HC Deb 09 July 1930 vol 241 cc562-87

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 32, at the end, insert:

Provided that—

  1. (a) the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine at which, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section.
  2. (b) at any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof."

Lords Reason:

They do not insist on their Amendment in, page 20, line 32, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Provided that if an application, by agreement between representative organisations of the owners of and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district, is made to the Board of Trade in that behalf, the Board of Trade shall make an order, which shall become effective forthwith, that the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine in such district at which the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section. At any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof.

Lords Amendment in lieu of their former Amendment read a second time.


I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

So far we have been very accommodating and we have met the other place in a most generous manner. We have conceded practically all the Amendments submitted to us with the exception of points of prime importance. We have to consider in relation to the proposals which come from another place what is the original purpose and intention of this Bill. Certainly, as regards this Clause, the intention was and is to shorten the working day of the miners by one half-hour. From that decision we cannot recede. If we were to accept the proposal now before us it would wipe away whatever advantages are to be derived from the original proposals to shorten the working day of miners, and it would defeat our original purpose.

It has been argued, in the course of the discussions here and in another place, that this proposal is of a permissive character. The short reply to that is that the proposals embodied in the Act of 1926 were equally permissive in character, but, unfortunately, the economic pressure exerted by the coalowners rendered the permissive character of that Act completely nugatory. The men had no alternative but to accept the proposal. If they had not done so, there might have been a lock-out, or dislocation, or further character from the miners' standpoint. Equally, in this case, although the proposal is clearly permissive in its character, in existing circumstances, and, if I may say so, in circumstances that must in the very nature of the case exist for some time to come, the miners, certainly in many of the districts concerned, will have no alternative but to accept the proposal to spread the hours over the week or fortnight, as the case may be.

It has been argued that the proposal is contingent upon agreement in the industry as between the employers on the one hand and the workpeople on the other, and, indeed, much has been made of that argument in the course of the debates. If agreement were possible, there would have been manifestations of agreement in this House. My friends behind me have indicated their strong disapproval of any such proposal, and they are fortified in their disapproval by the views, not only of their mining constituencies, but of the electors in their constituencies; and, because there is no sign of agreement now, we venture the opinion that, even under the permissive proposals embodied in this Clause now submitted from another place, no agreement is possible, but, on the other hand, disagreement of the most intense character is potential in this proposal.

For one thing, there is all the possibility of variation in its application. It is not intended that the proposal should apply equally over the country—I speak of the mining industry—as a whole at one particular time. It is to be applied, if at all, by districts after the necessary consultation. Therefore, we may find ourselves in this position, that one district, after the necessary consultation, and because of the economic pressure that can undoubtedly be exerted by the owners, may, in certain circumstances, be operating the spread-over principle, and operating it, not only to the industrial disadvantage of the miners elsewhere, but to the economic disadvantage of the mining industry in other parts of the country.

If there is one thing that is essential in relation to the mining industry, it is—I use the term with all reserve—uniformity. A complete measure of uniformity is impracticable, with all the variations of the mining industry. No one ever pretended that it was possible; certainly wage readjustments of an adverse my right hon. Friend never made any such pretence. But there does exist the possibility of uniformity in relation co the hours of labour. Certainly there is much need for uniformity in relation to the hours of labour in one given day, and that is the original intention of the Bill so far as this particular proposal goes. It has been argued that, if the spread-over principle is not accepted, wage adjustments of an unsatisfactory character will be essential. I venture to say, with regard to the district levy proposals, that there was ample provision in this Measure for such organisational changes as would preclude the need for such wage adjustments. If wage adjustments occur, we hope that they may have an upward tendency, and there is no reason to suppose otherwise. We have no fear on that score.

With very great respect to the other House, therefore, and with every desire to meet them in existing circumstances, and, indeed, we have proved our generosity in that connection, we feel bound—I use the strongest possible language that can be used at this time, or that, indeed, requires to be used—we feel bound, in the circumstances, to disagree with this Amendment, not only in the interests of the miners, whose conditions necessitate a shorter working day, and whose working hours, in comparison with the working hours of miners abroad, are by no means too favourable. [Interruption.] I need not dwell upon that point unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen desire it, but I may tell them very shortly that in all the important coal-producing countries of Europe—the statistics are not my own, but are furnished by the countries concerned—the hours now, when this Bill has not yet become an Act, are no higher than the hours of labour in this country in the mining industry will be when this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite speaks of 600 hours' overtime. The less we say about overtime the better—


May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if he considers that we are working 600 hours' overtime in this country, it is surely his business to see that it is stopped?


