HC Deb 25 February 1930 vol 235 cc2173-209

(1) It shall be the duty of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as "the Commission") to further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry with a view to facilitating the production, supply, and sale of coal by owners of coal mines, and for that purpose to promote and assist, by the preparation of schemes and otherwise, the amalgamation of undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines where such amalgamations appear to the commission to be in the national interest.

(2) The Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of their functions under this Act, and, in respect of any meeting of the Commission at which a quorum of the commissioners is present for the purpose of any such inquiry, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, shall apply to the Commission as if it were a tribunal established in manner provided by that Act and as if that Act had been applied thereto in the manner thereby provided.

(3) The Commission may from time to time employ such technical and professional agents as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of their functions under this Act, and, subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be paid by the Board of Trade such remuneration to the agents so employed as the Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine, and the expenses of the Board under this Subsection shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament:

Provided that a sum equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the employment of such agents as aforesaid for the purpose of promoting or assisting the amalgamation of any undertakings shall, in the event of the undertakings being amalgamated, be repaid to the Board by the owners of the amalgamated undertaking.—[Mr. Turner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Commodore KING

In accordance with the agreement come to on the general discussion, we do not propose to make any remarks on the Motion for the Second Heading of this Clause.

Clause read a Second time.

Commodore KING

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, at the beginning, to insert the words Upon representation being made to them by any coalowner in a district. We have now reached a stage where the five commissioners have been set up. They started by being three, but have been increased to five, and now we have to discuss the details of their functions. They are to be set up to go into the question of the reorganisation of the coal industry with a view of promoting and preparing schemes of amalgamation, as they think fit. They are to have power not merely to consider schemes of amalgamation which willing persons may wish to set up, but amalgamations where several people may wish to bring in others to form what they consider from a business point of view a good amalgamation. They are to have the power of putting forward schemes whether any coalowners in the district desire amalgamation or not. That is a novel and very undesirable precedent, and that is why we propose to insert the words "upon representation being made to them by any coalowner in a district." The meaning of the Amendment is perfectly clear. We wish to prevent schemes being brought forward where every single owner in a district is opposed to amalgamation.


It was in your 1926 Bill.

Commodore KING

No. This Clause will allow the commissioners to bring in a scheme of amalgamation in a district where everybody is unwilling to enter. That is what we are trying to prevent.


The words were used in your Bill of 1926.

9.0 p.m.

Commodore KING

The hon. Member always wishes to be courteous and correct, and he will find that the actual words of my Amendment are in the 1926 Act, but that cannot be any objection to their being inserted in this proposed new Clause. Hon. Members opposite on several occasions have said that the words we have criticised are contained in the Act of 1926. If they claim words in the 1926 Act as a useful precedent surely we, who were the authors of that Act, are not to blame when we adopt words from that Act. We considered that a certain amount of compulsion might be necessary and desirable under certain circumstances, but we never visualised then the position, and we strongly oppose it now, of compulsion in a case where everybody is unwilling. I dislike compulsion in any form and especially when people are wholly antagonistic on business grounds to a scheme of amalgamation. They may be working a mine which is yielding a different kind of coal to another mine in the same district, and it may be that the mine is quite unfitted to be amalgamated. I do not wish to delay the Committee in going through all the financial details and arguments which have been used before, but we must realise that from the financial point of view there are great difficulties in bringing about compulsory amalgamation when no one is willing.

In the case of those who opposed what are described as absorption schemes under the Act of 1926, a provision was made for them to be compensated or bought out. That cannot possibly be done under this Bill. If everyone who is to be amalgamated is unwilling there is no central fund from which they can be compensated and, therefore, it is most undesirable that we should have these wholesale compulsions on people who are not willing to enter. In the interests of fair play we demand that at least one owner should be found in a district who is willing to ask the commissioners to go into the matter. We have to realise that the coal industry is run, as it has been run for many hundreds of years, by business men who have grown up in that industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Members who interrupt me consider, I am sure, that they know a great deal about the industry because they have been brought up in it, and have spent years working in it. When I was Secretary for Mines I found that they thought they knew more about it than I did. I did not agree with them, because I was in the fortunate position of being able to glean information and knowledge from all sources and after I had been in the Department for about three months I was usually able to hold my own, even against some hon. Gentlemen who had spent years in the industry. But I must not be drawn away from the Amendment by the interruptions of hon. Members opposite. All I will say is that when they claim that because they have spent many years in the industry they know a great deal about it, then in order to be consistent and logical they must admit that owners whose families have been concerned with coal mines for generations must know at least something about their work.

Of course, owners wish to improve their property and to make profits, but hon. Members opposite might pay the owners the compliment of admitting that they would know whether it was a good thing or not for pits to be amalgamated in a certain neighbourhood. As hon. Members are aware the management of a pit in a district always know a great deal about what is going on in the neighbouring pits. They make it their business to know what developments are taking place, what profits or losses are being made and what is the financial position of other pits. These cute business men who have to make their living out of the industry, with probably the whole of their capital, probably the whole of their interest in this country sunk in a pit, know that it is to their advantage to make the largest amount possible out of it. Men in that position, who have been managing pits for years are in the best position to judge whether amalgamation will be to their good or not. Although hon. Members criticise owners in various districts I think they will admit that there must be at least one if not more of the owners in any particular district with sufficient business ability and common sense and knowledge of the surrounding circumstances to say whether it is desirable or not to have amalgamations there.

If at least one owner cannot be found in an area who is willing to ask the commissioners to propound a scheme, then any scheme which the Commission seeks to apply to such a district would, it seems to me, be foredoomed. I am aware that there are a certain number of cases in which perhaps amalgamations have been held up; we know that there may be people who have been working alongside each other in the same district for years, and one man may think it desirable to have amalgamation with another man but may not be able to bring it about. He has the power, as we recognise in the 1926 Act to bring the matter before the Railway and Canal Commission, but it may be that ho does not like to bring any force or compulsion to bear on a friend. I agree that in such cases some interference on the part of the Board of Trade or of a Commission like this might be useful. But to try to compel people who have dissimilar interests and who, from their own knowledge of the industry, consider that amalgamation would not be to their advantage, would be perfectly absurd. I think most people would agree with that view and if so, they must agree that this Amendment is a fair and proper one.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the members of the Commission are to be carefully chosen and are to be the best men available, but, even so, they cannot possibly have the local knowledge possessed by the individuals in a district and if they cannot find one person who is willing to request a scheme, I do not believe that any scheme brought forward by them could be worked successfully. It is impossible to make unwilling workers carry on amicably and successfully together. There must be a certain amount of consent and the idea of forcing people to do things which they have no wish to do, is foreign to the British character. We have been reminded continually in connection with the trade unions that compulsion is foreign to our nature and thank Heavens, the Britisher does not like to be compelled to do anything.


