§ Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; with one of the Amendments agreed to with an Amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement. The said Amendment and reasons considered (on Motion).
§ THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient that I should now ask your Lordships not to insist upon certain of the Amendments which were made by your Lordships' House to this Bill The Commons disagree to the Lords' Amendment on page 6, lines 11 and 12, for this reason, that they consider that the system of working the mines in Northumberland and Durham cannot be reorganised by 1st July next. The Commons disagree also to the Amendment in page 6, line 13, to leave out the word "January" and to insert the word 2302 "July," because they think it is inexpedient to defer the operation of the Bill to so late a date as 1st July, 1910. The Commons propose to amend the Lords Amendment to leave out all words from the word "ten" in page 6, line 13, to the end of the subsection, by restoring the words "and elsewhere on 1st July, 1909." The practical result of this is that the Commons have reinserted in the Bill the clause in the shape in which it stood when the Bill came up to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI should like to know the precise Motion which the noble Earl moves. It is obvious that where the Commons have agreed to our Amendments nothing more is to be done, and where the Commons have amended an Amendment probably there would be no difficulty in agreement. I certainly object, however, to taking the disagreements en bloc. I think they should be put one by one, and on one of them I wish to make a few remarks.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPWe will do whatever is convenient to the noble Lord. I will first take the Motion that the House doth not insist upon the Amendment to page 6, line 13—that is, the Amendment by which your Lordships substituted "July" for "January."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHFor the purpose of putting myself in order, I shall move that the Amendment be amended so that it shall read: "the first day of October, 1909." The effect of that will be to shorten this period of preference by three months. I suppose it is hopeless to take any other course. Though I am not sufficiently versed in Parliamentary practice to state definitely, I am afraid that if we were to carry a Motion disagreeing with the Commons' Amendment it would have the effect of destroying the Bill. I do not intend to move that, but I demur altogether to the reasonableness of the course which has been taken. So far as I interpret it, the East of Scotland has been sacrificed by the Government for the benefit of the North-East of England. I think that is perfectly 2303 obvious. We are in exactly the same position; we are competing in the same markets for the export of coal, and we are known to be competing with each other, yet for a period of six months the North-East of England is to have a preference over the East of Scotland. I say that is unfair, and I think it will be regarded as unfair in the district with which I have the honour to be connected. I daresay that in the counsels of His Majesty's Government those in the North-Eastern counties of England are more powerful; but one of the constituencies affected is represented by the Prime Minister and both of the others by the most docile supporters which His Majesty's Government have in the other House. I say that their docility is being traded upon for the benefit of His Majesty's Government, and that it is entirely wrong, however docile they may be, that this advantage should be taken of the position. The preference cannot be defended on the merits; it has never been sought to be defended on the merits so far as I can understand, and there would be no real objection to this difficulty being diminished as far as possible. I shall, therefore, move that the Commons' Amendment be amended so that it should read: "on the first day of October. 1909."
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)My Lords, this is, I think, the third time I have had to speak on this particular point, and I should be unwilling to intervene now except that I think the noble Lord has brought a somewhat unfair charge against the Government. He said that the representatives of Northumberland and Durham were particularly strong in the counsel of His Majesty's Government, whereas the representatives of the district with which he is himself connected were not. Then he went on to say that the constituency which the Prime Minister sat for would be seriously affected, which seemed to me rather to answer the first part of the statement. In any case, it is very far from being true, because the other districts which consider themselves to be prejudicially affected by this particular 2304 division are the counties of Yorkshire and the Midlands. It has never been supposed that the West Riding of Yorkshire, the coal district, is other than a district which supports His Majesty's Government, and therefore the charge made by the noble Lord cannot be said to have any foundation whatever; and I am bound to say that what occurred yesterday in another place confirms us in our opinion that, although we have admitted the objections in this course, it was the only one open to us. Yesterday in another place Mr. Balfour stated that he heartily agreed with the course chosen. He said that postponement for eighteen months was an impossible course to take, and he would support the Government in rejecting it.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThat is perfectly true, and I will deal with that point if the noble Lord desires in a moment. The January date received practically no support in another place and I do not know that it received much here. I understand that the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment to-day is to substitute "October" as the general date.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI beg the noble Earl's pardon. I accept the position that we are obliged to agree to this preference, but I desire to shorten it. I do not propose to touch the general date. My proposal would have the effect of shortening the preference by three months.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, because I had understood that he suggested October as a general date. That, of course, is a question which the noble Lord has a perfect right to argue; but, as I said before, it is not really reasonable to speak of this as a preference. It, no doubt, has the effect of giving a certain preference to those two counties, but that is not the object or the intention of His Majesty's Government. The question is whether the particular organisation of 2305 Durham and Northumberland is such that it is impossible for them to start their new arrangements in less than a year. The Government have taken the view that it is reasonable for them to ask for this time, and if that is so, the splitting of the difference which the noble Lord suggests would not really meet the case, I am afraid, therefore, we must adhere to our proposal.