It is precisely because the right hon. Gentleman, when he occupied the office that I now hold, did not apply his mind to that particular problem, that I must apply my mind intensely to it. Therefore, I say, having regard to the conditions of the miners in comparison with the conditions abroad—the facts are there for everyone to see—having regard to the needs of the industry itself, we must resist the proposal that comes from another place.


The hon. Gentleman, on the last Amendment that gave rise to any discussion, succeeded in persuading the House to carry a Clause giving the Board of Trade a discretionary, permissive power to make orders. He made a strong appeal to the House to give him that power and he succeeded in carrying the Amendment. He now comes to another Amendment on a subject of much greater importance where, in the opinion of many, a discretion is far more necessary—[Interruption.] I am certainly not going to be deflected from saying what has got to be said. I will give hon. Members credit for the sincerity of their views and I hope they will give us credit for the sincerity of ours. We are quite prepared to debate the merits of our respective views at any time and in any place. Here is a question where, in the opinion of many, inside the industry and outside it—people outside it have an interest too—discretionary power is far more necessary. I think the hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, has done a good deal less than credit to the terms of the proposal itself and to the capacity of the Miners' Federation as negotiators. The proposal itself is different in form from that in which it came to us on a previous occasion. Then it was a proposal that arrangements should be entered into pit by pit, and to that he took exception. I also took exception to it. Obviously it ought to be in the form of district agreements. But that is changed and it now comes to us in a form where this can only operate where there is a definite agreement in a district and, after that, the Board of Trade makes an order. Therefore, there is no question, either in substance or in form, of its being what he has represented it to be.

He will really understand the situation better if he will appreciate that I do not believe there is anyone in the House or in another place who, in the proposal that is now put forward, in whatever form it may ultimately take, has the least intention or desire to weight the scales one way or another. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes us to give him credit for disinterestedness, he would better persuade us and the country if he would give other people credit for meaning what they say. I repeat without fear of contradiction that I am certain that there is no one in the House, and I do not believe there is anyone in another place, who wants anything but that there should be in this matter perfectly free negotiation, and that it is only where there has been free and frank negotiation and an agreement entered into that this Clause should operate. [Interruption.] It is what it says and it is what it means. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says if you put that into an Act of Parliament, people will be forced, whether they like it or not—[Interruption.] I have heard the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I understood it without it being enforced by interruptions. What he said was that the Act of 1926 was permissive in form, and you only had to look to the effect of the Act in order to show that it was compulsory in substance.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman, even if the cases were parallel, is to be found in the facts. The hours and the facts have been cited. The hours to-day are not the same all over the country. If the Act of 1926 had been compulsory on everybody to work eight hours, the whole country would be working eight hours to-day. What is the position? In the great bulk of the federated area—in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire—in four counties producing, as the hon. Gentleman has said to support his observation, something like 100,000,000 tons of coal, eight hours are not being worked at all, but seven and a-half hours.




That is really nonsense. I mention this because it is not only a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman, but it is being cited in another place and in this House as an argument to show that a very large number of people are not going to be affected by this Bill at all. That has been their argument. In four counties which are producing something like 100,000,000 tons of coal, they are not working eight hours. Though it is permissible, and, according to the hon. Member, compulsory, under the 1926 Act, in those districts producing more than one-third of the total output of the country, there is being worked by agreement to-day, and has been worked during the last three years by agreement between the parties, not eight hours but seven and a-half hours, which is the length of hours stated in this Bill, and one argument for maintaining this Clause intact has been, that over the whole of that area producing 100,000,000 tons of coal, whatever you do by this Bill, you are not going to make the difference of a fraction in the hours worked over the whole of that area. We have also been told that seven and three-quarter hours or seven hours 40 minutes were being worked in other districts and not the full eight hours—[Interruption.]


I know, and you do not.


No doubt when the hon. Gentleman intervenes in the debate he will tell us at how many collieries in those four counties more than seven and a-half hours are being worked, and perhaps he will cite his authority for so saying. If more than seven and a-half hours were being worked in defiance of the agreement the first people to take exception to it would be the officials of the local union. If it is a fact that these are the number of hours being worked, it is idle for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and say that if you put in a permissive Clause of this kind, everybody will be forced to work exactly the same amount. The argument will not hold water for a moment. The hon. Gentleman says that you must not pass this proposal, because there will be differences as between districts, though a very short time afterwards he said that differences in these districts there must be. There are differences in districts to-day. He will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong, but his whole argument—and I am within the recollection of the House —was that you must not have these district differences, and that if you have these district differences, one set of hours being worked in one district and another set of hours being worked in another, it will lead to inequalities and difficulties. That is his argument, if it means anything.