You forced an eight hour day on the miners!

Commodore KING

Oh, no.


The only compulsion which we are dealing with now is the compulsion mentioned in this Clause.

Commodore KING

It was that compulsion with which I was dealing but I have been led away. I am trying to put the case as clearly and as fairly as I can. If hon. Members opposite interrupt me and if I am drawn aside by their interruptions, I must apologise. I have tried to make plain the meaning of the Amendment. I think that wholesale and complete compulsion is foreign to our nature and that no scheme can be of any value if there is not at least one person in the district concerned who is willing to ask that such a scheme should be put into force.


As one who has some experience of amalgamations in connection with other industries, I wish to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment. After all, our great objective is to try to bring prosperity to workers and owners alike, because they are both essential to the industry and the country. Anyone who has taken part in industry knows that prosperity depends very much on the smooth running of the different parts of that industry and smooth working as between the individuals who are responsible for the direction of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in a remarkable speech likened this proposal to an attempt at unequally yoking in matrimony people who did not wish to be so yoked. It is precisely against that particular function that we protest in this Amendment.

Anyone who has had any experience of the direction of industry knows how important it is to have colleagues in whom you have complete confidence, and whose general attitude towards the industry you share. You require to know, also, how close to the wind their ethical principles allow them to sail, because that is often an important consideration. Here we contemplate the setting up of a very able Board of five people, who are to go round and not only decide in the interests of how the coal industry should be run, whether as large centralised undertakings or as a number of small ones, but who are going to be clothed with a dictatorial power, saying that A, B, and C have got to sit together on a board of directors and run an industry profitably for themselves and efficiently for their workpeople. It seems to me that anyone who has had close experience of industry knows that this is simply asking for trouble. We feel that we must at every possible opportunity protest against this proposal, and that we should leave no stone unturned to oppose it.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade prepared to accept the Amendment? After all, it does not contemplate that those concerned in a district should be unanimous, or even that there should be a majority, but it brings it down to one individual who thinks an amalgamation would be a good idea. There are undoubtedly cases where the majority of people think some form of rationalisation or amalgamation would be desirable, and where one individual, for possibly unworthy motives, stands out. I think both sides are agreed that under such conditions it is well to bring forward some measure possibly of compulsion; but here you may be faced with a situation in which every single person of experience in the direction of these businesses is opposed, and it seems we are to have five pundits selected, who have a greater knowledge than the right hon. Gentleman, than the Socialist party, if that be possible, than the House of Commons, and than those who have spent their lives in the industry, and who will come and say "Thou shalt."

If we intend those amalgamations to achieve any success, we must have a little more business foresight than that. As I say, I have had a great deal of experience of amalgamations, which have been brought about, not by Government intervention, but by the pure logic of economic laws. We have got to a point that is now called rationalisation. In my time, when I was actively connected with industry, it was not called by such a high-falutin name. We know that the whole question of reorganisation is in the air at the present time, that there is a psychology towards thinking of it along the line of attacking the trade depression and unemployment—


This is really a Second Reading speech.


I will try to keep within your Ruling. The reason we press this Amendment is because we do not believe that the work of these commissioners will be helped, but rather that it will be hampered, unless there is a provision that some at least of those immediately concerned who are going to be dictated to, in what has hitherto been regarded as entirely a question for themselves, should coincide with the idea that amalgamation and so forth would be desirable. I cannot help thinking it would be of assistance if the President accepted the Amendment, and if his heart is soft, and not, like Pharaoh's, hard—Pharaoh was a very hard-hearted and stiff-necked man—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give due weight to the position which we are putting before him. I am convinced, from my own experience, that if we are going to put into operation a Measure which gives these tremendously autocratic powers, and if we are going to breed antagonism instead of co-operation, this Bill will be a failure instead of a success.


When the late Secretary for Mines spoke about the men who have been in this business for hundreds of years, and when he spoke about the knowledge that he gained when he was Secretary for Mines, he seems to have forgotten one thing. If he had known the history of those hundreds of years, about the general incapacity coming from the inefficiency of those calling themselves owners, he would have understood in a large measure the difficulties that make the mining question what it is to-day. The fact that the nation never realised its wealth in coal and never placed the coal question, not upon a selling price, not upon how you are getting coal out of the earth, but on the natural condition of the strata, which produces all the difficulties in mining—


This also is a Second Reading speech, and the hon. Member is getting too far from the Amendment.


The Amendment means having something other than compulsion, and I am trying to show that without compulsion the coal trade has got into its present state. The reason we require compulsion is because of what I have been stating. Unless we get compulsion, the present conditions will obtain. In a disturbed mining area, you find coal costing 1s. or 1s. 6d. more a ton to bring to the surface than in an area that is not disturbed by a natural fault, but the coal is always selling at the same price. We have been told about A, B and C, and about getting together. The A B C of mining is understanding the difficulties of the question, and compulsion is absolutely necessary if we are going to get the national asset of coal brought to the surface—


This compulsion refers to the Commission having the power to make schemes for amalgamation, and the hon. Member must keep to that.


I am keeping to that as closely as I can. Unless I am allowed to discuss how coal is brought to the surface, I cannot see how I can discuss the question, because we are dealing with a form of compulsion. Tie Amendment reads: Upon representation being made to them by any coal owner in a district. That means that there is to be amalgamation only if the owners ask for it.

Commodore KING

No, only one owner.


That is what I mean. It is evident from the way the industry has been going on up to the present that with these conditions obtaining, when you get a natural differential and there is no relation to that, then this nation must have compulsion, not only for the present but in order to meet future needs. Unless we get compulsion it means that the same system will continue as at present, and the cutting out of all the valuable schemes in order to make money quickly for the owners.


The hon. Member must remember that in dealing with this matter we are confined to the Amendments on the Paper and the Amendments to which they refer. This Amendment deals merely with the production of schemes for amalgamation, and he must confine himself to the question of powers of compulsion for schemes in the hands of the Commission.


That is contained in all I have said. I have been trying to show the horrible mess into which the trade has fallen up to the present, and we are trying to find a way out. I am replying to the ex-Secretary for Mines who was arguing that nothing could be improved because these men had been connected with the industry for generations and he claimed that they were bound to have some knowledge of it. I ask any competent person, taking the strata of Britain, which is the finest coalfield in the world, whether there is evidence that something has been learned by their being connected with the coalfields or that they have applied the knowledge to the needs of the industry? The whole morass to-day is based on the fact that they do not understand the science of mining. The need for this Clause is shown by the fact that even though you are to-day in Britain supposed to be at the apex as far as the application of science to industry is concerned, you are under the present system still to allow the owners to work contrary to each other in the same coalfield. I hope that the Committee will see the absolute necessity for compulsion as far as the coalfields are concerned.


