may desire to move and give notice of those Amendments in due form to the Government.
It will be within your recollection, Sir, that recently there was considerable misunderstanding on the Committee stage of a Bill and manuscript Amendments having to be moved, and if we persist in going on with the plan of the Government to-day, I cannot see any alternative but that we shall again be faced with manuscript Amendments. I am sure there is no Member who has any experience of this House who does not regard the moving of manuscript Amendments on a large and important Measure as one of the most highly undesirable things that can occur, but it will be inevitable if the Government persist in this course. If, however, they will now report Progress and give us a chance of considering their new plan, we shall have an opportunity of giving them notice of our Amendments; and it is very important that the Department should have notice. I believe myself that not only will they not lose time by adopting this proposal, but that they will actually gain time, because each side will be aware of what the other wishes, and we shall have far less time wasted through misunderstandings.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I submit that this new proposal and the refusal to adjourn the House is almost a denial of Parliamentary government, which is, after all, an exchange of views. If hon. Members take the Bill in their hands, they will find that Part I has got almost 80 Clauses and Sub-sections in it, and Part II, which is to be taken at once, has not got a quarter so many, so that the whole thing is practically to be held over—that is, the part we came to discuss today. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon, not Canossa (Mr. Lloyd George), said that he had had his Motion on the Paper for fully a fortnight. He knew his own importance, but we could not be expected to estimate that. It has turned out that he is the important person, and we ought to have realised that he has been the Government for the last fortnight, but he could not expect us to anticipate that. His position has been something like that of the Highland chief who did not get his place, and when asked why he did not take it, replied, "Wherever the McNab sits, that 1746 is the head of the table." Wherever the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs sits, and however small his following, he is the head of the Government. We could not expect to anticipate that, and I do not think we could be blamed for it. The result is that we have no preparation.
Government is carried on by His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Opposition, the Opposition assisting the Government in arriving at a wise decision, but if they give us no notice and absolutely new Clauses are to be thrown at us without preparation, we cannot help in the government of the country, and His Majesty is deprived of half his Parliamentary power in debate. It would be monstrous if we got these new Clauses first. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that we must first estimate what the liability is to be and then set to work, after fixing the liability, to get the money to meet it. That is the opposite of cutting your coat according to your cloth. If you have not got enough cloth, you should not start cutting your coat. The late Minister of Mines has pointed out that that was an entirely wrong procedure, and that shows what this Bill really is.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was speaking for it as if it were taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates what the country is likely to need for the ensuing year, and then, without much consideration of the burdens to be laid upon the unfortunate industry of the country, which earns the money that provides the country with the means of carrying on, he proceeds to say, "You have to pay so much," and ultimately the day comes, to use an Oriental simile, when the back of the camel is broken. It is getting very near it in this country. There are plenty of people who are discouraged, and that is what this Bill is doing, and that is what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said it was doing. He said, "Estimate what it will cost first, and then look for the money." That is a serious proposition, and it is a reversal of the right procedure. This is like passing a Budget—it is a coal Budget—but I submit, with all deference, that if Parliament is to get fair play, it ought to begin with the Bill in the ordinary way. First of all, see where the money is to come from, and what the 1747 Bill is going to cost, and it may be, after the Debate has taken place upon that, that Members of the Government and of the Opposition may have to come sorrowfully to the country and say, "We cannot go on with Part II, because we find from our examination of Part I that it will be impossible, that instead of doing you a good turn, we are doing you an ill-turn." Therefore, the whole of Part II may be abandoned. In view of the gravity of the situation to the country and to the coal trade, which, let it not be forgotten, is recovering itself, I think we should not proceed to-day without further time for consideration.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
One or two of the previous speakers have suggested the word "obstruction" already in this Debate. I have a real affection and regard for the President of the Board of Trade, who has been kind to me on many occasions, and whenever I have asked his advice he has always given it willingly and freely. With regard to obstruction, I personally do not agree, rightly or wrongly, with many of the provisions of this Bill. Having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore against its principle, I have honestly tried, at the expense of many hours' work, to put down Amendments, or to be prepared to support Amendments, to the Bill, if possible to help to make what I think is a bad Bill a little better. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, in all sincerity, to try and realise the position of a back bencher—because, after all, except for, I think, three back benchers who have spoken the Debate hitherto has been confined to the leaders of the parties, including the leader of the Highlands party—who has tried to follow the course of this Bill. The President himself said that the Bill is a difficult and intricate Bill.
Any hon. Member who has sat down, as I have, and tried, not being in the coal trade and not being an expert in coal, but having been all my life in business, to apply certain business principles to the Bill, has had to go through tremendous ups and downs in the last few days in the endeavour to know which Amendments would be taken. At first we thought the Bill would start in the ordinary way with Clause 1, and we did not take great notice of the Motion of 1748 the Leader of the Liberal parity that the new Clauses should be taken before Clause 1. Then, only in this morning's paper, we saw the announcement that the Government were backing the Leader of the Liberal party in that Motion. Having tried to put some work in on Clause 1, I came down to the House this morning, got the new Clauses, and tried to study them. I asked a friend of mine, who has taken the Chair on many occasions where we should start, and he said we should start with the new Clauses as they are on the Paper. That is not all. When the President of the Board of Trade moved this Motion, he at the last minute altered it to read that those new Clauses should be taken which did not include Part I of the Bill or any part of it. Thus, at the last minute, the further complication was introduced, that, although the new Clauses were to be taken first, those that refer to Part I were to be left out.
The Debate proceeded, and now I understand that that is not to be the procedure, but that we are to leave out Part I and to start on Part II, which is Clause 9 of the Bill. As one who quite sincerely has no intention whatever of trying to obstruct, but who is trying to do something constructive towards this Bill, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise the very difficult position in which he has put us, not only because of the difficulty of finding out what the other two parties are going to do, but also, owing to the shortness of time, because of the difficulty of getting into touch with one's own friends with whom one has been consulting with a view to contributing something to ameliorate the Bill.
I suppose it is difficult for a back bencher to ask the Government to do anything, but would it be possible for the President of the Board of Trade, who, although he represents the Government on this occasion, is not the head of the Government, to go and see the Prime Minister—I am sorry that the Chief Whip smiles, because I ask this in all sincerity, and I am not making a party point—and ask him to let this day go? One day, more or less, cannot make all the difference to a Bill which will have such far-reaching effects as will this Bill. I have in my portfolio certain Amendments to put down as the Bill proceeds. The President of the Board of Trade told 1749 me privately, a week or two ago, that he had been living with the Bill for six months.
We have had to try and get to grips with this Bill during the Christmas holidays, and there are many Amendments which we have ready to put down if they are necessary. I have several Amendments which I do not wish to put down if I find that they are covered as the Bill proceeds, but which I was going to put down if I thought that they were necessary in view of the debates. I have concentrated on Part I of this Bill, and it is very disturbing suddenly to be told that all our work and consideration has been thrown overboard, and that we have to switch on to Parts II and III. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to send a message to the Prime Minister to tell him that there is at least one Member—but I am certain a good many more Members—on this side, who take this view very seriously, and we should be grateful to him if he could see his way to let the Debate pass to-day and to allow us to recommence on Thursday with a definite understanding of where we commence and what we are taking. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to one of the new Clauses.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The new Clauses are not under discussion, and the hon. Member can only give reasons to show why Progress should or should not be reported.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I want to give it as an example of the difficulties which we are in. On page 364 of the Amendment Paper there is a new Clause down in the President's name for reconstituting the Reorganisation Commission; later on there is another new Clause defining the functions, powers and duties of that Commission. I went to the Vote Office this morning to ask for to-day's Paper of Amendments to the Coal Bill. I was given a Paper beginning page 369, and that series of Amendments concluded at page 384. There I found, as far as I could compare them, the same Clause put down as on page 364, but I could find no new Clause defining the duties and constitution of the Reorganisation Commission. I made some inquiries, and then I heard that the opinion was expressed that the President had withdrawn the original Amendment on page 364, and had 1750 put in its place the new Clause on page 384. I give that as an example of the complications not only of the Bill, but of the procedure for dealing with it, and I make a sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow this Motion to be withdrawn to-day so as to give us a chance of starting on Thursday, knowing exactly where we stand, and where we shall begin with the Bill. What were the reasons that induced the Leader of the Liberal party to wish to postpone Part I of the Bill, and to go on with the other Parts first? I venture to suggest that it was because he did not want Part I discussed until the rest of the Bill had been discussed, and he wanted Part I left so that the discussions on the other Parts of the Bill would modify the provisions of Part I. Why is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs anxious that Part I should not be discussed? In that Part it says that a scheme shall be constituted to regulate the supply of coal. I maintain that that regulation has become necessary because—
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I cannot, therefore, continue that point. May I return to the first point which I made? Apart from all party points, and apart from everything which we have said with reference to the Bill, I appeal to the friendly spirit of the President of the Board of Trade, and ask him to realise the real difficulties we are in. I ask him to do me the honour of considering the proposition of a back bencher to let the discussion go to-day. If he will do that, no advantage will be taken by my Friends working with me of any concession that he may make.