You have those differences to-day. You have those differences inevitably thrust upon you in this industry by physical differences which you cannot overcome, whatever you do. In one district there is great difficulty in working the coal, and in another district the seams are easier to work. If that was not so the ascertainment for the districts would be the same. That being the case, and having these physical difficulties which no amount of legislation can possibly overcome, the only question which the hon. Member has to decide is this, is he arbitrarily going to say, "I will insist on having absolutely the same hours day by day in every pit in this country"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Well, then, it must inevitably follow that if you do that you must have a greater differentiation in wages than would otherwise be the case. That inevitably must be so. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have it now!"] Yes, you have differences in wages to-day, but you will have them much more in the future if you adopt this method. If you have a district where it is far more costly to work the coal and where the situation is physically more difficult than in another district, then if you force exactly the same hours day by day upon that district that you force upon another district, you are bound to have a greater differentiation in wages. That stands to reason. When the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Bill he pointed out that if you were to have this flat rate of seven and a-half hours it would mean a considerable increase in working costs. He cited a figure of 1s. 6d. His exact words were: We will say that there will be 1s. 6d. a ton extra cost on production relating to this reduction of one-half hour, although this is a high figure and one which has been challenged in many responsible quarters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1271, Vol. 233.] This flat rate reduction of hours is inevitably going to add very considerably to the cost of getting the coal. It is, I think, also common ground that the length of hours has a very direct ratio effect on the cost of production. The figures which the Board of Trade publish quarter by quarter show that the difference between an eight-hour day and a seven-hour day in costs other than wages was 2s. 9d. over the whole country and 3s. 10d. in South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there must be an increase in working costs, and if you insist upon a flat seven and a-half hours and allow no spread-over, then the increase in cost is going to be higher than would be the case if the spread-over was allowed. I do not think anyone will deny that. If that was not true, then no coalowner would ever propose to operate this Clause and no miner would ever dream of agreeing to it.

The sole argument which has been advanced against our adopting the Lords Amendment is because the miners' Members in this House decline to accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] That argument was used by the President of the Board of Trade. I put two points in answer to that. The public have an interest in this matter as well as the miners and the Members of Parliament who represent the miners. That argument will be more convincingly addressed to this House if it seeks to justify the general merits of the case than when it is addressed to us in the form that a certain section of Members of this House are not in favour of it and that, therefore, we are not to pass it. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal was a great deal nearer the truth than the Secretary for Mines. The Lord Privy Seal said that the miners will not have this agreement; the Secretary for Mines said that the miners will have it forced upon them. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal.


It is a very small point, but for the sake of greater accuracy I should like to correct the right hon. Member. What I said was that the miners might be compelled to accept it because of economic pressure.


There is not much difference. I said that the hon. Member said that the miners would be compelled to accept it. He says that his remark was that the miners might be compelled to accept it. I will take his words. I think the Lord Privy Seal was much nearer the truth when he said that if the miners do not want this provision they will not have it. If that is so, there can be no possible harm in putting it in the Bill. Unless the miners in the district decide that it is in their interests the new Clause cannot conceivably operate. All this talk about compulsion is sheer nonsense.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Hartshorn)

Will the right hon. Gentleman quote what I said?


I do not think I have misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was: The miners' national executive have unanimously decided against the spread-over, and at every meeting of miners which I have addressed in the country, the miners have been absolutely united. If the case were put to the miners of this country, there would not be one miner in the land who would support the spread-over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1930; col. 2337, Vol. 239.] I do not think I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. I paraphrased his words. If that is the position, then this Clause will not operate and the compulsion is all the other way. Instead of saying that for all time there shall be a flat rate of seven and a-half hours a day, whatever happens, and that the parties shall not be entitled, even if they desire it, to average out, we say that if the parties find, in frank negotiations and facing up to the economic situation, which Heaven knows is not too easy in this country, that it may be better business for them, for the trade and for the country generally, to agree to an aggregate which gives them seven and a-half hours there should be power to agree to such a proposal. Really, it is nonsense to call that compulsion. It is a very reasonable thing to allow to the parties such a freedom of negotiation, which in a few months' time, it may very well be, both parties in the industry will anxiously seek to have.


I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with reference to Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, of our experience from 1926 up to the present time. When the 1926 Act was being passed through this House we were informed that the words were merely permissive. It was an abuse of the English language, for two-thirds of the miners were informed by the colliery proprietors that they would be permitted to return to work only on an eight hours day, plus one winding time. The result has been that during the three years that have passed since then two-thirds of the miners have been obliged to work eight hours per day, plus one winding time, which in some collieries in Yorkshire amounts to one hour and 10 minutes each day. This hour and 10 minutes on the seven and a-half hours means, in fact, that some men in South Yorkshire collieries are down the pits to-day for eight hours and 40 minutes.