I rise, not for the purpose of discussing the merits or defects of amalgamations—that has already been discussed in the general Debate—nor for the purpose of discussing the question of the value or otherwise of compulsion in amalgamation, because that will arise on later Amendments. My object can be fulfilled in a very few words, and it is to point out the effect of this Amendment if passed. It will simply be to restore the position to what it would be if this Bill never became law at all. The late Secretary for Mines, in putting the Amendment before the Committee, suggested that it was desirable that the initiative should come from at least one owner of a mine before the Coal Mines Re-organisation Committee should intervene at all, but that was precisely the position under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, which provided, in terms, that where an owner of any undertaking considered it expedient to amalgamate with other owners who were unwilling to agree to amalgamation, then the owner who wished to take the initiative might lay his proposal before the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade, in its turn, if satisfied that the scheme was prima facie desirable, would submit it to the Railway and Canal Commission, which was then to adjudicate upon it.

If the words in the Amendment now proposed be inserted, it will be reverting to a position which is precisely the same as under the Act of 1926, and the whole objective of constituting this Commission will have disappeared. If it be—and it is difficult to credit it in view of the state of the industry—that the object of hon. Members above the Gangway is to sabotage all the proposals which are put forward by the Government for the purpose of dealing with the serious situation in the industry, then this Amendment is a weapon apt for the purpose; but I can scarcely credit it, having regard to the state of the mining industry in general and to the lamentable position of the coal industry in particular, that hon. Gentlemen will have so little regard for the necessities of the situation as to press upon this Committee a Clause which simply means we are to be content with things as they are, bad as they are.


I have risen only to make one point, and it arises out of the decision which was given by the Deputy-Chairman this afternoon, that we were not able, under the Rules of Order, to deal with the question of costs on unsuccessful applications to the Railway and Canal Commission. The result is that this Commission, without a request from a single coalowner, can take five or six firms, totally against the will of anyone, before the Railway and Canal Commission and put them to enormous expense, because appearance before the Commission is very, very costly, as those who have experienced it know. Very possibly, if there is not a coalowner who agrees, the Railway and Canal Commission, being sensible men, will turn down the application, and that will mean putting the owners to tremendous expense. Under this Ruling they will not be allowed to be awarded costs. We cannot discuss the award of costs, and it is all the more important that we should see that no impossible schemes are taken up, as the commissioners know they cannot be made to pay costs and have no responsibility. Surely they should have some responsi- bility and should have one coalowner, at least, behind them before they cause this burden to industry.


The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) seemed to question the authority of the Chair in having admitted this Amendment as being in order because he attempted to prove that it was a direct negative of the whole Clause, and, therefore, out of order. I would like to point out that it is nothing of the kind and that the Clause sets up an entirely new method of procedure and deals with very many other things not contemplated or dealt with under the Act of 1926. What is the purpose of the Clause? It is, presumably, to assist the industry by promoting amalgamation, and that is what it says. The whole purpose of this Amendment is that before the Commission takes action they should at least be informed, not as the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) suggests that the coalowners in the district desire amalgamation, but that there is one coalowner in the district who thinks it to the advantage of cheap production of coal, or the development of the industry, or other reasons, that the amalgamation should take place.

With a proposition of such elementary common sense and justice, particularly coupled with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) has just said, I cannot understand the Secretary for Mines having the slightest hesitation in accepting the Amendment. It does not in any way attempt to restore the position as it was under the Act of 1926, but it recognises that before putting this gigantic machinery into force we should have but the slightest guarantee of the opinion of those who are, after all, best able to decide what is in the interest of their own industry, and that we should have the opinion of at least one of the coalowners that a proposal of the commissioners is in favour of the production of cheap coal and the improvement of the condition of the industry. On that depends what the hon. Member for Springburn and other hon. Members opposite have at heart, namely, the maintenance of the standard of living of the colliery workers. It seems to me almost incredible that the Government should have hesitated for a moment to accept this simple Amendment to give the necessary power for ascertaining whether one owner of a colliery, whom you propose compulsorily to amalgamate, is of the opinion that the amlagamation is in the interest of the industry in the district.

It seems so simple a proposition, that I wonder that we have spent so long in discussing it, but the spirit of the Debate was imported into it by the speech of the hon. Member for Springburn, which was delivered, no doubt, with the intention of facilitating the passage of the Bill, but which will, perhaps, have the opposite effect. There is a sort of party point of view that the coal owner must always be wrong, and must never know anything about his business, and that therefore the opinion of a single coal owner as to this important machinery being set into operation must necessarily be wrong. While keeping within the narrow limits which the Chairman has ruled for this Amendment, I think that I am entitled to ask the Committee to consider the question whether they will really facilitate what I term cheaper production of coal and the prosperity of the industry by the scheme of compulsory amalgamation applied to coalfields without taking the opinion of a single owner of a colliery. Coal production is in a totally different position to any other business. In the case of a factory or a business of ordinary industrial production, it would be quite unnecessary to take the extreme powers that are taken under this Clause to enable the Government to come in and say, by the appointment of these commissioners, that they are appointing gentlemen of such outstanding ability and knowledge of the general industry of the country that they could say what was for the good of the industry, even if no single owner of a factory thought it was for their benefit or for that of the industry to amalgamate.

This can be said with more strength with regard to colliery undertakings where wholly different considerations arise. On the very arguments of the hon. Member for Springburn, it is impossible to appoint five commissioners to decide, without any reference to the owners of the colliery undertakings, whether it is to the interest of those undertakings to be amalgamated or not. Because of the peculiar conditions of the coal mining industry, which were so ably pointed out by the hon. Member for Springburn, it is necessary in this industry above all industries to be assured, before you put the machinery of amalgamation into force, that at least one coal owner whom you propose to amalgamate does not think that it will mean, not the improvement of the industry but something that is entirely detrimental to it, and will consequential react and reflect upon the conditions of labour in the industry and tend to a lower standard of living.

Colonel LANE FOX

I have listened to this discussion—[Interruption].


These interruptions are entirely uncalled for, and completely out of order.

Colonel LANE FOX

These interruptions do not assist the Debate. I have no intention of obstructing, but only to say that it surprises me very much to see the attitude which hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to take on this Amendment. They are prepared to treat it as a frivolous Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Gentlemen take it as such, they do not realise the real seriousness that lay at the bottom of it. They are at liberty to hold their own opinions, but it is the grossest travesty of justice and common sense to suggest that a body of five stray commissioners are always to be set up as being bound to have better knowledge, better prevision and better understanding of the conditions of a district than even one single coal-owner in the district.

The hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) was wrong in saying that this merely reproduces the position which was left by the 1926 Act. It is amazing to me that he as a business man could make such a speech. For a body of commissioners, without any previous expert knowledge of the district, to enforce a scheme of amalgamation upon a number of unwilling men, who have been engaged in a business, is a proposition that no business man could seriously accept. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were engaged in any business, would he like to be subjected to this sort of proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Address the Chair!"] I am quite entitled to ask the hon. Member through the Chair, and if I am out of order, it will be for the Chair to re- buke me, and not hon. Members opposite. Whatever business the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway has been in, he would resent very much being brought into an amalgamation to which he and the other proposed parties were absolutely hostile and being told that the whole cost, if the court turned the proposal down, was to be put upon him and those who had been brought into court with him. Obviously the hon. and gallant Member has not studied the proposal at all, or he would not have said that this Amendment would reproduce the conditions which were the result of the 1926 Act.

I wish hon. Members opposite would realise that there is great substance in the objections we are making. The Government cannot hope to have successful amalgamations worked on these lines. The proposal in the 1926 Act was at the time regarded as very drastic. It said that if one man in a district wished for amalgamation he could bring the others into court and could force upon them—of course, under the protection of the court—a scheme which they had not originated. Under this proposal it will not be necessary for one owner even to make representations. It will be the commissioners who will bring the case into Court. The scheme seems absolute madness, and how the Government can hope to have successful amalgamation schemes I cannot conceive. I hope the Committee will take this Amendment more seriously. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) dealt with the incapacity of the coal owners. What right has he to say—


I pulled up the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. and gallant Member cannot deal with that point.

Colonel LANE FOX

I think I shall be in order if you will allow me to say that his observations as to the incapacity of coal owners are no justification for saying that the opinion of not one single owner shall be respected in the matter of amalgamation. I am quite certain that if he, or any of his friends, had this treatment meted out to them in business he would believe that the Government were absolutely going mad.


My remark was this, that the condition of the industry to-day showed that those who had charge of it did not know much about it, or it would not be in the mess in which it is.

Colonel LANE FOX

Unfortunately, that is part of the remarks which the Chairman very rightly ruled out of order, and so I cannot deal with the observation.


No, that gets you!

Colonel LANE FOX

I certainly say that no amount of incapacity in the past could justify such a proposal as this, which absolutely disregards the opinion of every single coal owner.


I will not detain the Committee. I have something to say and, when I have said it, I will sit down. In these days there is a perfect passion for assuming that those who are engaged in any industry know less about it than those who are outside it. We set up research commissions and advisory councils and all kinds of bodies to advise those engaged in industry as to how they are to run it better. If it were allowed, I should like to answer the allegations of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) in regard to industry, but I will say this, that the limit has been reached to-night by this proposal to set up a body with powers to initiate schemes of compulsory amalgamation in districts where not a single owner of an undertaking approves of it. I regard that as a most retrograde step. We know the proposal did not come from the Government, but from the benches below the Gangway. By what strange change is it that the Liberal party, once associated with liberty, now finds in compulsion a cure for all evils? Compulsion and liberty are strange bedfellows. I think the Liberal party are suffering from a compulsion complex. Only this morning, in Committee upstairs, we listened—


The hon. Member must not now discuss proceedings in a Committee upstairs.


I will leave the Committee upstairs; at any rate, we have an example of the compulsion complex in the proposals which are now before us. This is not a frivolous point; in my opinion, the Amendment is one of great substance, and I believe we are taking a retrograde step in trying to force through the proposal in the Bill. That is the opinion of the must distinguished body of mining engineers, the Institute of Mining Engineers. In spite of everything the hon. Member for Springburn may say, that Institute represents the finest traditions of mining engineering in the world.


Who said it did not?


You said it did not.


I did not.


The opinion of that highly technical body, as given before the Samuel Commission, is: In the opinion of the Council, any attempt to group collieries compulsorily would be an unsound policy to adopt. It would have the effect of creating uncertainty, with the result that the investment of the capital necessary to maintain the industry in a healthy state would be checked, and it would furnish an additional unknown factor in deciding the future development and equipment policy of any individual undertaking. Our Amendment is a serious one, and should be treated seriously. The advocates of compulsion who force this Bill through will be sorry for it afterwards. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) said we were trying by this Amendment to sabotage the proposal. Better sabotage the proposal than sabotage the industry.


This subject was debated at great length in the Second Reading speeches on the new Clauses, and it was agreed that we should have little discussion on the new Clauses, and I would express the hope that at all events we may now come to a decision on this Amendment. First, however, I will offer one or two words of explanation in reply to the Debate. This Clause defines the functions of the statutory commissioners for the purpose of colliery amalgamations. Of course, the whole plan is linked up to the Act of 1926, but it is the duty of these commissioners to facilitate the production of coal, and, so far as they can contribute to it, to confer increased efficiency on this industry, and, in particular, to promote amalgamation schemes.

The strict point before the Committee in this Amendment deals with initiative in getting these schemes started, or bringing them into being at all. The right hon. and gallant Gentlemen the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) used what seemed to me to be a very extreme phrase when he referred to this proposal as madness. In the Act of 1926 there is, first of all, a provision for the purely voluntary submission of schemes to the Railway and Canal Commission, and then, if one owner can be produced in a district who is willing to go on with the scheme, he may go to the Railway and Canal Commission and they may apply a scheme of amalgamation to that district or to that number of undertakings. Therefore, I think it must be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to use that phrase, when the only difference between us is, so to speak, the guarantee of the initiative, and, in my judgment, that is all that is before us on this part of the proposal. We have the experience of the Act of 1926 and the simple question is whether expectations have been fulfilled. We have the two reports of the Mines Department in 1928 and 1929, and I think it will be generally admitted that they show that we have made little progress.

What is the effect of the Amendment? Beyond all question, it takes away the initiative from the new Commission, In other words, they can proceed only on essentially the basis of the Act of 1926, and, by doing so, you wipe out the three years' experience since the Royal Commission, on which their recommendation turned. Therefore, the Amendment goes right to the heart of the whole Clause. Then I wish to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). Where the commissioners go to areas and take evidence, and a scheme is taken to the court and confirmed, the technical and professional costs will, under the terms of the Financial Resolution, be paid by the new amalgamated undertaking. Where the Statutory Commissioners have formed a scheme and taken it to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who have to decide, and those commissioners decide that the scheme is not an appropriate one, the Railway and Canal Commission will give costs against the statutory commissioners, but that the commissioners should pay those costs out of their own pockets was never contemplated for a moment. That is the position, and I trust what I have said will resolve all doubts on the point raised in regard to costs.

10.0 p.m.