§ Major GEORGE DAVIES
This is not the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has rendered a grave disservice to the House of Commons, to the Government of the day, and not least of all to his own cause. We should not be surprised at that, because we know that one of those activities which endear him to the community, and particularly to the Press, is his power of seizing the fleeting opportunity. Consequently, in whatever quarter we sit, we are sure of two things—one is that he has alternative lines of 1751 approach to a matter, and no one knows which he will choose; the other is that, having made a line of approach, he has always two lines of retreat. Hon. Members are familiar with the classic work "Alice through the Looking Glass," and they will remember how the perfect White Knight said that the whole art of riding is to have two horses, so that if you fall off one, you have another to fall on to. I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade has proved what the Americans say, "easy fruit." He has put his head into the lion's mouth in a way that is surprising in a man who comes from north of the Tweed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is not engaged in having a love feast with the President of the Board of Trade in order that they may mutually produce a Coal Bill which will be of interest to the country. There is nothing of that at all. Those hon. Members on the Back Benches opposite, who have deigned to stay during this Debate, are feeling as unpleasant about this matter as the President of the Board of Trade. He has at the last minute had to toe the line at the dictation of the leader of the Liberal party, because he thinks that he will get a certain quid pro quo for it. He is either faced with a complete loss of his Bill or else he is willing to pay a price in order to be able to retain it. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is not unaware of a certain incident in history connected with 30 pieces of silver; he is not entirely ignorant of the failure of certain people in this country and other countries in regard to a crime called blackmail; but I am surprised that he does not realise that this is not the least price that he will have to pay in order to achieve the support of the leader of the Liberal party. Does he not realise that he is being checked in his Bill, for he has said that Part I contains the kernel of the matter? We all believe in the efficiency, genuineness, and willingness to be reasonable that the President of the Board of Trade has always shown ever since he has been connected with the House of Commons. Therefore, he cannot altogether turn a deaf ear either to our request or to our warnings. Where are the party opposite going to be landed in this matter?
1752 The Leader of the Liberal party having got his way in turning the Bill back to front, that Part, which hon. Members opposite regard as so important, is going to be pushed aside, and the right hon. Gentleman, if I may use the language of modern English, will be left in the consommé. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he will not only be unwilling to toe the line, as he has had to do by order of his master opposite, but he will be unwilling to treat the Opposition with discourtesy, as he has been compelled to do to-day. There is a much greater menace behind this than what we merely see in it. Hon. Members opposite have reached the conviction that what they have to do now in furthering the Government, is to sit still on their benches, knowing full well that they can rely on sufficient support here to carry their Measures through, and that it is unnecessary to check everything which the Front Bench brings forward. They regard it as impertinent if anyone on this side says anything, and consider that all we should do is to swallow the "number nines" that are being handed out by the leader of the Liberal party. We know from experience in recent Measures, and from the roar of disapproval when we began to debate the Amendments on those Bills that any kind of contribution to a debate or any Amendment brought by the Opposition is regarded as a piece of obstruction. Are you going to stultify debate in this House on that basis?
The President of the Board of Trade knows perfectly well that when an important Measure like this comes up, the Opposition are really interested, however vitally their opinions may differ from the other side, and it will be to the benefit of a great industry if we take such Bills as this and the Amendments that are put down, and, using the experience gained in previous Governments, hammer them into shape. It would be idle to say that no such thing as obstruction has ever been known, but the broad principle behind our actions is not that. It is to endeavour to see that the final product shall be in the nation's interest, instead of a matter of which, as legislators, we should be ashamed. The President of the Board of Trade and the Government are taking a grave step, not only in their own present and future interest, but in what is much more important, the standard of 1753 legislation that this legislative body may in future have to produce for the good or ill of the country. The whole theory, the whole principle, at stake is of such importance that it behoves the President of the Board of Trade to confer with the Leader of the Government to see whether he would not be well advised, in the interests of smoothing the course of this Bill, in the interests, indeed, of the courtesy which is our right, to reconsider his attitude and to postpone the Committee stage until we really know what the sequence is going to be, and have had an opportunity of considering it preparatory to debate.
Sir NAIRNE SANDEMAN
I recall that in 1923 a very similar case to this arose, and what I am beginning to wonder is whether the Liberal party have now taken up the goad, and the patient oxen have gone into office. It looks very much like it to me. I have a feeling that the Liberal party have compelled the Government to follow at their heels. Personally, I should be very sorry indeed to follow at the heels of the Liberal party. Something very unconstitutional has been done. I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade should come along at the last moment and throw a bomb into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said he thought it was better to do a thing and then find out how it was to be paid for. That was his argument for changing the-order of the Bill. I always thought it was better to know how you were going to do a thing and how you were going to pay for it before doing it, and I regard the present order of the Bill as the wise and logical order. This unholy bargain is not one that I should like very much if I were in the shoes of the President of the Board of Trade, because the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said before he sat down that there were lots of things about which he was not satisfied. I do not think the bargain is on paper, and I do not think it is cut-and-dried; but that is the affair of the Government and not of the Conservative party.
We want to know where we stand, what is the Bill, what are the new Amendments, what are the new Clauses, what is going to be done under Part I? The Government are not treating us fairly 1754 by going on with the Debate to-night when we do not know where we stand. It is not giving the Opposition a fair chance to put down their Amendments. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to respond to what we are saying. If he cannot do it, would his satellite, in this case the Secretary for Mines, who has given up his godlike position in the trade union movement, and come down to be a minor prophet, enlighten the House? I think he could. He could tell us what is the right thing to do. At any rate, we ought to get an answer to the various questions we have asked and, if possible, some time ought to be given us to reconsider the whole position.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I am sure the President of the Board of Trade must feel that it is a very grave inconvenience to which the Committee have been put. Not only is it a grave thing that the order of discussion should be changed at the last moment, but I am sure he will not disagree with me when I say that the topic which we are to be called upon to discuss immediately, namely, Part II of the Bill, is of great importance and requires wise decisions. It would be out of order for me to discuss that topic now, but the points have already been canvassed in the public Press. Part II is so vital to the men, and a wise decision is so vital to the reputation of this House, that it is not fair to select it for discussion on the spur of the moment—for discussion on the spur of the moment it is. With the vast problems that lie behind the fixing of proper hours of labour in this great industry, it cannot be in the interests of the people of this country to embark upon this discussion upon the spur of the moment. In my humble judgment the original order in which this Bill was framed was a perfectly logical one. The structure of the industry was dealt with first—though in the original form it was concerned only with the marketing scheme. With the new amalagamation Clauses the right hon. Gentleman is now cutting much deeper into the structure of the industry, and, logically, the first part of the Bill for discussion should be the new amalgamation Clauses.
I am not going into their merits, but I am sure that instead of discussing first the hours of labour, instead of discussing first even the method of marketing, the 1755 first topic logically should be the structure of the industry under the new dispensation, namely, the compulsory amalgamation proposals. Till we know what is to be the fate of the amalgamation proposals, we are not really in a position to discuss either Part I or the rest of the Bill. I have no desire to enter now into the merits of the amalgamation proposals, but I think I can say this without the risk of being out of order, that they are essentially a much more important rearrangement of the industry than anything which can be classified as marketing arrangements, because they deal with the capital position and not merely with income. The right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee a respite until Thursday, allowing us an interval of some 48 hours, and then we ought to take first things first. The first thing in order of importance originally was the marketing scheme, but that is no longer so. The first thing in order of importance is the vital structural alteration. Let us take that first. Let us thrash out the question of amalgamation; but do not let us do that until there has been a proper opportunity of considering it. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why so much mirth is produced in the Committee. The jollification of the party opposite when they are inflicting damaging blows on the industry of this country is a matter of continual amazement to me. I have watched it in three Parliaments, but I never cease to be amazed by it.
I was directing the attention of the responsible Minister, one whose logical mind and courtesy I have never had the slightest reason to doubt, to what I regard as a reasonable and a logical suggestion; and I urge him—though I am speaking only from a knowledge derived from reading in the Press, in this case that is knowledge which is not without importance—to think well before he makes us embark this evening on the discussion of Part II. That is not a subject which we ought to be called upon to take up unexpectedly. Recent activities in Geneva show the kind of issues that lie at the back of the discussion of Part II, and I say emphatically that I believe he may do a very unnecessary piece of harm to the coal industry if he insists on our entering upon that 1756 discussion immediately. I beg him not to take that part of the Bill to-day. For my own part my criticism would be very much mitigated if the subject we were to discuss was amalgamation, but I should feel that it would be doing an injury not merely to the Conservative party and to the House of Commons but to the interest of the industry, if without adequate thought and without adequate notice we discussed the vital problems that lie behind Part II.
