Lords Sitting of 24 June 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I have to convey to your Lordships the following Message from, the King:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, the draft of which was presented to your Lordships on the twenty-seventh day of March last. I will comply with your advice."

AIR TRANSPORT (SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª; and to be printed.
OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to, and the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted upon.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EPSOM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
GUILDFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
REDCROSS STREET BURIAL GROUND (BRISTOL) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH AND SLOUGH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AYLESBURY, CHESHAM AND GUILDFORD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CHIPPENHAM AND GRIMSBY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK AND RAMSGATE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, before that Motion is put it would be convenient and, I find on reference to precedent, in accordance with ordinary practice, if the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition could reasonably give us some indication as to the probable discussion on the Commons Amendments. It would be a con-
60
venience, of course, to all quarters of the House if the Leader of the Opposition could indicate, or partly indicate the action he proposes to take to-day upon the Commons disagreement with the Lords Amendments. I do not now refer to the Amendments which have been accepted: a large number of your Lordships' Amendments were accepted, not merely drafting Amendments, but what I would call Amendments of real form. I want to avoid at this stage any statement which could in any way provoke discussion or difference of opinion. Subject to an Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomson, which was printed two or three days ago, it will be necessary for the Government to ask this House not to insist upon those Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed.
The Government are, and must remain, responsible for a Bill of this character—responsible for both its form and its procedure. They regard it as a measure of constructive legislation intended to organise and stabilise the coal industry, which suffers especially from depression and unemployment at the present time when industrial depression and unemployment are exceptionally and unfortunately widespread. They cannot, having regard to that responsibility, assent to any Amendments which, in their opinion, would militate against or render less effective ale proposals they have made for this great purpose. One Amendment has been handed in by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). It is the only Amendment of which Notice has been given to us. I will say nothing inure of that at the present moment, except that when we come to the appropriate Clause it will be carefully discussed and considered. I do not propose to say anything more at this stage. I hope the noble Marquess will be able to tell us something as to the course which the discussion will probably take.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I readily respond to the invitation which the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, has made to me. I agree with him that it is a convenient practice—a practice of very long date—to use this particular Question put from the Woolsack in order to have some general observations upon the course which, in detail, the House

61
is going to be asked to pursue, and that is the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord at the present time. He has told your Lordships that the Government, because of their responsibility for the Bill, are not able to agree to any of the Amendments of your Lordships' House. That is only representing the views expressed in another Place. But it is difficult to see what function, in the noble and learned Lord's judgment and in the judgment of his colleagues, the House of Lords is to perform at all. I can understand, if we had sent a number of Amendments some of which were accepted and some of which were rejected, that that would be a matter of discussion, but there would be no cause for complaint—
LORD PARMOOR: A large number were accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: None of the least importance. The Government have been advised that the proper way to treat your Lordships' House is to adopt the attitude that this House is not entitled, upon a Bill of this kind, to insert Amendments of any importance. I very much doubt whether any of the noble Lords who sit upon that Bench really agree with that doctrine. I suspect it is a view imposed upon them by their colleagues in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: Do not let us be under a misapprehension. I never stated that doctrine, nor could I.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I interpret the noble and learned Lord aright: he does not agree with the doctrine which his friends in another place pursue. I know that there is, of course, a body of opinion in Parliament and in this country which think that your Lordships' House ought to be content gradually to become obsolete—that is to say, that as the years pass by it should gradually become of less and less importance, its work should command less attention and, finally, it should disappear as it were by inanition. That I believe to be the sort of view which prevails. Now, my Lords, that is a view which it is quite impossible for us to accept. It is not that we are concerned at this moment to defend the particular constitution of your Lordships' House; that is not the point. To concede that your
62
Lordships' powers ought to be treated as obsolete is not open to us, because that is as much as to say that a Second Chamber is not required in this country at all.
By all means, if the country so decrees, reform your Lordships' House—by all means. We have asked for it over and over again. But so long as your Lordships' House exists we must do our work. We must perform the functions of a Second Chamber, and part of the duty of a Second Chamber is to insert such Amendments in legislation as they may consider absolutely required by the interests of the country. That is what we have done, and there is nothing (may I say?) in the present experience of Parliament and of the conditions of Parties in another place which would lead me to think that a Second Chamber is less necessary than it used to be. On the contrary, everything I see of what passes convinces me that, provided our work is done with a proper sense of our responsibilities and with every desire to be as conciliatory as we can—if our work is done in that way, we shall be doing no more than our duty.
Now, in regard to this Bill, I think that after the experience of some months of discussion in Parliament and in the country we may say it is a thoroughly unpopular Bill. I do not believe it is approved by any Party. I do not think there is much enthusiasm for it on the Benches opposite. I do not think that in another place the Labour Party very much care about it. It certainly is no child of the Liberal Party, and as for the Conservative Party, we think it a thoroughly bad Bill. That is the Bill which has been passed by very narrow majorities in another place and it has been passed at the instance of what I think must be called now a very weak Government. In those circumstances surely I shall command the assent of almost every member of your Lordships' House when I say that the functions of your Lordships' House are not to be treated as obsolete.
How, then, are we to approach the Amendments from that point of view. We made a very great concession—not an improper concession, but a very great concession—when we agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill. There is no doubt that, but for the political circum-