While it may be true that in four counties the seven and a-half hours' day was negotiated in 1926, the Yorkshire miners have had to pay the price for having had miners in other counties working for half-an-hour each day longer than they themselves were working. For over three years miners in the three or four counties referred to have been on the minimum wage and they have never once risen beyond the minimum wage. It is true that they have exceeded their daily output per person by approximately 20 per cent. in spite of the increase of only half-an-hour each day, but no sort of benefit has been returned to the miner in any way. The right hon. Gentleman oppossite must know, as hon. Members on the Labour benches certainly know well, that as a result of the changed conditions in various counties the Yorkshire mine workers have been threatened time and time again that unless hours were equalised county by county there would be only two alternatives—either the minimum would have to be reduced or the hours of the Yorkshire miners would have to be increased. The tendency would be upwards instead of downwards. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that different kinds of seams, involving different conditions occur in various areas. Every Member of the House knows that the natural conditions vary, not only from county to county but from pit to pit.

This seems to me, however, to be a question, not so much of the hours which miners ought to work in Derbyshire, in South Wales, in Scotland, in Durham, or elsewhere, or of the hours which ought to be worked in this colliery compared with that colliery, but a question of what is the fair thing and how many hours ought any miner be compelled to work in the bowels of the earth. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments would lead one to believe that if one miner is working on a six-foot seam of coal, where the output per person may be six or seven or eight tons per day, that miner ought to work so many hours, while the unfortunate mortal who happens to be, for the time being, working on a two-foot seam, ought probably to work 16 hours a day. The suggestion that the miners would have power to negotiate a settlement and that there would have to be a certain element of agreement before this permissive spread-over would operate, only leads one to the conclusion that while the right hon. Gentleman may have a good deal of theoretical knowledge about the mining industry, he has no practical knowledge of the wages conditions or the working conditions of the men engaged in and about the collieries of this country. But the right hon. Gentleman must know what is happening at this moment in all parts of the country. The weekly figures of the Ministry of Labour will show the number of disputes which are taking place, and the right hon. Gentleman will find from those figures that no single week passes without a certain number of collieries in various parts of the country demanding wage reductions from the miners and stoppages and dislocation result from these demands.

If individual colliery companies threaten the men that unless they accept a 10 per cent. reduction there will be no alternative but to close down the mine, then, quite clearly, the men in those circumstances are going to consider their whole future before they turn down any suggestion which is made to them. The same thing could apply to a county and the same thing has applied to counties at various periods in the last 20 or 30 years. The threat of a reduction of wages with the alternative of the closing down of the pit places the worker in a very unenviable and unfair position. We dealt with this question on the Committee stage of the Bill and on the Report stage of the Bill. We dealt with it again when the Bill was last returned from the House of Lords. We are now dealing with it for the fourth time. It is known that 100 per cent. of the mine workers are opposed to this spread-over and all that it implies, and one would imagine that, under our democratic institutions, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would at last be guided by men who have lived their lives in the industry, men who have not only seen the unfairness that prevails when the bargaining is based upon poverty and destitution, but who have suffered from the inequality of the bargaining.

I suggest that the mining industry has to be regarded not as one existing in certain watertight compartments, but more and more in the future as one great unit. The human side of the industry has to be considered more than has been the case in the past, and we have to recognise that, while wages and hours of labour are conditions that must be determined by mutual agreement, we must no longer permit the sinner to control the saint, we must no longer permit one county to debase conditions in another county, any more than we must permit either France, Belgium, Germany, or any other country to debase our own conditions. We want at least fair play in all parts of the mining areas, and I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who have expressed themselves so frequently on this question, that now at long last they ought to support the contention of the practical miner and of the Government, and let their friends in the other place understand that we are not going to tolerate their interference.


I want to put one problem to the President of the Board of Trade. Does he honestly believe that the hours in all the mines in Great Britain, in every district, can be reduced and fixed at a maximum flat rate of seven and a-half hours without at any rate the grave risk—I put it no higher—of loss of trade and considerable loss of earnings in some of those districts? I put that problem, to him. If he thinks there is even that risk, would he not be well advised to leave this machinery, whereby in certain circumstances that risk might be avoided? I ask that question for this reason, that since the time when this Bill was introduced there has been a change in the industrial position of this country. Trade has definitely become worse. There are 500,000 more unemployed to-day than when he introduced this Bill into the House, and I say, in all earnestness, that he must remember that his optimism in regard to his marketing scheme may be less justified to-day than it was at that time. There is only one possible way in which he can avoid a considerable reduction of earnings in certain districts, and hon. Members opposite know it quite well, and that is by raising the price of coal by his marketing scheme.