No one in the House better knows than the right hon. Gentleman himself the truth of what I am saying. I do not mind if his followers do simile; I never care for their smiles or their jeers. We are talking matters of high national importance, and though I do not wish to make rash prophecies, I think the right hon. Gentleman may well rue the day if he enters upon this discussion now instead of taking a subject which could be dealt with at shorter notice. I believe we could have a discussion on the principles of amalgamation. It could not be concluded to-day, but we could enter upon that discussion to-day without serious risk of damage either within or without the House. I do not believe that we can safely enter to-day upon a discussion of the question of hours. The President of the Board of Trade would be taking a most rash step if he were to insist on that, now that he has got a clear majority. It is not with any object of obstruction that I am urging him, if we are to go on with the discussion, to-day, not to take Part II of the Bill. Now that under the amalgamation proposals the whole structure of the industry is to be altered, amalgamation is the first topic which ought to be discussed. That is the topic which can be safely discussed if discussion is necessary; but the true and statesmanlike course would be to say: "The notice has been too short, and the delay of 48 hours is worth while if we can get a move informed discussion." I beg the right hon. Gentleman, now that his majority is secure, now that he has brought the Liberals to heel—to whose heel I do not attempt to explain—to postpone the discussion of Part II to-day; and if under the plans of the Government that can only be done by postponing discussion altogether, I urge again that there should be a postponement until Thursday.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
When I spoke on this proposal previously I was a little handicapped by the fact that the Motion to report Progress had not then been moved, and the discussion was necessarily narrower than the Debate which is now taking place. I welcome the opportunity to try to explain briefly why the Government cannot accept the Motion to report Progress, and also to give arguments why, in all sincerity and friendship, I think the case advanced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is really unfounded. I do not propose to make any reference to the charges of victory and defeat in the negotiations which have taken place—very largely in the imagination of certain newspapers in this country, and also, I am afraid, of certain hon. Members in the Committee. We frankly recognise that in this matter we are in a minority in this Chamber, and from the very commencement of these discussions we have proceeded on those lines. We have recognised the economic situation and all the facts of the case are clearly before hon. Members whether they sit on the Liberal Benches or the Opposition Benches, During the proceeding of the Committee I hope to have the services of any section of opinion in the House which can make a constructive contribution towards the improvement of this Bill, or any suggestions which will tend to the recovery of this industry which has cost the State untold millions, and which will continue to be a great source of danger if some measure of order is not brought into the coal industry.
I turn now to the case which has been made out with so much courtesy by hon. Members opposite. May I say that I have always experienced at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition and from right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever since I became a Member of this Chamber the greatest courtesy. A Motion for the postponement of Part I of this Bill until after the new Clauses have been disposed of has been on the Order Paper for 10 or 14 days, and I do not think there is a single Member of the House who will dispute that fact. Prior to our acceptance of that proposal by the Government, it was open to any hon. Member to have raised the point across the Floor of the House. I agree that the Opposition are 1758 entitled to all the rights which they have claimed. I have been in Opposition myself for more than 11 years, and therefore I should know a little about that question. The Opposition are entitled to all those rights, but I was not bound to disclose what the Government intended to do in regard to this Amendment any more than I am bound to disclose the intentions of the Government regarding any other Amendment to be found on the Order Paper. I think that is the right position to take up in regard to this matter. I think I made it clear in an earlier speech that the Government were bound to have regard to the line of criticism adopted on the Second Reading of the Bill. It does not matter a straw whether the movement for the postponement of Part I came from the Opposition side or from the Liberal Benches, and what we have done is all in the interests of accommodation.
The next question that arises is whether hon. Members opposite are prejudiced if this Motion is passed when later on the House returns to an analysis of the hours of work proposed in the Bill. I think all that is beside the mark at the present moment. The part of the Bill dealing with marketing schemes was fully dealt with during the Second Reading Debate and so was the intentions of the Government in regard to working hours. Therefore, on the broad proposition, there can be no complaint that hon. Members opposite have been prejudiced in putting down their Amendments, expressing their views, or of fully reviewing the circumstances as regards the half-hour reduction.
But even if all that were wiped out, even if all that were prejudiced by this comparatively short notice, it remains true that the hours proposal is a comparatively simple proposition, although I do not dispute that it is an important one. All the main features of the Bill are perfectly well known. There is a background to this question afforded by the legislation of 1908, 1919 and 1926, and any hon. Member can discuss this question and make out a case one way or the other so far as this proposition is concerned. Even now the hours proposal can be fully discussed, because there is no Closure, and the raising of that question rests entirely at the discretion of hon. Members opposite. I do not know what course hon. Members opposite propose to take in regard to this Bill, but they will have 1759 all the remainder of the day to deal with the points they have raised; there is certainly sufficient material on the Order Paper to engage us all day, and the Debate can be resumed on Thursday.
The main features of the Bill have been ascertained long ago, and have become very well known since the Bill was presented some time ago. I fully recognise the friendly speeches which have been made from the opposite side of the House. Hon. Members have suggested that the new Clauses with reference to marketing schemes will be prejudiced and they seem to suggest that there is some prejudice to their rights and opportunities of debate involved in the course we have decided to take. Frankly I can assure hon. Members opposite that there is not the slightest difficulty on that point so far as the Government are concerned. In response to appeals which have been made to us from the Liberal Benches we have altered the plan of this legislation, and we have put an Amendment on the Order Paper which has been there for a period sufficient to allow Amendments to be drawn up dealing with our amalgamation proposals.
I told the House that it was the original intention of the Government, and one for which a strong case could be made out, to deal with certain matters in another Bill for which there is a majority in this House, concerning amalgamations and allied questions, and other matters connected with the organisation of coal production. That was our intention, and without going into details I admit there was a great deal to be said for that course. It is the opinion of hon. Members sitting on the Liberal Benches, and certain hon. Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, that our proposals with regard to amalgamations should be discussed prior to the Debate on the first part of the Bill. The Government does not propose to put new Clauses into the Bill. All the Government proposals are now on the Order Paper, and they have been there for the last 10 or 12 days. On the Second Reading I suggested that hon. Members opposite did not establish their case.
There is another point which I must make perfectly clear in order to remove all doubt on my own side of the House, 1760 on the Liberal Benches, or in the Chamber as a whole. I think I have now made it perfectly clear that there will be ample opportunity for a further exchange of opinions in regard to any section of political opinion in relation to Part I of the Bill, and for the purpose of bringing forward arguments regarding marketing schemes. I wish to make it perfectly plain that we regard Part I and the marketing schemes, taken as a whole, as an integral part of this legislation. I tell the House perfectly frankly that if that part of the Bill is defeated in my judgment the whole Bill drops. This part of the Bill is for preventing the sale of coal at a loss or unremunerative level. To that view the Government adheres this afternoon. I trust that plain and direct statement will remove all doubts on this point.
What is the situation in the view of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches and to some extent amongst Conservative Members as well? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Llyod George) has asked us to proceed first with the Hours proposal which may involve certain charges, and also to proceed with the National Industrial Board which will deal with the question of hours and other questions arising from employment in the industry and then in the interregnum deal with the effective contribution of these alterations to the more efficient working of the industry the elimination of loss and the measure of co-ordination and arrangements that amalgamation will bring about. It is my hope that with the assistance not only of Members on the Liberal Benches, but Conservatives as well, that we shall be able to arrive at a working agreement regarding our central proposition. That may be impossible and I should deplore such a result, but I am bound to make the position of the Government perfectly clear.
What is it that we propose should be brought into being by, I should hope, the joint co-operation of the three parties in the House, or, at ill events, of two sections of the House? The desire is expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to analyse the problem raised by Part I of the Bill, and find out whether a working solution can be 1761 effected, and I take it that there is a desire in that quarter of the House to carry Part I of the Bill. If that be not the desire, the question before us, so far from being simple, is intricate, technical and difficult. I shall have occasion to trouble the House with many speeches in the long Debates on the Bill, but I think I have said enough to be acquitted of any charge of discourtesy towards right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and they themselves have, with very great generosity, recognised that that is the last of my intentions. I have always told them and the House that this is a difficult Bill to describe, with all its technicalities. But we have got to get through it if we possibly can, because, as I shall have no difficulty in proving to the Committee, if we can bring some measure of order into this industry—and I am as anxious as anyone to protect the public interest in that process—we shall make a powerful contribution to industrial recovery in this country, taking a long view, and we shall build upon that measure of return to prosperity, slow and hesitating, difficult and halting, that is now appearing in the coalfields of this country.
Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER
I think the Committee will have heard with great interest, but with some considerable measure of surprise, the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. We were all under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to the House at very short notice that we should postpone Part I for the consideration of new Clauses, and that the right hon. Gentleman was making that proposal because he had discovered that it was right, or had discovered in the course of negotiations that it was convenient to make some considerable changes in the plan which he had deployed to the House. That was plainly in the mind of everyone, and, I should have thought, in the minds of those who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman; but he has just told us that there is no sort of change whatever in the proposals which the Government seek to make to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has done a deal with the Liberal party, and I owe him an apology. I thought that in the course of that deal he had had the worst of it, but I was wrong. If it is a firm deal, he has had much the best of it. He 1762 has got an alliance for the time being, he hopes for the duration of the Bill, with the Liberal party, not by offering to change the Bill in accordance with their desires, because he says he is making no change at all in his ideas of what the structure, and, indeed, the details of the Bill should be, and all that he has given in return for their support is a change of procedure, a change in the order in which the different parts of the Bill are to be taken. There is no change of substance at all. I asked him whether we could have before us, so that we might have full notice of them before we went into Committee, the alterations that he was going to make in his amalgamation Clause, which is so unsatisfactory to right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He says, "You must not charge me with any discourtesy to you in not disclosing any of the alterations I am going to make in my new Clauses, because I am not going to make any alterations at all. The Clause, as I put it on the Paper three weeks ago, stands, and that is how I propose to move it, that is how I propose to carry it through the House."