I think it was decided that there was no provision whereby the costs given by the Railway and Canal Commission should be paid by the Statutory Commissioners. In the case of the amalgamation of five collieries, there would be no provision whereby they could recover the costs.


I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position in regard to the Ruling of the Chair. The Ruling was given on the strict terms of the Financial Resolution and, with great respect to the Chair, quite plainly it was out of order. I think I have answered most of the questions put to me, and I hope that we shall now come to a decision on this Clause.


The President of the Board of Trade made a very interesting speech on the Second Reading of this Measure, but the impression which he left on my mind, after listening to that speech, was that he held very different views from those held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who made it plain that what he was contemplating was that the commissioners would go about the country dividing the coalfields up into areas and forcing amalgamation upon a number of unwilling parties, thus carrying out a process of nationalisation without compensation or responsibility. That was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen.

The President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced this Clause, told us that we were not to expect very much, and that it would take a long time before anything could be done; and he also stated that, if the commissioners were wise, they would concentrate on those areas where amalgamations were already in negotiation. That was one point of view, and, if the right hon. Gentleman really had in mind, or still has in mind, a Commission to stimulate amalgamations where amalgamations are already in contemplation, I am sure he will find a larger measure of sympathy in this House. What is the real test as to whether the amalgamations in contemplation are likely to be useful? Surely, it must be that among the firms it is proposed to amalgamate you find some who are anxious to see amalgamation go through. Those are the lines upon which the President wishes to proceed, but by rejecting this Amendment he has shown that he is unwilling to confine his compulsory powers to those in favour of amalgamations. Instead of facilitating amalgamations on fruitful ground he is now trying to drive the unwilling sheep into the pen amalgamations. That way disaster lies. The result of this will be that you will try to make these people conduct the industry in a way which they do not wish to conduct it.

The right hon. Gentleman said "All I am doing really is to complete the Act of 1926." If there is one coalowner who is ready to go to the Railway and Canal Commission and to propose an amalgamation, that coalowner can take half a dozen others there and propose the amalgamation. That is true. But at any rate you have one willing person there, one who is willing to propose the amalgamation and to run the combined undertaking when it is taken over. It is one thing to assent to an amalgamation where one is ready to come in. It makes it rather a strong thing to expect one coalowner to go forward to treat with a number of other coalowners to amalgamate with them. The Amendment does not say that the coalowner has to go to the Railway and Canal Commission; all it says is that the Board of Trade are only to act when they get a representation from some coalowner in a district that he thinks the amalgamation will be worth while.

Really what it comes to is this: The right hon. Gentleman, under pressure, is abandoning the more reasonable attitude which he originally adopted in proposing these Clauses, in which he has not a very great belief. We have to face the position in which people are thrown into amalgamation without, at the outset, one single man in the district being ready to back the scheme and to form a team to run that scheme. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would never to go into any undertaking, whether a commercial or a political amalgamation on those terms. Would he propose an amalgamation of parties when there was not one single leader, not even one single follower, who was ready to say, "I think it would be a good thing to promote this amalgamation"? What the right hon. Gentleman himself would, I am sure, be unwilling to do in any practical relation of life on the representation or dictation of hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party, he is prepared to force upon the coal industry. I really believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do something for the industry and to rescue it from the difficult position in which it finds itself. It would be best rescued by being left alone, but if the right hon. Gentleman

really wants to help the industry he certainly will not help it by trying to force upon it Something which not a single man in an area that he proposes to amalgamate is willing to support.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 290.

Division No. 182.] AYES. [10.11 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Muirhead, A. J.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Alien, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Ganzoni, Sir John Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) O'Neill, Sir H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Ormsby-Gore, nt. Hon. William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Gower, Sir Robert Peake, Captain Osbert
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Grace, John Penny, Sir George
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beaumont, M. W. Greene, W. P. Crawford Ramsbotham, H.
Berry, Sir George Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Remer, John R.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gritten, W. G. Howard Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Bird, Ernest Roy Gunston, Captain D. W. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Boyce, H. L. Hanbury, C. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bracken, B. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Salmon, Major I.
Brass, Captain Sir William Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Savery, S. S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Simms, Major-General J.
Carver, Major W. H. Hurd, Percy A. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Skelton, A. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Iveagh, Countess of Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Christle, J. A. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Smithers, Waldron
Colman, N. C. D. Knox, Sir Alfred Somerset, Thomas
Colville, Major D. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Croom-Johnson, R. p. Llewellin, Major J. J. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Long, Major Eric Thomson, Sir F.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Lymington, Viscount Todd, Capt. A. J.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey McConnell, Sir Joseph Train, J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Turton, Robert Hugh
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Davies, Dr. Vernon Makins, Brigadier-General E. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Margesson, Captain H. D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Dixey, A. C. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Meller, R. J. Wells, Sydney R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wilson, G. H- A. (Cambridge U.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mond, Hon. Henry Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ferguson, Sir John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Womorsley, W. J.
Fielden, E. B. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Fison, F. G. Clavering Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ford, Sir P. J. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Captain Wallace.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Batey, Joseph Broad, Francis Alfred
Adamson, W. M. (Stan., Cannock) Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Brockway, A. Fenner
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Bellamy, Albert Bromfield, William
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Bromley, J.
Alpass, J. H. Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Brooke, W.
Ammon, Charles George Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Brothers, M.
Angell, Norman Benson, G. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Aske, Sir Robert Bentham, Dr. Ethel Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Attlee, Clement Richard Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Ayles, Walter Birkett, W. Norman Buchanan, G.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Blindell, James Burgess, F. G.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Bowen, J. W. Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Barnes, Alfred John Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Kelly, W. T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Calne, Derwent Hall- Kennedy, Thomas Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Cameron, A. G. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cape, Thomas Kinley, J. Ritson, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Kirkwood, D. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Charleton, H. C. Knight, Holford Romeril, H. G.
Chater, Daniel Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Church, Major A. G. Lang, Gordon Rothschild, J. de
Clarke, J. S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Rowson, Guy
Cluse, W. S. Law, Albert (Bolton) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Law, A. (Rossendale) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawrence, Susan Samuel, H. W. (Swansea. West)
Compton, Joseph Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sanders, W. S.
Daggar, George Lawson, John James Sandham, E
Dallas, George Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Sawyer, G. F.
Dalton, Hugh Leach, W. Scott, James
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Scurr, John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sexton, James
Day, Harry Lees, J. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Dennian, Hon. R. D. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lloyd, C. Ellis Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Dukes, C. Longbottom, A. W. Sherwood, G. H.
Duncan, Charles Longden, F. Shield, George William
Ede, James Chuter Lowth, Thomas Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Edmunds, J. E. Lunn, William Shillaker, J. F.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shinwell, E.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Egan, W. H. Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Simmons, C. J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) McElwee, A. Sinkinson, George
Foot, Isaac McEntee, V. L. Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Freeman, Peter McKinlay, A. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Gibbins, Joseph Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley) MacNeill-Weir, L. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gill, T. H. McShane, John James Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Gillett, George M. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snell, Harry
Glassey, A. E. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gossling, A. G. Mansfield, W. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gould, F. March, S. Sorensen, R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marcus, M. Stamford, Thomas W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Markham, S. F. Stephen, Campbell
Granville, E. Marley, J. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Gray, Milner Marshall, Fred Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Mathers, George Strauss, G. R.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Matters, L. W. Sullivan, J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Maxton, James Sutton, J. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Melville, Sir James Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Groves, Thomas E. Messer, Fred Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Grundy, Thomas W. Millar, J. D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mills, J. E. Thurtle, Ernest
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Milner, J. Tillett, Ben
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Montague, Frederick Tinker, John Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Tout, W. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Morley, Ralph Tow[...]end, A. E.
Hardie, George D. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Turner, B.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Vaughan, D. J.
Haycock, A. W. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Viant, S. P.
Hayday, Arthur Mort, D. L. Walker, J.
Hayes, John Henry Moses, J. J. H. Wallace, H. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Watkins, F. C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Muggeridge, H. T. Wellock, Wilfred
Herriotts, J. Nathan, Major H. L. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. H. Wentworth) Naylor, T. E. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Hoffman, P. C. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) West, F. R.
Hollins, A. Noel Baker, P. J. Westwood, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel Oldfield, J. R. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Horrabin, J. F. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Palin, John Henry Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Isaacs, George Palmer, E. T. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Perry, S. F. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
John, William (Rhondda, West) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Johnston, Thomas Phillips, Dr. Marion Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Potts, John S. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Longhb'gh)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Price, M. P. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Pybus, Percy John Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Quibell, D. J. K.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Raynes, W. R. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Richards, R.
Commodore KING