Let me take the area which I know best, namely, Scotland. The results for January, February and March, in Scotland, show a credit balance of 7d., but the results for April show a debit of 0.7d. If in that district there is an addition to the costs and no alternative such as we suggest here to avoid that addition, how is he going to meet it and avoid considerable reductions in the earnings of the men in Scotland? The market for coal in Scotland is as follows: 30 per cent. is export, and he will have a difficulty in getting an increase there under present conditions. The Minister of Mines himself has told us of the bid that is being made to capture Great Britain's export trade in coal. Russia is sending to Canada huge quantities of anthracite that used to be sent from Scotland. Last year the exports from Canada of Russian anthracite were 100,000 tons, but this year at the present rate they will be nearer 250,000 tons, and that is just an instance of the endeavour that is being made to capture our export trade.

As I say, the market in Scotland is 30 per cent. export, and then there is 10 per cent. bunker coal—and there will be a difficulty in getting an increased price there—and 12 to 15 per cent. goes to the heavy industries. I speak with some sympathy and knowledge of the difficulties in getting an increased price in those industries, which are more hard hit than the coal trade at the present time. You are left in that typical district with 45 per cent. of the total markets out of which you must screw the remainder of the price if you are to avoid a big drop in the wages of the men in Scotland. I think it should be known that if some loophole and machinery is not left whereby such a catastrophe can be avoided, if it does come about, then it is the Labour party and the mining Members who have brought it about. What is it that is asked? It is quite a reasonable thing. Last time it was in the form that if an agreement was come to at any one coal pit, an arrangement would be arrived at. Now it is if agreement is come to through the accredited representatives of the industry in the district itself. That is a change, and surely that change alone should be sufficient for hon. Members opposite to reconsider their attitude on this occasion. In the speech of the present Lord Privy Seal, on that last occasion when this matter was before the House, he used these words: Do not let us have this pretence that you are supporting something in the interests of the miners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1930; col. 2339, Vol. 239.] As far as the exporting districts are concerned, I could give figures of several districts showing how the margin in the last few months had gone down. In summer time, of course, the profits are not so good, but in every district it has come down to such a margin that I say, with confidence, there is not a sufficient balance for a reduction of hours without a grave risk of a reduction in the earnings of the men.


Will the hon. and gallant Member give the wages of the men at present?


I do not carry all the figures in my head, but I could get them for the hon. Member. These wages stand in very grave danger at present of being considerably reduced if this Measure is passed without Amendment. In every district where there are representatives of industry to treat on these matters, we should be doing wrong if we did not give them an opportunity, if they so desire, of coming forward and making a proposal to avoid such a disaster in those districts.


The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken with an intimate knowledge of the condition of the industry has raised a number of interesting points, and no doubt many hon. Members would be tempted to take them up, but I do not think that we should raise at this stage all the controversies in the field which he has covered. This matter has been debated very fully, and I think it is unnecessary to go into many details. For my own part, I only say that we on these benches at every stage of this Bill have supported the Government with regard to hours. We did so on the Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, on the Report stage and on the Third Reading. The reason for that course has been very fully stated on those various occasions, and I would only add a word in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), who advanced the new and somewhat strange argument that because the economic and natural geological conditions of districts differed, therefore the law should differentiate with regard to the hours of miners. That matter was discussed and settled more than 20 years ago by the Act of 1909, and although a particular district is at liberty to fix lower hours within the legal maximum if it chooses, as far as Parliament is concerned it has always refused to differentiate in the manner suggested. When a previous Amendment came from the House of Lords, the same in purpose as this but in a slightly different form, we voted against it. The right hon. Member for Hendon this evening most, earnestly appealed to us to adopt the same attitude now as that which we did on a previous occasion. I feel sure that we shall have his approval and his applause when we do so on this occasion.


I am not certain that the House will be very anxious to be guided by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). In the course of these debates, he has been very anxious to instruct the coal masters of this country as to how to conduct their business, and I am not sure that they have been very ready to welcome his instruction. They would readily admit, I am sure, although I am not one of them, that the right hon. Gentleman is a very good adviser on matters of politics, but, after all, they think that they know their business, and they cannot turn round upon their own businesses just as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman turns round in matters of politics. On Second Reading, he advised the House that there could be no possible answer to various other trades in this country if this Bill, which he regarded as a disaster to the country, were once passed. Now he appears to-night to tell us in the last stage of these proceedings that we had better adopt this particular view of the Government, because it happens to be the only one upon which he has been consistent. The fact of the right hon. Gentleman's consistency does not impress me in the slightest, because I know that that consistency would disappear if by any chance he saw any political advantage by taking the opposite view. [Interruption.]