I am bound to say that, if that be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and if that be the deal that he has done, we certainly have had good notice of the particular new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move; but, if it is not a new plan, if there is no change whatever in the proposals which he is going to ask the House to accept, why in the name of fortune are we asked to change the manner, and the method, and the stages by which we proceed with this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman had no intention, until quite lately, of making that change; otherwise I am sure he would have given us notice. He says, "You ought not to complain. I could have come down to the House to-day and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs moved his Motion, I could have accepted it across the Floor of the House." Strictly speaking, that is within his powers, but I think he would be hard put to it to find a precedent, to find a case in which a Government had ever put itself in such a position, or had put an Opposition in such a position. The right hon. Gentleman has not sought to justify his proposal on its merits. Where are the merits of this change? I listened, as I am sure the 1763 whole Committee did, to all that he said, and he always speaks with a clarity which leaves us in no doubt as to what is in his mind, and certainly never leaves unsaid any argument which can be advanced in support of his case; but why are we asked to make this change? Because the right hon. Gentleman has done a deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. No other argument has been advanced—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I will say an agreement, if the Hon. Member likes it better than the word "deal." How can the right hon. Gentleman substantiate his case on its merits? He said that Part I is the foundation of the Bill, the foundation on which the whole structure is built, and that, if it goes, the whole Bill goes. If Part I is the foundation upon which the whole structure is built, had we not better start on the foundation? It really is carrying jerry-building to excess if we are to ignore the foundations and start on the roof—a roof which was an afterthought of the right hon. Gentleman and not in his Bill. Really, the right hon. Gentleman must put forward a better argument than any that he has addressed to us if he is to convince us. I agree with him that Part I is the foundation of this Bill. I think he may well be right that without Part I you cannot have this Clause dealing with hours. If that be so, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to ask the House of Commons to consider the hours proposals, to commit themselves on the hours proposals, to pass through Committee the proposals dealing with hours, when he himself admits that, unless he gets Part I, the whole of those hours proposals will have to go by the board? That, really, is not treating the House fairly.
It was not the way in which the right hon. Gentleman meant to approach this question; it was not the way in which, after seven months' careful thought and discussion, after producing 13, 14, 15 editions of his Bill, he finally brought out the last edition and presented it to the House. He said that no one but a fool could have thought it possible to deal with hours unless Part I was dealt with. That was his considered judgment, 1764 and I submit that he has only emphasised, in the arguments that he has addressed to the Committee to-day, the logic and the soundness of the basis on which he originally approached this question, and that he himself has been the best advocate for the Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
There is an additional reason why, if Part I is postponed, Part II must be postponed also. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is a great deal of interest in and discussion on possible alternatives, such as the question whether a 90-hour fortnight—I am not going to argue the merits of that now—is not a, really wise solution. Would it not be far wiser to allow that amount of time which would elapse if we proceeded with the foundation, in order that this 90-hour question might be thrashed out in the country by the people primarily concerned? That, surely, is a very strong reason for not rushing us into a Debate upon hours on its merits, a Debate which must be, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, directly linked up with Part I of the Bill. I venture to say that we could not have had a better argument in support of the Motion which we are now putting before the Committee than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir ROBERT HORNE rose—
§ Sir R. HORNE
I promise that I shall not detain the Committee long. I should not have intervened at all in the Debate had it not been for a remark made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to which we have just listened. He said that he hoped that even from the Conservative side of the House he would get fair consideration for this Bill. I beg him not to think that those who sit on these benches are animated either by hostility to the Bill or by a desire for any unfairness to the great industry with which we are concerned here. So far as I myself am concerned, if I may venture to interpose a personal remark, there is no industry in this country in which I have ever been so interested as the coal industry. I was born and brought up in a mining district, and I have been in close contact with the coal industry all 1765 my life. It was my fate for three years as a Minister to have the coal problems of this country constantly before me, and there is no industry which affects this country more vitally, in which none of us can help being interested, and to which I personally am prepared to give more careful consideration, than the industry with which we are now dealing.
The position of unfairness in which a person like myself is put, who is not a member of any team, is that, having given some thought, and as impartial and unprejudiced consideration as I can, to this Bill, I have some ideas, and there are certain things that I thought of with regard to Part II, which I have not put on the Paper because there was no suggestion that the Government were going to take Part II before Part I. It is obvious, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that this Motion for a postponement of Part I has been on the Order Paper for three weeks. That is the very thing that deceived me. I thought that, if the Government were going to accept that Motion, we should have heard about it long before now. They had three weeks in which to make up their minds, and I must say that the President of the Board of Trade cannot very well disagree with the criticism that he has been pushed into this action at the very last moment. Now, recognising, as he must, that he has been subjected to duress in this matter, he ought at least to take into consideration the position in which private Members throughout the House are placed who are giving that consideration to this Bill which he desiderates. We have been appealed to both by him and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to deal with this industry as a whole House, with a desire to give it sympathetic consideration, and to reach conclusions on which we might all be agreed. We cannot do that unless we are allowed to apply our minds to the topic, and to put down on the Paper the kind of ideas that occur to us, so that the whole House may have the opportunity of seeing them and discussing them. It is on that ground, and not on any factious or partisan ground, that I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now to reconsider the course that he is taking, and to give the House a real and genuine opportunity of considering one 1766 of the most important Bills that has ever been before us, or can ever come before us.
We are seeking by this Bill to regulate what is the basic industry of this country, upon which the whole fortunes of the country depend. After the Napoleonic wars, this country was saved from a position of poverty, and possible bankruptcy, by the discovery of coal, and in my belief it is by coal again, and by coal alone, that we shall be saved—by the proper development of this great industry in our midst. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said the Bill was being taken out of its logical order in putting first the marketing scheme. I agree that that is an entirely erroneous view, and it may be shown to be erroneous by the Amendments which the Liberal party themselves have put down, because if there is anything at all in co-operative working in the coal industry, it depends far more upon combined marketing than upon combined production. I will not enter into that now because it is a long story, but I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the foundation of his Bill is in co-operative marketing and, though I do not at all agree with it being made compulsory, I am of the belief that much more can be done for the industry by co-operative marketing than by compulsory amalgamation for the purposes of production. I will develop that view at a later stage of the Debates. So far from being wrong in the order in which the Clauses are set out, I am of opinion that there was no reason at all in logic why the right hon. Gentleman should have given way to pressure from the Liberal party. I again beg the Committee to believe that we are as much concerned as anyone to put the coal industry on a proper foundation, and that we desire to have a proper opportunity of discussing these Clauses.
§ Sir HERBERT SAMUEL
I should not have intervened if it had not been for the very persuasive manner in which the right hon. Gentleman presented his case. If it were really a fact that the discussion of Part II was being prejudiced by being begun this evening and continued on Thursday, I think the whole Committee would join in urging upon the Government a reconsideration of their attitude towards the Motion to report 1767 Progress. But Part II deals with the question of hours alone. It consists of only a few lines and raises only two points of substance. One is whether the hours should be shortened or not. That is a point that arises on the Clauses themselves, and does not require the presentation on the Order Paper of any elaborate Amendments. The other is the question whether the restriction of hours should be by the day in all cases, or should be a collective restriction of the hours worked during the week, or during the fortnight. That is a very important point which the Committee will wish carefully to discuss. On that matter hon. Members above the Gangway have already put their Amendments on the Paper, and if at this moment we were to approach the Clause we should be able to take that matter in the form in which they themselves desire to have it discussed.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I know there is an Amendment down on that question, but it did not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory from my point of view.
§ Sir H. SAMUEL
There will be no difficulty whatever in framing Amendments. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that the discussion will almost certainly go over till Thursday. I do not think there will be any real, substantial inconvenience to the Committee on that point.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that finishes my proposals on the Clause.
§ Sir H. SAMUEL
No, but the matter will not be settled to-day, and it is possible that it might take even more than two sittings to deal with the whole question of hours, which is one of very great importance and which gives rise to, possibly, alternative views. With respect to the order in which it will be most convenient to take these various parts of the Bill and the new Clauses, if we debated first Part I we should be doing so all the time on an assumption, the assumption being that the industry will be burdened economically by a shortening of the hours in a certain fashion, so we should be guessing all the time what would be the ultimate form of the Bill. It may be that the part respecting hours may be 1768 modified during its passage through the Committee, and that the heavy burden which some people think will be thrown on the industry may be very greatly mitigated. All the time during the many days in which we should be discussing the elaborate and difficult provisions of Part I we should not know what is the problem with which at the end we should be dealing. That is the main reason why the hours question should be taken first. All the world knows the Bill has come into existence—it has been frankly stated by the Government—because they had pledged themselves to the miners to restrict the hours, and Part I is the outcome of that promise. Surely it is better to consider the promise and its fulfilment first, and, afterwards, what should be the proper consequences following it.
There is another reason. The Government have put down Clauses dealing with amalgamation presupposing a large reorganisation of the industry. Part I now becomes a temporary expedient, and the Government propose that it should be limited in its application for three years. Is it wise to consider first what is to be a merely temporary measure and leave until afterwards what is to be the permanent reorganisation of the industry? How can we tell what form the temporary provisions should take until we have disposed of the permanent ones? There is the further reason that Part I is an exceedingly technical and complicated matter, giving rise to great differences of opinion, not only here but in the industry itself, and not only in the industry but throughout the country among other industries, and opinions are gradually being expressed by those trades and interests that are concerned with respect to the present form of Part I and the way in which they would desire it to be amended. In our view it is most desirable that there should be more time for these various expressions of opinion to be manifested and, if we approached Part I to-day none of us would be in a position to say precisely how we should like to see it amended. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have said: "Why have not the Government put down the Amendments to which they have agreed with us with respect to the provisions of Part I?" We have not agreed to Amendments. We are still considering what form Amendments should 1769 take. Why not? Where is the harm in it? We are only anxious to see the Bill modified and changed, by the largest measure of agreement possible, into a form which will be of most value to the industry and to the country, and it is, in our view, for all these reasons, desirable that we should now proceed with Part II and the new Clauses and, by the time the House knows precisely what shape the Bill as a whole is to take, we shall be in a better position to consider the Amendments in detail.