63
stances at the time, the decision of the electorate at the last Election and the strong opinion in the Labour Party of the necessity for legislation on this sort of line, your Lordships' House would certainly have rejected the Bill upon Second Reading. But we thought—and, if I may say so respectfully, your Lordships thought rightly—that this was not an occasion to throw out a Bill on Second Reading, having regard to what happened at the General Election. We passed the Second Reading and all we have tried to do is to mitigate the mischief which would arise under the Bill and, above all, to protect the interests of individuals who might be damaged or of the minority who might be damaged by the operation of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will consider the Amendments from that point of view.
Of course, I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships, but I think it might probably shorten the proceedings if I were to indicate broadly the view we take of the Amendments without going into too much detail. I will take the Amendments upon which I have observations to make in the order in which they come. There is first the question of the district levy. In our judgment the district levy, especially after the disappearance of the national levy, is quite indefensible. It is in the nature of a provision to give a bounty upon the export of coal, the kind of policy which we denounce when it is pursued by any other country. It definitely throws an extra burden upon the wretched home consumer—I do not mean merely the private consumer, but the industrial consumer, who, we know, is suffering under the tremendous pressure of bad times—and in the form of a district levy it is especially inequitable as between district and district. In those circumstances, we must do what we can to protect those who are likely to be the victims of such an inequity. I think we shall ask your Lordships to insist upon that Amendment.
Then I come to the Amendments in Clause 5 which were put in, I think, at the instance of my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury with the support of my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham. I will not go into the details, but those
64
Amendments were designed to protect individuals and other interests that might be unfairly treated but for those words, and to give them a right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission. That again, I would suggest to the House, ought to remain in the Bill.
Then we come to a very important body of Amendments, especially interesting, I believe, to the Liberal Party, having to do with amalgamation. I ought to say in the first place that I have no doubt that the Amendments that your Lordships put into that part of the Bill were the right Amendments, and the Government would have done much better to accept them. But there is one difficulty about the amalgamation proposals, and that is that in any criticism of them that we make we run the risk of seeming a little unsympathetic to the reorganisation of industry and to what is called rationalisation. That is very far from being the view of the Party to which I belong or of my noble friends who sit around me. We are all in favour of a proper reorganisation, and therefore we approach these particular clauses with very great care.
The Amendments which your Lordships put into those clauses ran upon two different lines. They were not inconsistent, but they followed two separate ideas. First there was the substitution of the Board of Trade for the special Reorganisation Commission, and in the second place certain directory words were put into the Bill which were to guide the action of the Railway and Canal Commissioners who, as your Lordships know, were supreme in the last resort. Personally I think that those words which protect the schemes from being put into force without reference to the advantage which they are likely to confer upon the country and without reference to the interests of individuals—the words which are going to safeguard the Bill from those dangers—are much the more important of the two sets of Amendments which your Lordships put into those clauses. I believe the Board of Trade will be a better authority than the Reorganisation Commission, but I do not think that this is vital.
On the other hand, the other point does seem to me to be vital. I think that for amalgamations to take place without reference to the question