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, to leave out from the word "Commission" to the word "to" in line 4.

The words I propose to leave out are: to further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry with a view to facilitating the production, supply, and sale of coal by owners of coal mines and for that purpose. I move this Amendment partly to find out what is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the duty of the Reorganisation Commission and partly to avoid any overlapping in the carrying out of their duty. The duty of furthering the reorganisation and facilitating the production, supply, and sale is really being dealt with by the central body and by the executive boards of the districts. The whole of the work laid down in Part I is, as headed in that part of the Bill, to further the reorganisation, etc. We want to make quite sure that the Commission is not going to be charged with the duty of duplicating the work which has already been allotted to the other bodies. It would be extremely inconvenient if the same duties were put into the hands of two different independent bodies. For instance, the main duty of the Reorganisation Commission is to bring about amalgamations, but if, under the wording that we seek to delete, they are to have the power of going into the question as to what the national output of the country should be and how the district quota is to be divided amongst the different pits, if they are to be allowed to go into complaints as to whether any particular district considers that its district quota is too small, or whether the coal mines in those districts consider that their quota is too small, that is all part of the reorganisation that is laid down in Part I, and it certainly looks to me as if—it may be inadvertently—those duties are being duplicated.

I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has given a great deal of care and attention to the actual wording, but I do not think the words can be put in there merely for the sake of a heading. Very similar words were put at the head of the Financial Resolution and we were told that that was, after all, more or less part of the Title of the Bill and that was why it had to be put in there. But, if that is so, these Clauses are to be part of the Bill and, therefore, the reasons for their being introduced are set out in the Title. We do not set it out again at the head of every Clause that is introduced and, therefore, it appears to us that there must be some motive in the right hon. Gentleman's mind in again saying that this Reorganisation Commission is to be entitled to go into all these other questions which they are providing for under Part I of the Bill. I think he will agree that if that is so, it certainly looks as if they will have power to do that, and he will probably agree with me that it would be very unnecessary and undesirable if they were to exercise that power. If he goes with me as far as that, and if he considers that these duties would be undesirable, I hope he will go with us the whole length and agree to our Amendment to leave out the words. If the duties are not intended to be placed there, it is certainly desirable that the words which might give those powers should be deleted. I think that this is a point of substance. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider it, and I hope that he will accept the Amendment.


I wish to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I think that the words proposed to be left out crystallise to a large extent the objection which I feel towards this Bill as a whole. It is true that these particular words appear in other places. They appear in the first Clause of Part 1. I do not think that I shall be out of order in explaining why I so strongly object to this Clause as it stands, and why I consider that this Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Commodore King) is essential to the future welfare of this country. With two-thirds of the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out I am in agreement; it is only the other third to which I am opposed. I am in entire accord with the consolidation of production and supply of coal, but when we come to deal with facilitating the sale of coal, I at once take exception. I fear that the result of that will be an increase in the cost of coal to the consumer. We have seen what has been going on during the last two or three years without the legal sanction which this Clause and this Bill, if it becomes au Act, will provide. Small amalgamations have already been formed, and they have differentiated in the price of coal between different classes of consumer. There has been one price for the private consumer, one price for industrial coal, another price for export coal, and, in some oases, there has been a fourth price for bunkers. That has been going on for some time.

The result of the Bill will be to give legal sanction to what, I believe, is an utterly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is unfair that people in this country should be compelled to pay more for their coal so that collieries may be in a position to sell coal to Continental and foreign consumers at a loss. It is not many years ago in this country that the word "trust" or "combine" was anathema in the ears of the people. It is only about 15 years ago that the entire ingenuity of the United States legislature was directed to framing legislation to prevent the formation of these gigantic trusts and combines. To-day we are told that trusts and combines under another name are the salvation of industry. This sale of coal abroad at a lower rate than it is sold to consumers at home has teen going on for some time already. During the whole of last year English coal was sold on the coast of Belgium and on the north coast of France at 27s. 6d. per ton. That is £l less than it could be bought by consumers in London, and yet the cost of freight and handling must have been approximately the same. It came to this, that the colliery combine were selling coal in Belgium at a price even lower than they were prepared to take at the pithead in this country from English consumers. Practically all the mail boats and passenger boats which run between England and Belgium and between England and the North Coast of France were buying English coal on the other side of the Channel.


The hon. and gallant Member is going wide of the question.


With due respect, I would submit that this Amendment is to omit the words "facilitating the production, supply, and sale of coal," and I am pointing out what has been the result of a similar state of affairs which has been going on for the past two years. I am submitting that if we give legal Sancton to that state of affairs, it will make matters still worse than they are at the present time. If you Rule that I must not continue in that strain, I will not do so. The fact is, that combinations of the kind which this Clause will encourage, and which the Amendment is endeavouring to do away with, have had the effect of causing coal to be sold abroad at a lower price than it has been sold at here. If we do not carry the Amendment, and these particular words are not omitted from the Clause, the effect will be to legalise a slate of affairs which has been going on for some time and which is not for the welfare of this country or for the trade of this country. If we allow this state of affairs to go on, and these combines are encouraged to sell coal abroad—


I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member further to develop that line of argument.