§ Commodore DOUGLAS KING
I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should seek to take up so much time by trying to prevent the Opposition from expressing their views. It is very seldom indeed that I occupy the time of the House, but I can say at the start of the Committee stage that no interruption from the other side is going to stop me expressing my views. I think I am entitled to make a short reference to the speech we have just heard, I think with some amazement. The right hon. Gentleman has shown us straight away that the President of the Board of Trade was right when he was speaking of criticisms of an adverse bargain. In his last few sentences the right hon. Gentleman gave away the whole of the bargain with regard to the Socialist party. They have already managed to obtain from the Government a certain preference for their amalgamation schemes which they were urging on the Second Beading. The President of the Board of Trade told us on the Financial Resolution that it was more or less generally understood as to why these schemes were being brought in. The Prime Minister had spoken adversely of the amalgamation schemes on the Second Reading but still, under pressure from the Liberal party, the President of the Board of Trade put down certain new Clauses dealing with reorganisation by means of amalgamation.
We saw those on the Paper. We also saw the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and others had put down with regard to the postponement of Part I. The President of the Board of Trade says that in that way we had notice. He could in Committee have accepted that Motion. But he has not done so. He has put 1770 before the Committee a different Motion. He has actually amended the Motion that was in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. In proposing it, he read to us a form of words excluding certain Clauses, but there can be no doubt whatever that the decision arrived at was hostile and was not certainly approved of by the right hon. Gentleman only a short time ago. He says the Liberal Motion should have been a warning to us that it might be accepted. All the indications that we could have were against any acceptance by the Government of the Liberal Motion. In the first place, had they had any intention it would have been more likely that they would have accepted it earlier, or would have put down some similar Motion in their own name. Apart from that, we had the indication of the order in which the Government had produced the Bill itself. That is the strongest indication we could possibly have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has given one or two quotations from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading. I should like to draw attention to the second paragraph in his speech on that occasion. He said:Very soon after we came into office on 10th June of this year, we were in consultation with representatives of the Mining Association speaking for the great bulk of colliery proprietors in this country, and the representatives of the Miners' Federation, with a view to ascertaining what steps should be taken to fulfil the pledge under which this Government lay with the miners, and, at the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated, to provide for the better organisation of this industry in Great Britain. During the intervening months, with the exception of our period at The Hague, there has hardly been a week in which we have not been engaged in these discussions, and, as a result of prolonged and careful examination of many aspects of the problem, this Bill, of which I now move the Second Reading, is submitted for the acceptance of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1245. Vol. 233.]That is after we had had some six or seven months' careful consideration, discussion with the coalowners and consultation with the Miners' Federation. They went carefully into this before presenting their Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the two things were bound to go together—the decrease in hours and the marketing schemes and the reorganisation. They could not be 1771 separated. He realised that throughout and in framing his Bill we are justified in assuming that he put what he considered to be the most important question first, and that was as to how any shortening of hours was going to be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen said the main question on Clause 9 is whether the hours should be shortened or not. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has indicated to us on several occasions that the whole crux of the question is, that they should come to some agreement with the coalowners by which that shortening of hours—only half the promise which they made during the election—should not result in a lessening of wages. Therefore, he has realised in all these negotiations that the keystone of the whole thing is the reorganisation, the marketing schemes which he put into Part I of his Bill.
I would like to look at the arrangement which has been made and see whether my right hon. Friend was not right in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has been jockeyed. I think that, to a large extent, he has been jockeyed by the Liberal party. This is going to happen. They are seeking to postpone Part I of the Bill, take the other Clauses and then come on with the new Clauses with regard to amalgamations, and if, with the assistance of the Liberal party, these new Clauses for amalgamations are carried, the President of the Board of Trade can have no doubt whatever that the Liberal party are going to do their very best to kill Part I of the Bill which will then come along.
The position of the Conservative party has been made perfectly clear. We are against the whole of the Bill. [An HON MEMBER: "And we know it!"] We have said so before and we say so now. We have, by placing Amendments on the Order Paper, shown our intention, if the Bill is to go through, of trying to make it a little less pernicious than it is at the present time. We are trying to make it a little less bad. On the other hand, I certainly hope that the whole of the Conservative party, having done what they can to improve it, though even when it has been improved it cannot be good enough, will be in a position to vote against the Government on prac- 1772 tically every Clause of this Bill. What will be the position when the Liberals reach Part I? They will undoubtedly, in jockeying for position, hope, having got their amalgamations in combination with the Government, to do their level best to kill Part I, with, no doubt, the assistance of the Conservative party. Surely that does not look such a good bargain as the President of the Board of Trade seems to think.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the actual reasons quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen for discussing the hours' question. Quite apart from the short notice which we have received, I would put it to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Committee that it would be far better that the decision on the question of hours should be taken in its normal place in the Bill which in the ordinary course of events would be in another two or three weeks, of Parliamentary time. Opinion is forming in the country with regard to the spreading of hours over the fortnight or over the week. Opinion is certainly progressing not only in the industrial areas and among people outside the coal industry, but it is certainly progressing very considerably amongst the miners themselves. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen may say "No." They are speaking, perhaps for their own districts, or a they know them. I also know that in many parts of the country, even in Northumberland and Durham, they would rather like to have a Saturday off in order to be able to go to a football match. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I quite agree. I think that it is an extremely reasonable and proper idea on their part. I am convinced that a great many districts would welcome this proposal. I am not speaking about those who express opinions said to be held by the miners, but about the miners themselves. If you could go and talk with them in their districts you would find that they would prefer often to work the longer hours—the eight hours day—provided—
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON rose—1773
§ Mr. E. EDWARDS
On a point of Order. Can we have a quotation from any representative of the miners?[Interruption]. What authority has the speaker—
§ Mr. MAXTON
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go into the merits of the Tory Amendments to the Bill while we are discussing a Motion to report Progress?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is a point of Order. I am rather afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is transgressing beyond the Motion which is before the Committee. He cannot discuss Amendments on this Motion.
§ Commodore KING
I assure you that I will do my best to keep within your ruling. I did not think that I had transgressed, because I was merely replying to interjections—[Interruption]—I was forced into that by an interjection. I thought that I should be in order in view of the interjection which has been made asking for authority for what I had already said. If hon. Members want the information I would refer them to the recent International Industrial Conference at Geneva dealing with the hours, and so on, of miners. If anyone would like to go into that question—
§ Mr. BECKETT
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman first of all to argue against your ruling and then to proceed to reply—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Interjections do sometimes tempt hon. Members to go astray. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member will not discuss the merits or demerits of the Bill which are outside this Motion.
§ Commodore KING
I was replying to the advisability, in my view, of having the question of hours in mines left in its proper place in the Bill because of the growing opinion in the country. I maintain that there is a growing opinion in 1774 the country with regard to the spreading of hours. That is how I came to it, and I maintain that that is a perfectly legitimate argument and in order on the Motion which we are now discussing. There are one or two things which I should like to say with regard to the actual Motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had really taken over, or rather accepted, the Motion which had been put down by the Liberals. I would like him to say which, if any, of the Clauses to which he was alluding refer to Part I of the Bill. It is very important to say, when he is seeking to put Part I one one side and behind the new Clauses, what Clauses he really intends to discuss. I find it difficult to get any actual reference to it, but we get reference by inference. I do not know whether he is intending to make use of the words which were in the terms of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Committee:To further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry with a view to facilitating the production and supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines.These are entirely the functions which are being dealt with in Clause 1, and yet that is dealt with in the general functions of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission under one of these new Clauses. We are entitled to know what effect this is going to have on this Commission. I maintain that the President of the Board of Trade has entirely failed to give us any information as to what is actually in his mind or in the mind of the Government. All that we know is, that at very short notice they have changed the whole of their plans and the whole of their tactics, and we are only left to guess what are the reasons. I would point out that the Motion which we have moved was replied to only after a long delay. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at about ten minutes to four, and it was six o'clock before the President of the Board of Trade thought it right to reply to his criticism. I would like to remind the Committee that not only have we the leaders of the parties. We also have a Leader of the House whose duty it is to look after the rights and privileges of the Members of the House. The Leader of the House throughout the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was sitting next but one to the President of the Board of Trade and after my right 1775 hon. Friend had sat down, the Leader of the House, instead of replying, as would have been ordinary courtesy and the right thing for him to have done, went out. Of course, we came to the conclusion, quite naturally, that he had gone to try to find the Leader of the Liberal party, so that he might make some further arrangement and get permission to come to some terms. I do urge the Government to accept this Motion and to allow us to see how their Clauses and Amendments work in connection with Part I.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)1776
§ rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS (seated and covered)
On a point of Order. Did not the President of the Board of Trade promise that he would not move the Closure?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is a question to be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman himself and not to the Chair.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 181.1779
|Division No. 136.]||AYES.||[7.2 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Devlin, Joseph||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dickson, T.||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Dukes, C.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Alpass, J. H.||Duncan, Charles||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Ede, James Chuter||Isaacs, George|
|Angell, Norman.||Edge, Sir William||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Arnott, John||Edmunds, J. E.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Ayles, Walter||Egan, W. H.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Elmley, Viscount||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||England, Colonel A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Foot, Isaac||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Freeman, Peter||Kelly, W. T.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Motion)|
|Benson, G.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gibbins, Joseph||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Lawson, John James|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gill, T. H.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gillett, George M.||Leach, W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Glassey, A. E.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gossling, A. G.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Bromfield, William||Gould, F.||Lees, J.|
|Bromley, J.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Brooke, W.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Brothers, M.||Gray, Milner||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Longden, F.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Groves, Thomas E.||Lowth, Thomas|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lunn, William|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||McElwee, A.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Harbison, T. J.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Harbord, A.||McKinlay, A.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hardie, George D.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Harris, Percy A.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Haycock, A. W.||McShane, John James|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hayday, Arthur||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Compton, Joseph||Hayes, John Henry||Mansfield, W.|
|Cove, William G.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||March, S.|
|Daggar, George||Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Marcus, M.|