65
whether they will really be commercially of advantage and will really reduce the cost of production, and without reference to protecting the interests of anybody who is oppressed or damaged by the operation of the schemes, raises a very much more important point than the other. Having regard to that point of view, I think we shall suggest to your Lordships that the House should not insist, upon those Amendments which put the Board of Trade in the place of the Reorganisation Commission, but should insist upon the directory words which will guide the Railway and Canal Commissioners when they come to their decisions.
I pass from that point to the most important Amendment of all, which is familiarly known as the spread-over Amendment. It is very difficult, of course, to find out everything that goes on behind the scenes, but I am given to understand that the original resolution of the miners against the spread-over clause was carried by a very small majority. However that may be, there is no question whatever that a large section of the miners not only desire but desire passionately that the spread-over Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. That is very natural. They believe, and I think rightly, that in certain areas, if the rigid 7½ hours per day system is enforced, there must be a reduction of wages, and possibly they believe—at any rate it may certainly be the case—that in some instances mines very near the line of bankruptcy will be shut down altogether in consequence of the rigid 7½-hour day unless there be a reduction of wages. Having those dangers before them, they ask us to make the Bill elastic, so that, without throwing any further burden upon them than the rigid 7½-hour day throws upon them, they may be allowed to spread over the hours and so make such an economy in the working of the mine that the working expenses will not be increased, and therefore there will be no question of a reduction of wages or of shutting down the mine altogether.
This was so reasonable a demand that, when it reached your Lordships, there was hardly any difference of opinion that the spread-over Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, and accordingly this was done. I cannot say that I
66
think that your Lordships have probably changed your opinion on that question, but there is just this to be said on the question of form. The idea of the spread-over Amendment is essentially that there should be a genuine option in its favour, not only by the employers but also by the miners in any particular district. That is of the essence of the Amendment. There is no desire to force the spread-over system upon any district. It is only if both parties want it and are quite willing. A representation has been made to me that, as the Amendment was drawn when it was sent down to another place, the miners were under a kind of apprehension that they would not in truth have a real free option as to whether they would accept the spread-over system or not, and that they would be under a sort of moral coercion which might render them not free agents in the matter. If that be so, it is the last thing, I am confident, that your Lordships' House will desire. We want them to be absolutely free agents, and therefore, when this consideration was urged upon us, we thought that we should be most willing to accept any change of form in the Amendment which would render this feeling less likely to occur.
For that reason I have ventured to place upon the Table of your Lordships' House—and it is now in your hands—an Amendment, standing in my own name, which is designed, after very careful thought and consultation with others, to remove this suspicion. Perhaps I ought not to anticipate the exact provisions of the Amendment. The object is to prevent the men from feeling that they are under any coercion. They act under a central authority and are, therefore, completely free agents. With that change, which I hope I shall be fortunate enough to persuade your Lordships to adopt, I think we may safely insist upon the policy contained in the spread-over Amendment. Upon those terms I think we can deal with the Bill.
May I say in conclusion that we have no desire to be unfair to the men? It is almost impossible to conceive how people can be so unwise as to think that there is any prejudice in this House against Labour. Why should we be prejudiced against Labour? We have worked with labourers on our own

67
estates all our lives. We understand them, I venture to think, better than most other people do, and we do desire to make the legislation passed by Parliament fair. We do desire that the miners should have every opportunity which we can furnish them with by elastic provisions, to have an arrangement of which they can in their hearts approve and which it will be in their interests to possess. For these reasons we are going to ask your Lordships to insist, not upon all of your Amendments, but upon some of them. I have not dealt with the Amendments which we propose to abandon. There are one or two of importance which, when we come to them, we shall not ask you to insist upon, but those which I have mentioned we shall ask you to re-enact in the Bill either fully or partly. I hope I have sufficiently explained to the noble and learned Lord opposite and to the House the course which we think the House might properly pursue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill (No. 108) as first printed for the House of Lords.]
Clause 2, page 3, line 38, after ("allocation") insert ("such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein;")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it would be impracticable to fix the district allocation on such a basis.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("Provided that in determining the quota with respect to a coal mine which is owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking the coal which is supplied, whether as coal or coke by that coal mine to that company or undertaking for consumption in the works of that company or undertaking shall not be included in either the standard tonnage or quota of that mine:")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
68
Because the effect of the Amendment would be inequitable to owners of coal mines which are not owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a very important Amendment and a great many of your Lordships attributed a great deal of importance to it. It deals with mixed undertakings; that is, mines which are owned by steel and other works and which it was asked should be allowed to be treated as outside the purview of the Bill. We are, however, anxious to be as conciliatory as we can and I therefore move that the House doth not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because in some districts it would make it impossible to bring into force a scheme which would operate fairly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, here, I am afraid, my Motion must be different, and I beg to move that this House doth insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I beg to move on the contrary that the Rouse doth not insist upon this Amendment; and I wish to make a short statement on that point. I confess candidly that when I first considered the question of the district levy I did see many objections to it. What filled me with the most alarm with reference to the district levy was the possibility that in a district where a very low percentage of the coal was for export purposes a levy might be raised—we will say in one of the five counties where the export coal represents 10 to 20 per cent. of the production and where a levy of one shilling per ton might raise 4s. for every ton of coal exported and thereby confer a great advantage upon that particular district in competition with other districts in the