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, the noble Earl has just stated that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a preference, but he admits that what they have done has the effect of giving a preference. What matters is not the intention of His Majesty's Government, but the effect of the Bill which they pass. With regard to the particular date fixed for Durham and Northumberland, the noble Earl has told us that His Majesty's Government have been convinced that they cannot get their arrangements ready before 1st January; but during all the time this Bill has been in your Lordships' House I have never heard anything to show why other collieries can get their arrangements ready although Durham and Northumberland cannot. So far as Lord Newton went into this point, he rather intimated that Durham and Northumberland were more advantageously situated, if anything, than the other collieries. It would be satisfactory to us to know what are the reasons which have convinced His Majesty's Government that these other collieries can get their arrangements completed by 1st July.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will endeavour to answer that question. The point is this, that in Durham and Northumberland the question is that of the reorganisation of the hours of the men. In Lancashire and South Wales the question is not so much the reorganisation of the hours of the men as the actual loss of time. In Durham and Northumberland all the shifts have to be changed. In Lancashire and South Wales in a great many cases there will not be an attempt to change the shifts but the actual hours of labour will be shortened. The grievance which the Lancashire and South Wales mine- 2306 owners conceive themselves to have is that they lose a certain time of the day for getting and winding their coal, but, at any rate in a great many cases, they will not attempt entirely to reorganise their shifts; whereas in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, as far as I understand, practically every colliery will have to go through a complete system of reorganisation of work.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I will not repeat the observations I offered to the House yesterday on this subject, nor will I follow the example of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and endeavour to fathom the mysteries of the transaction which apparently led to the exceptional treatment of these two districts. There does appear to attach a certain amount of mystery to the arrangement in question. I do not think I should have risen at all had I not desired to correct what appears to be an inaccuracy in the published account of the observations that fell from me last night. In an otherwise excellent description of my short speech which appears in The Times of this morning, there is a report of my concluding words which conveys a rather different meaning from that which I intended to convey to the House. I said I drew a great distinction between the Amendment moved by Lord Avebury and the Amendment which was carried at the instance of Lord St. Aldwyn, and I pointed out that, whereas Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment in no way interfered with the machinery set up by His Majesty's Government—the machinery which was to take effect from the moment when the Bill came into operation—on the other hand the Amendment of Lord Avebury, which altered the date at which the Bill came into operation and also did away with the preference given to Durham and Northumberland, did very seriously modify a plan which I imagined represented the mature conclusions of His Majesty's Government; and I said that, in those circumstances, without myself expressing any opinion upon the question of preference or upon the question of date, I would not take the responsibility of endeavouring to force any views which might occur to me 2307 upon His Majesty's Government. The part of my observations which referred to Lord Avebury's Amendment appear in the report which I mentioned just now as if the whole of what I said had reference to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, and I, therefore, desire to make that correction. The noble Earl referred to what occurred last night in another place. I have referred to the account of those proceedings, and I gather that the Leader of the Opposition stated to the House that, as His Majesty's Government had explained that in their view the least objectionable course was that the date of 1st July, 1909, should be accepted, and that the preference for Durham and Northumberland should be retained, and as His Majesty's Government were responsible for the Bill, he would support them rather than encourage attempts to alter their proposal fundamentally. I do not think the observations of my right hon. friend went beyond that, and they seem to me to be very much in accordance with what was said from these benches.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEFrom the report which I saw, I understood Mr. Balfour to say that he did not think a year and a half's postponement to be reasonable, and that he for one could not support it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Amendment does not touch the year and a half postponement at all, and, if carried, would not interfere with the general coming into effect of the Bill on 1st July next year. I shall not divide the House, but I shall not withdraw the Amendment, as I am entirely unconvinced by the noble Earl's argument. I am not able to argue at length the question as to how far the district in which I am interested will really be put to a disadvantage. The whole thing has been sprung so suddenly upon us that there has been only time for communication by telegram and letter; but I am assured that the effect will be to put the East of Scotland to serious disadvantage during this time. That, I think, is grossly unfair, and I shall record my opinion by refusing to withdraw my Amendment. I cannot imagine anything thinner than the statement 2308 of the noble Earl—that the intention of the Government is one thing, and the result another. If you carry that into fiscal affairs, what does it matter what your intentions are if the effect is to protect one thing as against another?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am the possessor of the only copy of the document which records what the House of Commons have done, I will state the Amendments to your Lordships. From Clause 7, subsection (2), this House omitted the words, in lines 11 and 12, "as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham." The House of Commons propose to restore those words. I now come to the second Amendment. This House, in page 6, Clause 7, line 13, struck out the word "January" and inserted "July." The House of Commons propose to restore the word "January." The third Commons' Amendment is to reinsert the words "and elsewhere on the first day of July, 1909." The first question to be put, therefore, will be, that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment omitting the words "as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham."
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP moved accordingly.
§ Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment omitting the words 'as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will now take the Amendment in page 6, clause 7, line 13.
§ Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to leave out the word 'January' and to insert the word 'July.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI move that the Amendment be amended by the substitution of the word "October."
§
Amendment moved—
That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to insert the word 'July,' but inserts instead the word 'October.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to insert the words 'and elsewhere on the first day of July, 1909.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.