I will not proceed further on that line. Unless these words are omitted we shall not do a great deal in the way of facilitating the sale of coal, but we shall grievously handicap the trade and industry of this country.


Perhaps one or two words of explanation will be sufficient to enable the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the Amendment. A clear distinction must be drawn between Part I of the Bill, dealing with the marketing scheme and the part of the Bill with which the Committee is now concerned with regard to the amalgamation proposals. It is true that the words for facilitating the production, supply and sale of coal, are related to Part I, "Production, Supply and Sale of Coal" and there is a certain amount of substance in the statement that they appear to be a repetition and might very well be deleted from this part of the Bill, but I can reply to that in the clearest way. It is true that the operative part of this proposal is to promote these amalgamation schemes, and it is to the amalgamation schemes so promoted that legislative sanction is to be given.

These words are incorporated here perhaps, not so much with the intention of doing this, as showing that the idea in mind is that inquiry and investigations are necessary. The commissioners, in the course of their duties, may not be able in some cases to recommend amalgamation schemes, but they may say that certain steps should be taken by the owners in a district, and the owners in certain districts might welcome a word to that effect from an outside body. Very often they will welcome that rather than have it put up by an individual owner, from whom in many cases it may not be forthcoming at all. If the words remain it is my duty to advise the Committee that they have no legislative effect. Legislative sanction is given to the amalgamation scheme, but I think this might be in many cases a useful environment for that effort and for that reason only I think the words should be retained. I hope with this explanation that the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

Captain PEAKE

The right hon. Gentleman may have satisfied himself about this matter, but he has by no means satisfied us on these benches. He has made it perfectly clear that the words we propose to leave out are totally redundant. I believe they are so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, but a close inspection of the Order Paper betrays the fact that, when we come to discuss Part I of the Bill, there are no less than 20 or 30 Amendments in the

name of hon. Members of the Liberal party which propose to leave out the words "The Board of Trade" and to insert instead thereof the words "the Commission set up under this Act." It is undoubtedly the intention of hon. Members of the Liberal party to transfer the whole of the functions of the Board of Trade under Part I to this reorganisation Commission, and I believe the Clause which we are now discussing was drafted by hon. Members below the Gangway, and that they put these words in with the intention that the functions of the Board of Trade under Part I should be taken over by this Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the words are redundant, surely it is better to leave them out altogether? One of two things has happened, either they are put in on account of what is going to follow on Clause 1, or else they are put in in order to bring Clauses within the scope of the Bill which we on these benches contend never were within the scope of the Bill and ought never to be in the Bill at all. In these circumstances, we are not at all satisfied with the explanation.

Mr. TURNER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 147.

Division No. 183.] AYES. [10.39 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Brothers, M. Duncan, Charles
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Ede, James Chuter
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Brown, Ernest (Leith) Edmunds, J. E.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Alpass, J. H. Buchanan, G. Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Ammon, Charles George Burgess, F. G. Egan, W. H.
Angell, Norman Burgin, Dr. E. L. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Aske, Sir Robert Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Foot, Isaac
Attlee, Clement Richard Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Freeman, Peter
Ayles, Walter Caine, Derwent Hall- Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Cameron, A. G. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Barnes, Alfred John Cape, Thomas Gibbins, Joseph
Batey, Joseph Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Charleton, H. C. Gill, T. H.
Bellamy, Albert Chater, Daniel Gillett, George M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Church, Major A. G. Glassey, A. E.
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Clarke, J. S. Gossling, A. G.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Cluse, W. S. Gould, F.
Benson, G. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Cocks, Frederick Seymour Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Compton, Joseph Granville, E.
Birkett, W. Norman Daggar, George Gray, Milner
Blindell, James Dallas, George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Bowen, J. W. Dalton, Hugh Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Broad, Francis Alfred Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Brockway, A. Fenner Day, Harry Groves, Thomas E.
Bromfield, William Denman, Hon. R. D. Grundy, Thomas W.
Bromley, J. Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Brooke, W. Dukes, C. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) MacNeill-Weir, L. Sexton, James
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) McShane, John James Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Hardie, George D. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Mansfield, w. Sherwood, G. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville March, S. Shield, George William
Haycock, A. W. Marcus, M. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Hayday, Arthur Markham, S. F. Shillaker, J. F.
Hayes, John Henry Marley, J. Shinwell, E.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Marshall, Fred Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Mathers, George Simmons, C. J.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Maxton, James Sinkinson, George
Herriotts, J. Melville, Sir James Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) Messer, Fred Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hoffman, P. C. Millar, J. D. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hollins, A. Mills, J. E. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Hopkin, Daniel Milner, J. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Horrabin, J. F. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Morley, Ralph Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Snell, Harry
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Isaacs, George Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Mort, D. L. Sorensen, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Moses, J. J. H. Stamford, Thomas W.
Johnston, Thomas Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Stephen, Campbell
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Muggeridge, H. T. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Nathan, Major H. L. Strauss, G. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Naylor, T. E. Sullivan, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Noel Baker, P. J. Sutton, J. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Oldfield, J. R. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Thurtle, Ernest
Kelly, W. T. Palin, John Henry Tillett, Ben
Kennedy, Thomas Palmer, E. T. Tinker, John Joseph
Kinley, J. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Tout, W. J.
Knight, Holford Perry, S. F. Townend, A. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Lang, Gordon Phillips, Dr. Marion Turner, B.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Picton-Turbervill, Edith Vaughan, D. J.
Lathan, G. Potts, John S. Viant, S. P.
Law, A. (Rosendale) Price, M. P. Walker, J.
Lawrence, Susan Pybus, Percy John Wallace, H. W.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Quibell, D. J. K. Watkins, F. C.
Lawson, John James Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Raynes, W. R. Wellock, Wilfred
Leach, W. Richards, R. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) West, F. R.
Lees, J. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Westwood, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Ritson, J. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lloyd, C. Ellis Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Longbottom, A. W. Romeril, H. G. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Longden, F. Roshotham, D. S. T. Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)
Lowth, Thomas Rothschild, J. de Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
Lunn, William Rowson, Guy Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
McElwee, A. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
McEntee, V. L. Sanders, W. S. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
McKinlay, A. Sandham, E.
MacLaren, Andrew Sawyer, G. F TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwal,. N.) Scott, James Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Scurr, John
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Colman, N. C. D.
Albery, Irving James Boyce, H. L. Colville, Major D. J.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Bracken, B. Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Brass, Captain Sir William Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Butler, R. A. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Beaumont, M. W. Carver, Major W. H. Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Berry, Sir George Castle Stewart, Earl of Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Cautley, Sir Henry S. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Davies, Dr. Vernon
Bird, Ernest Roy Christle, J. A. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Dixey, A. C.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Edmondson, Major A. J. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Llewellin, Major J. J. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Ferguson, Sir John Long, Major Eric Savery, S. S.
Fielden, E. B. Lymington, Viscount Simms, Major-General J.
Fison, F. G. Clavering McConnell, Sir Joseph Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Ford, Sir P. J. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Skelton, A. N.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ganzonl, Sir John Margesson, Captain H. D. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Smithers, Waldron
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Meller, R. J. Somerset, Thomas
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Gower, Sir Robert Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mond, Hon. Henry Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Gritten, W. G. Howard Morrison, w. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Thomson, Sir F.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Todd, Capt. A. J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Muirhead, A. J. Train, J.
Hammersley, S. S. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Turton, Robert Hugh
Hanbury, C. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) O'Neill, Sir H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Warrender, Sir Victor
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Peake, Captain Osbert Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wells, Sydney R.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Power, Sir John Cecil Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Iveagh, Countess of Ramsbotham, H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Reid, David D. (County Down) Womersley, W J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Remer, John R.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Knox, Sir Alfred Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Sir George Penny and Captain
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Wallace.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 147.