Upon the merits of this Amendment, I would venture to make an appeal to the House. As I see the situation in this country at the present time, it is one of extreme gravity, and any addition to the costs of the industries of this country can only have a very serious result upon our prospects in the future. [Interruption.] What is the situation with regard to the coal trade? It is quite certain, and it has been repeatedly admitted by the President of the Board of Trade, that the reduction of hours must add to the cost of coal. I should like to ask the House to view this increased cost from two aspects. [Interruption.] No amount of interruption will stop me. I do not appeal for any special courtesy—[Interruption.]


Hon. Members must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech.

11.0. p.m.


The two points of view I venture to present to the House are these. I should be very glad if I could adopt the view of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, who speaks with great knowledge upon this subject, that we must not be unduly affected by what is done on the Continent of Europe. We have to realize that this country, if it is to live, has got to export coal, and that it cannot export coal to the markets of the world unless it can export it at prices which will compete with those of Germany, Belgium, and other countries. Therefore, an addition to the price of coal, as the President of the Board of Trade readily admitted, will affect us in those markets, and will produce unemployment in this country. Let me take the home position. If we increase the price of coal in this country we adversely affect every industry which uses coal, and we all know how depressed the great mass of our industries are at the present time. People talk about food taxes. Coal is the food of industry, and, if we increase the price of coal, to that extent we depress industry and create unemployment in this country.

Here is a project which everyone throughout the coalfields agrees will at least mitigate the extent of the increase in the price of coal. Are we not ready to accept something of that kind in order to ease our situation? Is it true—from my own knowledge I do not believe it is—that the men throughout the coalfields reject the idea which is now being presented? From such information as I am able to glean there are masses of men who would prefer some such scheme as this to any reduction in wages. If the alternative is as between a reduction of wages and this spread-over in the hours of labour, is it, not clear that the country would get a great benefit by adopting such a principle as this? I have no right to make any special appeal to Members of this House. All I can say for myself is that I am deeply interested in the prosperity of this country and am gravely disturbed about our present position. Whatever anyone may say, there is no question that we can only succeed in getting out of the morass in which we are if we all work together for the welfare of the country, and I appeal to the House not to reject a proposal which will ease a situation which is becoming very difficult and which, if adopted, will give benefit to every trade and industry.


The Amendment has returned to us on this occassion in a different form from that in which it came back from the other place last time. The arguments are not quite new. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) taunted the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) with his political agility. Agility is at least a sign of life. The arguments we have heard from the right hon. Member for Hillhead would suggest that he died before the War. Exactly the same arguments are advanced in support of this Amendment as we have had against every Measure brought before this House to improve the condition of the working classes. He said that unless this Amendment is adopted the export trade of the country in coal will be so injured that our general prosperity must suffer. That is not new. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true!"] As a matter of fact the working class standards of living have been built up by ignoring that apparent truth.

The ex-President of the Board of Trade said that the real merit of an Amendment of this kind consisted in the fact that it was permissive and that the coal-owners could come to an agreement as to the spread-over. If the permissive character of this Amendment is its principal merit, why should the House discuss hours of labour for the miners at all. Improvements in the conditions of the working classes and limitations of hours of labour have resulted from the efforts not only of members of the Labour party, but of members of the party opposite who have recognised that they could not leave the meting out of justice to the workers to the caprice of the employers, and consequently political protection had to be sought for the protection of labour. If we accepted the basis upon which this Amendment is framed all the legislation which this House has passed regulating the hours of labour could be swept away, and we could leave all these matters to be settled between employers of labour and the workers. No doubt hon. Members opposite may say "that is a consummation devoutly to be wished," but we on this side of the House take an opposite view. With all our powerful economic associations we are not powerful enough to obtain the conditions of labour to which the workers are justly entitled.

We are here to protect the worker and we are not going to miss this opportunity of doing so. The miners have stated more than once that if this spread-over becomes part of the Bill they would rather not have the Bill than have it with the spread-over. That point has been clearly put and that is our position. If an agreement between the miners' representatives and the mineowners be the basis of implementing this Amendment, one would imagine that an agreement of that kind would be come to between two equals in the industry—that the miners would have equal opportunities in the industry with the coalowners. I want to say in fairness to my right hon. Friend that I believe that in deceiving us he has also successfully deceived himself, and he believes it is possible for an equitable arrangement to be arrived at. The coalowners with whom it is assumed that miners will be able to negotiate through their representatives are, at the present time, doing their utmost to destroy the very organisations with whom he suggests they will have to negotiate under this Amendment.