|Dallas, George||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Markham, S. F.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Marley, J.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Herriotts, J.||Mathers, George|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Matters, L. W.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hoffman, P. C.||Maxton, James|
|Melville, Sir James||Ritson, J.||Sullivan, J.|
|Messer, Fred||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Middleton, G.||Romeril, H. G.||Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Millar, J. D.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Mills, J. E.||Rothschild, J. de||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Milner, J.||Rowson, Guy||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Montague, Frederick||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Morley, Ralph||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Toole, Joseph|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Tout, W. J.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Townend, A. E.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sanders, W. S.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sandham, E.||Turner, B.|
|Mort, D. L.||Sawyer, G. F.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Scrymgeour, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Muff, G.||Scurr, John||Walker, J.|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Sexton, James||Wallace, H. W.|
|Murnin, Hugh||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Shield, George William||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Shillaker, J. F.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Shinwell, E.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Palin, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||West, F. R.|
|Palmer, E. T.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sinkinson, George||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Perry, S. F.||Sitch, Charles H.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Price, M. P.||Snell, Harry||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Pybus, Percy John||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Wise, E. F.|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Sorensen, R.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Stamford, Thomas W.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Raynes, W. R.||Stephen, Campbell||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Richards, R.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Strauss, G. R.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Albery, Irving James||Colville, Major D. J.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Atkinson, C.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Balniel, Lord||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Berry, Sir George||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Everard, W. Lindsay||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Bracken, B.||Ferguson, Sir John||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Fermoy, Lord||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Fielden, E. B.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Buckingham, Sir H||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Butler, R. A.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Long, Major Eric|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gower, Sir Robert||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Meller, R. J.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Train, J.|
|Mond, Hon. Henry||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. Colonel E. A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Salmon, Major I.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Savery, S. S.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Wells, Sydney R.|
|O'Neill, Sir H.||Skelton, A. N.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Peake, Capt. Osbert||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George|
|Penny, Sir George||Smithers, Waldron||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, Cast)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Remer, John R.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton.)|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Thomson, Sir F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Todd, Capt. A. J.||Major the Marquess of Titchfield|
|and Captain Margesson.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."1780
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 296.1783
|Division No. 137.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Albery, Irving James||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm, (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Long, Major Eric|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Atkinson, C.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Ferguson, Sir John||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fermoy, Lord||Meller, R. J.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fielden, E. B.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Mond, Hon. Henry|
|Berry, Sir George||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Ganzoni, Sir John||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Gower, Sir Robert||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Bracken, B.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hammersley, S. S.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Butler, R. A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Remer, John R.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Haslam, Henry C.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hurd, Percy A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Iveagh, Countess of||Skelton, A. N.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hen. J. (Hertford)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Thomson, Sir F.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Womersley, W. J.|
|Todd, Capt. A. J.||Wayland, Sir William A.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Train, J.||Wells, Sydney R.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Turton, Robert Hugh||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Sir George Penny and Major the|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Withers, Sir John James||Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Freeman, Peter||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Longden, F.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Alpass, J. H.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Lunn, William|
|Amman, Charles George||Gibbins, Joseph||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Angell, Norman||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Arnott, John||Gill, T. H.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Gillett, George M.||McElwee, A.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Glassey, A. E.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Ayles, Walter||Gossling, A. G.||McKinlay, A.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gould, F.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Batey, Joseph||Gray, Milner||McShane, John James|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mansfield, W.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||March, S.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Groves, Thomas E.||Marcus, M.|
|Benson, G.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Markham, S. F.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Marley, J.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mathers, George|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Matters, L. W.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Maxton, James|
|Bowen, J. W.||Harbison, T. J.||Melville, Sir James|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Harbord, A.||Messer, Fred|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hardie, George D.||Middleton, G.|
|Bromfield, William||Harris, Percy A.||Millar, J. D.|
|Bromley, J.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Mills, J. E.|
|Brooke, W.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Milner, J.|
|Brothers, M.||Haycock, A. W.||Montague, Frederick|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hayday, Arthur||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hayes, John Henry||Morley, Ralph|
|Burgess, F. G.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Herriotts, J.||Mort, D. L.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hoffman, P. C.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hopkin, Daniel||Muff, G.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Horrabin, J. F.||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Naylor, T. E.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Isaacs, George||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Johnston, Thomas||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Cove, William G.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Palin, John Henry.|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)||Palmer, E. T.|
|Dallas, George||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Perry, S. F.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Devlin, Joseph||Kelly, W. T.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Dickson, T.||Kennedy, Thomas||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Potts, John S.|
|Dukes, C.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Price, M. P.|
|Duncan, Charles||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lawrence, Susan||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Edge, Sir William||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lawson, John James||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Leach, W.||Richards, R.|
|Egan, W. H.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|England, Colonel A.||Lees, J.||Ritson, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Foot, Isaac,||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Romeril, H. G.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Logan, David Gilbert||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Rothschild, J. de||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Rowson, Guy||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Snell, Harry||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Watkins, F. C.|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Sorensen, R.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Stamford, Thomas W.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Sanders, W. S.||Stephen, Campbell||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Sandham, E.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||West, F. R.|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||Westwood, Joseph|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Strauss, G. R.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Scurr, John||Sullivan, J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Sexton, James||Sutton, J. E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Williams, T. (York. Don valley)|
|Shield, George William||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Thurtle, Ernest||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Tillett, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Shinwell, E.||Tinker, John Joseph||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Toole, Joseph||Wise, E. F.|
|Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Tout, W. J.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sinkinson, George||Townend, A. E.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Turner, B.|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Vaughan, D. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Viant, S. P.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.|
|Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Walker, J.|
§ Original Question again proposed, "That the consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or any Clause in that part is mentioned) have been disposed of."
§ Commodore KING
I beg to move in line 1, "to leave out the words 'Part I,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'the Clauses of the Bill'."
Now we come back to the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment seeks to carry out the policy which the Government have so recently adopted of postponing various parts of the Bill until a more convenient period when it suits the Liberal party to take them. What I wish to put to the Committee is this, that as the Government wish to postpone Part I, the all-important part of the Bill, until after certain new Clauses have been considered we on this side of the Committee desire to postpone the consideration of the whole Bill until the new Clauses, some of which may have an important effect on the rest of the Bill, have been taken. I said something just now with regard to the undesirability of dealing straight away with the question of hours, which is in Part II of the Bill, and which would be the first subject for discussion if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is carried. We consider that the best way to deal with this Bill is the way in which it has been drafted and introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. That is to say, that we should progress 1784 in the usual way, one—two—three—four. That we should take the Bill in its order and as it was when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced it. If it is really necessary to postpone Part I then we think it is undesirable to start a discussion on Part II. On the Motion to report Progress I said that question of hours is receiving very careful consideration in most parts of the country at the present time and that it would be regrettable if the Committee, owing to a change of plans, of which no notice has been given, were to come to a decision on the matter before the country and those most interested in the industry have had time to discuss it. The President of the Board of Trade will agree that the question of hours is receiving careful attention not only from the owners' side but also by the Miners' Federation. In fact, I have seen a recent statement by Mr. Cook that it might be desirable to have a 90 hour fortnight rather than a 7½ hour day.
§ Commodore KING
I am not going into details, but I am quite entitled to point out that it is most undesirable to discuss this subject when so much thought is being given to it in the country. We may to-night, or on Thursday, come to a decision which might in a fortnight or three weeks' time be found to be contrary to the desires of the whole mining industry. That would place the Government in a very difficult position. We all 1785 want, according to our light, to do the best thing we can for the mining industry, and it is only after more consideration than we have been able to give to it that we can come to any definite conclusion. Some 10 days or so ago the Conservative party put down two Amendments with regard to spreading the hours of labour, that is 90 hours a fortnight, or a 45-hours' week, and, therefore, we have given considerable evidence of our intentions in that matter. It may be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to come to some arrangement with the Liberal party as to how the Bill should be taken, but we must not forget the great interests of the industry. I claim that it would be a pity for us to carry on the discussion on hours until sufficient attention has been given to that matter in the country. That is all I wish to say in regard to Part II.
Had the Government shown any disposition to meet us in what we consider are very reasonable requests with regard to the Motion to report Progress; had they shown any indication of being willing to meet us, we should have indicated a willingness to carry on with Parts III and IV of the Bill, so that time should not be wasted. Then we could have gone on with the new Clauses, so that we should not have been in the impossible position in which we find ourselves of trying to discuss, with so little notice, one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. However, the President of the Board of Trade did not deem it desirable to show any softening of manner or any desire to meet the difficulties which we put forward. Therefore, we must press our point that such a question as the hours of work ought not to be considered now.