Division No. 184.] AYES. [10.51 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cameron, A. G. Gray, Milner
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Cape, Thomas Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Charleton, H. C. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Chater, Daniel Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Alpass, J. H. Church, Major A. G. Groves, Thomas E.
Ammon, Charles George Clarke, J. S. Grundy, Thomas W.
Angell, Norman Cluse, W. S. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Aske, Sir Robert Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Attlee, Clement Richard Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Ayles, Walter Compton, Joseph Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Daggar, George Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Dallas, George Hardie, George D.
Barnes, Alfred John Dalton, Hugh Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Batey, Joseph Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Haycock, A. W.
Bellamy, Albert Day, Harry Hayday, Arthur
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Denman, Hon. R. D. Hayes, John Henry
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Dukes, C. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Benson, G. Duncan, Charles Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Ede, James Chuter Herriotts, J.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Edmunds, J. E. Hirst, G. H. (York W. H. Wentworth)
Birkett, W. Norman Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hoffman, P. C.
Blindell, James Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Hollins, A.
Bowen, J. W. Egan, W. H. Hopkin, Daniel
Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Broad, Francis Alfred Foot, Isaac Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Brockway, A. Fenner Freeman, Peter Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Bromfield, William Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Isaacs, George
Bromley, J. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Brooke, W. Gibbins, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West)
Brothers, M. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Johnston, Thomas
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Gill, T. H. Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gillett, George M. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Glassey, A. E. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Buchanan, G. Gossling, A. G. Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Burgess, F. G. Gould, F. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Caine, Derwent Hall- Granville, E. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Mort, D. L. Simmons, C. J.
Kelly, W. T. Moses, J. J. H Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Kennedy, Thomas Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Sinkinson, George
Kinley, J. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Knight, Holford Muggeridge, H. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Nathan, Major H. L. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Lang, Gordon Naylor, T. E. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Lantbury, Rt. Hon. George Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Lathan, G. Noel Baker, P. J. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Law, A. (Rossendale) Oldfield, J. R. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lawrence, Susan Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Snell, Harry
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lawson, John James Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Palin, John Henry. Sorensen, R.
Leach, W. Palmer, E. T. Stamford, Thomas W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Stephen, Campbell
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Perry, S. F. Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Lees, J. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Phillips, Dr. Marion Strauss, G. R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis Picton-Turbervill, Edith Sullivan, J.
Longbottom, A. W. Potts, John S. Sutton, J. E.
Longden, F. Price, M. P. Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Lowth, Thomas Pybus, Percy John Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lunn, William Quibell, D. J. K. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Thurtle, Ernest
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Rathbone, Eleanor Tillett, Ben
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Raynes, W. R. Tinker, John Joseph
McElwee, A. Richards, R. Tout, W. J.
McEntee, V. L. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Townend, A. E.
McKinlay, A. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
MacLaren, Andrew Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Turner, B.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Ritson, J. Vaughan, D. J.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Viant, S. P.
MacNeill-Weir, L. Romeril, H. G. Walker, J.
McShane, John James Rosbotham, D. S. T. Wallace, H. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Rothschild, J. de Watkins, F. C.
Mander, Geoffrey le M. Rowson, Guy Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mansfield, W. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Wellock, Wilfred
March, S. Salter, Dr. Alfred Welsh, James (Paisley)
Marcus, M. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Markham, S. F. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) West, F. R.
Marley, J. Sanders, W. S. Westwood, Joseph
Marshall, Fred Sandham, E. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mathers, George Sawyer, G. F. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Maxton, James Scott, James Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Melville, Sir James Scurr, John Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Messer, Fred Sexton, James Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
Millar, J. D. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)
Mills, J. E. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Milner, J. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Montague, Frederick Sherwood, G. H. Wise, E. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Shield, George William Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Morley, Ralph Shiels, Dr. Drummond Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H, (Denbigh) Shillaker, J. F.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Shinwell, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Butler, R. A. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Albery, Irving James Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Ferguson, Sir John
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Carver, Major W. H. Fielden, E. B.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Castle Stewart, Earl of Fison, F. G. Clavering
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cautley, Sir Henry S. Ford, Sir P. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Christie, J. A. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Colman, N. C. D. Ganzoni, Sir John
Balniel, Lord Colville, Major D. J. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Courtauld, Major J. S. Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Beaumont, M. W. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Berry, Sir George Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Gower, Sir Robert
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Croom-Johnson, R. P. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bird, Ernest Roy Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Boothby, R. J. G. Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Gritten, W. G. Howard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Boyce, H. L. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hammersley, S. S.
Bracken, B. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hanbury, C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brass, Captain Sir William Dixey, A. C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Briscoe, Richard George Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Edmondson, Major A. J. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Muirhead, A. J. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Iveagh, Countess of Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Smithers, Waldron
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. O'Neill, Sir H. Somerset, Thomas
Knox, Sir Alfred Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Peake, Captain Osbert Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Peto, Sir Basil E, (Devon, Barnstaple) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Power, Sir John Cecil Thomson, Sir F.
Llewellin, Major J. J. Ramsbotham, H. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Long, Major Eric Reid, David D. (County Down) Train, J.
Lymington, Viscount Remer, John R. Turton, Robert Hugh
McConnell, Sir Joseph Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Warrender, Sir Victor
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Margesson, Captain H. D. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wells, Sydney R.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Salmon, Major I. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Meller R. J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Mond, Hon. Henry Savery, S. S. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Simms, Major-General J. Womersley, W. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Skelton, A. N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Sir George Penny and Captain

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.