There is the law of the land, and I submit that an innovation is being made. The law says that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain shall be given in the mining industry equal opportunity with the coalowners to organise itself; and now the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the miners' representatives fixing agreements to be given statutory force. We have got away from the tradition of our legislation. We have recognised the existence of a trade union, and a trade union which arranges an agreement as to hours which is to be given statutory effect; and yet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, ever since 1926, have attempted to destroy the organisation which he now says ought to exist to negotiate upon hours of labour in the mining industry. I submit that here we have a piece of chicanery from the Front Bench opposite.

It does not do the House of Commons justice that, after having argued this piece of industrial legislation, we should now be compelled to go over exactly the same ground because a number of people have come together for the first time in a few years in the other House and have discussed this piece of legislation. There is nothing which is undermining the prestige of the House of Commons in the country more than the right which our Constitution confers upon a number of metaphysicians in the other Chamber to discuss a piece of industrial legislation which concerns an industry about which most of them know nothing at all. Hon. Members on the other side of this House cannot have had much experience of it except from the upholstered end, but the people in the other House have had no experience of it at all, and I want to suggest to this House that, if a piece of industrial legislation is going to be jeopardised after the House of Commons has considered it for months, because a number of people in the other House have met to discuss it and to thwart the wishes of the elected representatives of the people, we on this side of the House at least feel that there is some reason for our being sent here by the people. I admit the contempt that they have for the people, but I do say that now, at this stage, we should make it perfectly clear to the country that we are not going to allow a piece of industrial legislation to be held up by a number of people who, having no experience of industry at all, have become simply the last trench in reaction, and are simply defending in the other place the Tories in this House who have failed to confer a measure of justice upon the miners.


The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has referred to the industrial experience of those on this side of the House and in another place, but that reference comes very curiously from the benches opposite. I fail to understand what industrial experience hon. Members on those benches have. I do not know that many of them have had to take many decisions in the running of industry, or in the paying or providing of wages, or that they are accustomed to being under the obligation of maintaining the great industries of this country. On the other hand, in another place there is, perhaps, a larger aggregation of political and industrial experience than in any other body.

As a matter of fact, what we have to face to-night is that hon. Members opposite, if they are successful in resisting the Amendment are going to put on the dole a very large number of miners who would otherwise be earning good wages. They are going to close pit after pit. They are going to throw out of work hundreds and thousands of men and they are going to see their families in great distress, and the answer to that is the kind of rhetoric and eloquence to which we have just listened, dealing with nothing at all except technical questions, ignoring all the essential and fundamental economic facts of this and other industries. As a matter of fact hon. Members opposite do not represent the miners of the country. It is not the miners who are objecting to the spread-over. It is only the miners' Members. When they go back to their constituencies and face the men who have been thrown out of work by their action and see the pits that have been closed down by their obstinacy, they will not find themselves quite as popular as they imagine. I will make one appeal before we divide. Let us try to face these problems in a more practical manner and not be so concerned with the technical details of this or the other way of making an agreement. We all know that the Amendment is vital to the maintenance

of the industry. What the future may bring forth in another year we can then discuss. The Amendment ought most certainly to be carried.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 238.