To be consistent, if we are going to postpone, at the Government's request, the keystone of the whole Bill with regard to amalgamations and reorganisations, it is only logical that we should postpone the remaining Clauses of the Bill, and come straight away to consideration of the new proposals of the Government in regard to amalgamations. We want to know something about these amalgamations. On the Second Reading Debate I was very interested in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and I did not consider it a bit 1786 too long. It was a very clear statement. In that statement he occupied about four-fifths of his time in dealing with Part I, while the remainder of the time was given to hours and a very short portion of it to the remainder of the Bill. It showed the importance in his mind of Part I. If that most important part of the Bill is to be postponed, we consider that it is wrong to deal with hours of work, and also that it would be useless for us in the circumstances to go on with Part III, which deals with the Coal Mines Industrial Board. We have not, so far, put down many Amendments to that part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this Bill has been an extraordinarily difficult Bill to deal with. We think that it is a pernicious Bill. It is drafted in such a form that it is extremely difficult to make any good out of it by amendment.
If we were to try to sit down to draft a new Bill or draft new Clauses, that would be the easier way. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently found exactly the same difficulty, because he seems to amend the Bill by putting down new Clauses. We have found that the contents of the Bill are extremely difficult to amend. The Amendments that we have put down so far have been the result of a considerable amount of study of the Bill, and much hard work. We took the Bill in the order in which it appeared upon the Paper, and the order in which the President of the Board of Trade recommended it to the House. We turned our attention to Part I and sought to make improvements where we could, with such safeguards as we could find for the general public, the consumer, the coal-owners and the men employed in the mines. The reason why we have not been able to deal with Parts III and IV is that we have not been able to turn our attention to them because we have been dealing with Part I. Therefore, the change of plan on the part of the Government, a new arrangement which was come to last night to postpone Part I, is moat inconvenient, and we claim that, under the circumstances, the whole of the Clauses ought to be postponed until the new Clauses put down by the President of the Board of Trade have been discussed. We hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be consistent and 1787 accept the Amendment, and allow the whole of the Bill to stand over until the new Clauses have been discussed.
§ Captain CAZALET
If ever obstruction was warranted in regard to the policy of a Government, I think the tactics of the present Government this afternoon have warranted obstruction to the greatest degree that our ingenuity is capable of designing it, but, as always, I do not intend to indulge in obstruction. I will confine myself to a few remarks in support of the Amendment. We have no objection to seeing the Front Bench opposite carrying on the government of this country by means of one surrender after another. All that we ask for is that, as an integral part of the House of Commons, we should know what are the terms of that surrender. We have heard speeches from the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in support of the action which the Government intend to take in postponing Part I. It seemed to me that both those speeches were entirely in defence of the proposition which we have put up from these benches. We make it perfectly clear that it is a monstrous injustice that, without any warning whatsoever, Part I of the Bill should be postponed merely because, as we learned from those two speeches, this new alliance, this new arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade and the Liberal party, is not yet complete.
We are within our rights in asking the Government what is Part I of the Bill. What is their plan? Do they know it or do they not? Do they know what Part I is going to be? If so, why do they not tell us? If they do not know, then surely it would be better to postpone the whole of the discussion of the Bill until Part I has been decided. We listened to a very able and courteous speech from the President of the Board of Trade. We on these benches regard anything in the shape of discourtesy as an absolute impossibility from the President of the Board of Trade, either physically, mentally or in any other way. His speech was courteous and delightful. I have always contended that if any man on the benches opposite can "put over" something to the 1788 Opposition or to the House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade is the man to do it, and I am certain that had he been really in control of the situation this afternoon he would have been the first to meet us on this point. By that means we should have avoided this controversial discussion, and we should have started the proceedings on Thursday in an atmosphere of harmony and peace which would have augured well for the future of the Bill. I am sure that that is the right hon. Gentleman's desire. What influences have compelled him to depart from his usual practice we do not know, and we can only speculate.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that hon. Members on these benches had been put to any inconvenience by te arrangement which the convenience by the arrangement which the many back benchers have taken a certain amount of trouble in trying to discover facts and figures relevant to the discussion of the various parts of this Bill. We were informed only to-day that the question of hours was to be discussed. There are a great many facts in regard to hours of work in this country, in Poland and in Germany which are easily available. Some of us have been sitting on a Committee this morning. Had I known that the question of hours was to be dealt with to-day, I would have procured the facts, because I have taken a certain amount of interest in hours of work in Germany and Poland. When I looked at the Order Paper this morning I had no idea that the question of hours would be taken to-day, and it was not until this afternoon that we learned that that course was to be adopted. That is a very definite instance of the way in which we have been inconvenienced by the action which the Government have taken.
I hope that I have put my point as mildly and courteously as the President of the Board of Trade put his, and I hope that he will recognise that there is some substance in the point. I have studied with great care the speeches which were made from the Front Bench opposite on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. In the speech of the Prime Minister and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade great emphasis was laid on the importance of Part I of the Bill. It was regarded as the 1789 foundation, the kernel, the keystone of the whole Measure, yet to-day we are told that we will discuss Part I when everything else has been settled in regard to the Bill. We understood that it was only by the rearrangements, rationalisation and amalgamations which were to be brought about by Part I, that Part II was made possible. We were supported and confirmed in that opinion by the speeches of the most responsible members of the Front Bench opposite. It was owing to the economies that were going to be effected by these amalgamations that, when Part II came into operation, it would not be necessary to reduce wages. That was the whole gist of the argument. If we are not to know what Part I contains, how can we be justified in supporting Part II? I cannot understand how anyone with the lucidity of mind and the generosity of disposition of the President of the Board of Trade can possibly deny us what is elementary justice, if we are to discuss the Bill intelligently. I hope that we shall extract from some Member on the Front Bench a more vital argument than any that we have heard hitherto in support of the Government's action. Otherwise I maintain that within the limits of order we shall be justified in protracting discussions on the Bill until we have a more satisfactory explanation of the extraordinary violation of Parliamentary procedure in which the Government have indulged.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
One would require a heart of stone not to be moved by the very kindly things said by my two hon. and gallant Friends who have addressed the Committee. I do not mind admitting, quite frankly, that I wish I were in a position to respond, on the human side, to all these appeals; but I am just like anyone else who is in charge of a Parliamentary Bill. The Bill must be promoted with reasonable discussion, with fair play all round, and, so far as we can achieve it, in a business-like way. The two hon. and gallant Gentlemen will not complain if I intervene now to say that I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I do not complain in the least of the spirit in which they moved it. The simple point before us is that originally this afternoon the Opposition took the strongest objection 1790 to any postponement of Part I at all, and a decision was about to be reached upon that point. They now propose to go beyond that and to suspend the consideration of all Clauses of the Bill and presumably to take the amalgamation proposals first.
I shall be perfectly candid with the House now and to the end. I should have liked to see the old arrangement from many points of view, but if the consideration of Part I is postponed, I think that beyond all question we must address our minds at the earliest possible moment to the analysis of the hours proposal. It is quite true that it is tied up with Part I, but it is also fundamental to this legislation, and it is, of course, vital to the fulfilment of the pledge of the Government. It is now proposed that we should embark on an analysis of the amalgamations without knowing what is to be the position in hours or whether there is to be this National Industrial Board or certain other features of the Bill. I cannot possibly accept such an Amendment, and I trust that the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen will not press it to a Division.
§ Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would, if he could, persuade us that he was taking the right course. I am equally satisfied that throughout the country it will be realised that we are doing a very bad day's work indeed if the procedure proposed by the Government is adopted. The proposal before the House is to postpone Part I until after the new Clauses have been taken. I ask hon. Members to turn to the Order Paper and see what is the first of the new Clauses' and what are the very first words in that first Clause. The first words are: "Part I of this Act shall continue in force …" We are asked, indeed, to jump to the consideration of new Clauses before the consideration of Part I, and the first of the new Clauses deals at once with Part I, of which the House has no knowledge. Surely that is an absurd proposition to submit to the House?
I raise my opposition on far wider grounds. With a Bill of this magnitude and importance, Members come down to the House prepared to discuss the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper, having given full consideration, before arriving, to the questions in issue, The President of the Board of Trade must 1791 agree that Members do not come to this House prepared to jump to any subject at a moment's notice without mature consideration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully before he commits the House to a policy of this kind, merely as a matter of political expediency and of buying off or buying in the necessary assistance to maintain certain political power in this House, and to remember always that the great public outside is committed for many years to come by what we do in this House. I ask him even now to consider whether it is not better to accept the Amendment, or go further and say that he will report Progress in order to see whether the Business of the House cannot be put into orderly shape. If he would do that he would save time. But for fear of being accused of obstruction, I would like to show how actions of this kind are slowly biting into the constitutional life of this country—[Interruption.] There are hon. Members opposite who are sitting in this House to-day because such practices were so carefully guarded against in years gone by.
§ Captain PEAKE
I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade because I understand that the Amendment would have the effect of postponing the discussion of Part II until the new Clauses have been considered. There stands in my name on the Paper what I believe to be the most important Amendment to the Bill, and that is the Amendment which suggests a 90 hours fortnight in place of a 7½ hours day. Apart from the personal inconvenience to which I and my friends in this House are to be put by the course which the right hon. Gen-
§ tleman wishes to take, a far graver issue is raised by the proposal to take Part II of the Bill to-day. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is far better to get things settled by agreement, if possible, than to get them carried through this House and forced upon an industry which is not willing to agree to them. If Part II had been taken in its ordinary sequence, there would have been at least another 10 days for the two sides in the mining industry to get together, and possibly, even probably, to come to an agreement upon this vexed question of hours.
§ Captain PEAKE
After all, the principle of a 90 hours fortnight or a 45 hours week has been agreed to—
§ Captain PEAKE
I do say that the President of the Board of Trade by deciding the hours question now is closing the door on all negotiations between miners and mineowners. It will be impossible to get the two sides together nationally or in the districts. If there had been another 10 days, I believe that in the light of what has happened at Geneva and what Mr. Cook said the other day, an agreement between the owners and the men to accept a compromise would have been possible, and that it would not have had the effect of adding 1s. 6d. a ton to the cost of coal.
§ Question put, "That the words 'Part I' stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 134.1795
|Division No. 138.]||AYES.||[7.59 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Charleton, H. C.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Birkett, W. Norman||Chater, Daniel|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Church, Major A. G.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Bowen, J. W.||Clarke, J. S.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Broad, Francis Alfred||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Angell, Norman.||Bromfield, William||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Arnott, John||Bromley, J.||Compton, Joseph|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Brooke, W.||Cove, William G.|
|Ayles, Walter||Brothers, M.||Daggar, George|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Dallas, George|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Dalton, Hugh|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Burgess, F. G.||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)|
|Batey, Joseph||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Caine, Derwent Hall.||Dickson, T.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Cameron, A. G.||Dudgeon, Major C. R.|
|Benson, G.||Cape, Thomas||Dukes, C.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Duncan, Charles|
|Ede, James Chuter||Logan, David Gilbert||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Edge, Sir William||Longbottom, A W.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Longden, F.||Sandham, E.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lowth, Thomas||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Egan, W. H.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Scurr, John|
|Elmley, Viscount||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sexton, James|
|England, Colonel A.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||McElwee, A.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||McEntee, V. L.||Shield, George William|
|Freeman, Peter||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Shinwell, E.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McShane, John James||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Mansfield, W.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Gill, T. H.||March, S.||Sinkinson, George|
|Gillett, George M.||Marcus, M.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Glassey, A. E.||Markham, S. F.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Marley, J.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Gould, F.||Mathers, George||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Matters, L. W.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Maxton, James||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Gray, Milner||Melville, Sir James||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Messer, Fred||Snell, Harry|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Middleton, G.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Millar, J. D.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Milner, J.||Sorensen, R.|
|Had, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Montague, Frederick||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Morley, Ralph||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Harbison, T. J.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Harbord, A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Hardie, George D.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sullivan, J.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Mart, D. L.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Motley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Muggeridge, H. T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Murnin, Hugh||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Nathan, Major H. L||Toole, Joseph|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Tout, W. J.|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Oldfield, J. R.||Townend, A. E.|
|Herriotts, J.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Turner, B.|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Palin, John Henry||Viant, S. P.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Paling, Wilfrid||Walker, J.|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Palmer, E. T.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Perry, S. F.||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Watkins, F. C.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pole, Major D. G.||West, F. R.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)||Potts, John S.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Price, M. P.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Pybus, Percy John||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ladywood)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Raynes, W. R.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Richards, R.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Ritson, J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Romeril, H. G.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rasbotham, D. S. T.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Leach, W.||Rothschild, J. de||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Rowson, Guy|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Lees, J.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bracken, B.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Beaumont, M. W.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Burton, Colonel H. W.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Berry, Sir George||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Carver, Major W. H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Castle Stewart, Earl of|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hurd, Percy A.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Smithers, Waldron|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Knox, Sir Alfred||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macquisten, F. A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Meller, R. J.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Muirhead, A. J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George|
|Cower, Sir Robert||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peake, Captain Osbert||Withers, Sir John James|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Power, Sir John Cecil||Womersley, W. J.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ramsbotham, H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Remer, John R.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON rose—
§ Mr. THOMAS KENNEDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."1796
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 130.1799
|Division No. 139.]||AYES.||[8 13 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Burgess, F. G.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Egan, W. H.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Elmley, Viscount|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||England, Colonel A.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Caine, Derwent Hall-||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cameron, A. G.||Forgan, Dr. Robert|
|Angell, Norman||Cape, Thomas||Freeman, Peter|
|Arnott, John||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Charleton, H. C.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)|
|Ayles, Walter||Chater, Daniel||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Church, Major A. G.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Clarke, J. S.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Cluse, W. S.||Gill, T. H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gillett, George M.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Glassey, A. E.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Compton, Joseph||Gossling, A. G.|
|Bennett, Captain E.N. (Cardiff, Central)||Cove, William G.||Gould, F.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Daggar, George||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Benson, G.||Dallas, George||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Dalton, Hugh||Gray, Milner|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Devlin, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dickson, T.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Bromfield, William||Dukes, C.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Bromley, J.||Duncan, Charles||Harbison, T. J.|
|Brooke, W.||Ede, James Chuter||Harbord, A.|
|Brothers, M.||Edge, Sir William||Hardie, George D.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Edmunds, J. E.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Messer, Fred||Shinwell, E.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Middleton, G.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Millar, J. D.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Milner, J.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Montague, Frederick||Sinkinson, George|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morgan Dr. H. B.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Herriotts, J.||Morley, Ralph||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Mort, D. L.||Snell, Harry|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Sorensen, R.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Murnin, Hugh||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Johnston, Thomas||Nathan, Major H. L.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Oldfield, J. R.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Sullivan, J.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Palin, John Henry.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Paling, Wilfrid||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Palmer, E. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Perry, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Toole, Joseph|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Tout, W. J.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Townend, A. E.|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Pole, Major D. G.||Turner, B.|
|Leach, W.||Potts, John S.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Price, M. P.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Pybus, Percy John||Walker, J.|
|Lees, J.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Raynes, W. R.||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Richards, R.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Longden, F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lowth, Thomas||Ritson, J.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Romeril, H. G.||West, F. R.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Westwood, Joseph|
|McElwee, A.||Rothschild, J. de||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Rowson, Guy||Whitetey, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Williams, David (Swansea. East)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|McShane, John James||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Malone, C. L Estrange (N'thampton)||Sanders, W. S.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Mansfield, W.||Sandham, E.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|March, S.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Marcus, M.||Scrymgeour, E.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Markham, S. F.||Scurr, John||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Marley, J.||Sexton, James||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Mathers, George||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Matters, L. W.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Maxton, James||Shield, George William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Melville, Sir James||Shillaker, J. F.||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Fermoy, Lord|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fison, F. G. Clavering|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chapman, Sir S.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Colville, Major D. J.||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Berry, Sir George||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Bracken, B.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Dixey, A. C.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Peake, Captain Osbert||Train, J.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Ramsbotham, H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Remer, John R.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Salmon, Major I.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Savery, S. S.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Skelton, A. N.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Smith, Louis W (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Smithers, Waldron||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Margesson, Captain H. D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Meller, R. J.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
§ Question put accordingly,
§ "That the Consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or1800
§ any Clause in that Part is mentioned) have been disposed of."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 131.1803
|Division No. 140.]||AYES.||[8.22 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Daggar, George||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dallas, George||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dalton, Hugh||Herriotts, J.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Angell, Norman.||Dickson, T.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Arnott, John||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Dukes, C.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Ayles, Walter||Duncan, Charles||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Ede, James Chuter||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edge, Sir William||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edmunds, J. E.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Batey, Joseph||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Egan, W. H.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||England, Colonel A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Benson, G.||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Freeman, Peter||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gibbins, Joseph||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gill, T. H.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bromfield, William||Gillett, George M.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Bromley, J.||Glassey, A. E.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Brooke, W.||Gossling, A. G.||Loach, W.|
|Brothers, M.||Gould, F.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lees, J.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gray, Milner||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Long bottom, A. W.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Longden, F.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Harbord, A.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Chater, Daniel||Hardie, George D.||McElwee, A.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Harris, Percy A.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Haycock, A. W.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hayday, Arthur||McShane, John James|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Cove, William G.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Mansfield, W.|
|March, S.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Marcus, M.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Markham, S. F.||Raynes, W. R.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Marley, J.||Richards, R.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Mathers, George||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, J.|
|Matters, L. W.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Maxton, James||Ritson, J.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Melville, Sir James||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Messer, Fred||Romeril, H. G.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Middleton, G.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Millar, J. D.||Rothschild, J. de||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Milner, J.||Rowson, Guy||Toole, Joseph|
|Montague, Frederick||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Tout, W. J.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Townend, A. E.|
|Morley, Ralph||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Turner, B.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sanders, W. S.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sandham, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sawyer, G. F.||Walker, J.|
|Mort, D. L.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Scurr, John||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Sexton, James||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Watkins, F. C.|
|Murnin, Hugh||Sherwood, G. H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Nathan, Major H L.||Shield, George William||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Shillaker, J. F.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Shinwell, E.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||West, F. R.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Palin, John Henry||Sinkinson, George||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Sitch, Charles H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Palmer, E. T.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Perry, S. F.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Picton-Tubervill, Edith||Snell, Harry||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Potts, John S.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Price, M. P.||Sorensen, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Pybus, Percy John||Stamford, Thomas W.||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dixey, A. C.||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Bellast, W.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Fermoy, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Margesson, Captain H D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Meller, R. J.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt Hon. Sir W.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Berry, Sir George||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Gower, Sir Robert||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Bracken, B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Haslam, Henry C.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Remer, John R.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Conwav, Sir W. Martin||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hurd, Percy A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Skelton, A. N.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smith, Louts W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Lamb, Sir J. O||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Todd, Capt. A. J.||Wayland, Sir William A.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Train, J.||Wells, Sydney R.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Turton, Robert Hugh||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.|
|Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.||Withers, Sir John James|
§ Consideration of Part 1 (Clausen 1 to 8 inclusive) postponed accordingly.