Division No. 427.] AYES. [11.17 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Law, Albert (Bolton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Law, A. (Rosendale)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Egan, W. H. Lawrence, Susan
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Elmley, Viscount Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lawson, John James
Alpass, J. H. Foot, Isaac Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ammon, Charles George Forgan, Dr. Robert Leach, W.
Angell, Norman. Freeman, Peter Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Arnott, John Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Aske, Sir Robert Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Attlee, Clement Richard Gibbins, Joseph Lindley, Fred W.
Ayles, Walter Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Lloyd, C. Ellis
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Gill, T. H. Logan, David Gilbert
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Gillett, George M. Longbottom, A. W.
Barnes, Alfred John Glassey, A. E. Longden, F.
Barr, James Gossling, A. G. Lowth, Thomas
Batey, Joseph Gould, F. Lunn, William
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Bellamy, Albert Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Granville, E. McElwee, A.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Gray, Milner McEntee, V. L.
Benson, G. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) McKinlay, A.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) MacLaren, Andrew
Blindell, James Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Groves, Thomas E. McShane, John James
Bowen, J. W. Grundy, Thomas W. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Broad, Francis Alfred Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mansfield, W.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Marcus, M.
Bromfield, William Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Markham, S. F.
Brooke, W. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Marley, J.
Brothers, M. Harbord, A. Marshall, Fred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hardie, George D. Mathers, George
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Harris, Percy A. Matters, L. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Maxton, James
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Messer, Fred
Buchanan, G. Haycock, A. W. Middleton, G.
Burgess, F. G. Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Millar, J. D.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Mills, J. E.
Caine, Derwent Hall- Herriotts, J. Milner, Major J.
Cameron, A. G. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Montague, Frederick
Cape, Thomas Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hoffman, P. C. Morley, Ralph
Charleton, H. C. Hollins, A. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Chater, Daniel Hopkin, Daniel Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Church, Major A. G. Horrabin, J. F. Mort, D. L.
Clarke, J. S. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Moses, J. J. H.
Cluse, W. S. Isaacs, George Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour John, William (Rhondda, West) Muff, G.
Compton, Joseph Johnston, Thomas Muggeridge, H. T.
Cove, William G. Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Murnin, Hugh
Daggar, George Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown) Naylor, T. E.
Dallas, George Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Dalton, Hugh Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Noel Baker, P. J.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Oldfield, J. R.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Day, Harry Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Kelly, W. T. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Dickson, T. Kennedy, Thomas Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Palin, John Henry
Dukes, C. Kinley, J. Paling, Wilfrid
Duncan, Charles Kirkwood, D. Palmer, E. T.
Ede, James Chuter Lang, Gordon Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Edge, Sir William Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Perry, S. F.
Edmunds, J. E. Lathan, G. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion Shinwell, E. Vaughan, D. J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Viant, S. P.
Potts, John S. Simmons, C. J. Walkden, A. G.
Price, M. P. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Walker, J.
Pybus, Percy John Sinkinson, George Wallace, H. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Sitch, Charles H. Wallhead, Richard C.
Rathbone, Eleanor Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Watkins, F. C.
Raynes, W. R. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Richards, R. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wellock, Wilfred
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Welsh, James (Paisley)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Ritson, J. Snell, Harry West, F. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Westwood, Joseph
Romeril, H. G. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) White, H. G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T. Sorensen, R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Rowson, Guy Stamford, Thomas W. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Salter, Dr. Alfred Stephen, Campbell Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Sanders, W. S. Strauss, G. R. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sandham, E. Sullivan, J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sawyer, G. F. Sutton, J. E. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Scott, James Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Scrymgeour, E. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Scurr, John Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Wise, E. F.
Sexton, James Thurtle, Ernest Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Tinker, John Joseph Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Toole, Joseph Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sherwood, G. H. Tout, W. J.
Shield, George William Townend, A. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shiels, Dr. Drummond Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.
Shillaker, J. F. Turner, B.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Christie, J. A. Gower, Sir Robert
Albery, Irving James Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cobb, Sir Cyril Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Cohen, Major J. Brunel Greene, W. P. Crawford
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Colfox, Major William Philip Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover) Colman, N. C. D. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Astor, Viscountess Colville, Major D. J. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Atholl, Duchess of Courtauid, Major J. S. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Atkinson, C. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Cranborne, Viscount Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hammersley, S. S.
Balniel, Lord Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hanbury, C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Beaumont, M. W. Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hartington, Marquess of
Berry, Sir George Dalkeith, Earl of Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Haslam, Henry C.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Bird, Ernest Roy Davies, Dr. Vernon Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Boothby, R. J. G. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Bourne, captain Robert Croft Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Dawson, Sir Philip Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Boyce, H. L. Duckworth, G. A. V. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Bracken, B. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Eden, Captain Anthony Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Brass, Captain Sir William Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurd, Percy A.
Briscoe, Richard George Elliot, Major Walter E. Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) England, Colonel A. Iveagh, Countess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Buchan, John Falle, Sir Bertram G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Ferguson, Sir John Kindersley, Major G. M.
Butler, R. A. Fermoy, Lord King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Butt, Sir Alfred Fielden, E. B. Knox, Sir Alfred
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Fison, F. G. Clavering Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Carver, Major W. H. Ford, Sir P. J. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Castle Stewart, Earl of Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Frece, Sir Walter de Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Galbraith, J. F. W. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Ganzoni, Sir John Llewellin, Major J. J.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Locker, Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lymington, Viscount
Chapman, Sir S. Glyn, Major R. G. C. McConnell, Sir Joseph
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Power, Sir John Cecil Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Pownall, Sir Assheton Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Macquisten, F. A. Purbrick, R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Ramsbotham, H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Rawson, Sir Cooper Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Reid, David D. (County Down) Tinne, J. A.
Margesson, Captain H. D. Remer, John R. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Marjoribanks, E. C. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Train, J.
Meller, R. J. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Turton, Robert Hugh
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Ross, Major Ronald D. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Mond, Hon. Henry Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Salmon, Major I. Warrender, Sir Victor
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Morden, Col. W. Grant Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wayland, Sir William A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Wells, Sydney R.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Savery, S. S. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Muirhead, A. J. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Skelton, A. N. Withers, Sir John James
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Womersley, W. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Smith-Carington, Neville W. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Somerset, Thomas Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
O'Neill, Sir H. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Peake, Capt. Osbert Southby, Commander A. R. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Penny, Sir George Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Major Sir George Hennessy and
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Sir Frederick Thomson.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)