69
country. That and other defects in the district scheme were very apparent to many of us on this side of the House, but I think that after closer examination of the Bill those defects disappear.
In the, first place the district levy in no sense resembles the large national fund which could be raised by a national levy. It is a comparatively small sum of money. The utmost that can be expected of a district levy is the creation of a small fund for purely local defence, but even then supposing that some district did decide to raise this small fund for local purposes, if that action on the part of any particular district caused injustice it could be reviewed by the central council set up under the Bill, and unless the district in question could establish its case to the satisfaction of the majority of the central council the scheme could not apply at all; in other words, the district levy could not be raised. That seems to me to be sufficient safeguard against the abuses that many people apprehended. There is a third point about a district levy which distinguishes it from a national levy, and that is that the proceeds of a district levy can only be used in the district in which it is raised. There is also a fourth point. Those virtues which I have described may perhaps be described as of a negative character, but the fourth point is of a much more positive character. That is that it is expected, and indeed almost certain, that the scheme outlined in this Bill will break down altogether in Scotland unless the district levy is kept in the Bill. It is for those reasons, which I have put as shortly as possible, that it seems to me your Lordships should not insist upon your Amendment.
To give a résumé of the points which I have made, they are that the levy is localised in character; that a strong case must be made out for any district levy before the consent of the central council can be obtained; and that the districts which disagree with the decision of the central council to grant a district levy can appeal to arbitration. It seems to me, therefore, that the safeguards are abundant against any of the evils which are apprehended. In conclusion I would like to say that in the five counties there is already a voluntary district levy, and that cannot be interfered with. It surely is far better to leave the district levy in the Bill with the safeguards that I
70
have ventured to indicate, rather than to cut, out paragraph (b) and jeopardise the fate of the Bill, more especially in Scotland, and generally to leave the whole situation with regard to the coal trade in this country on that particular point in a somewhat confused and chaotic condition. Therefore, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon this Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I have had some experience in connection with these levies, being chairman of a company in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the voluntary levy system has on the whole worked satisfactorily. It is perfectly true that certain coal owners have not been prepared to contribute voluntarily to the levy and have abstained, and may have secured contracts which otherwise would not have been theirs, owing to their being able to keep outside an arrangement of that kind. But, on the whole, the levy in West Yorkshire has been successful rather than the reverse. As chairman of another company which has a colliery in South Yorkshire, however, my experience has not been quite so happy, as fair terms do not seem to be afforded to a developing colliery as they are afforded to existing collieries. Whilst Scotland and Wales, from the coal owner's point of view, have expressed themselves quite neutral in connection with this question of levy, I admit that, so far as Scotland is concerned, there are possible means in the Bill to overcome the difficulties to which the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken has referred.
The point that I wish to make against the levy is on behalf of Durham and Northumberland, which to a very large extent are exporting counties: in Durham about 50 per cent. of coal is exported, in Northumberland nearly 80 per cent. For Northumberland and Durham, which have not access to markets at home upon which they could raise a subsidy, to try to raise a small amount to subsidise their large export trade would be an impossibility: whilst districts like Yorkshire and the Midland Counties, which produce about 42 per cent. of the whole output of the United Kingdom, can by raising a levy upon

71
the coal that they sell inland produce a very large sum, which will enable them to subsidise their export trade. It seems to us in Northumberland and Durham most unfair that a large district like the central counties could raise a big levy from the general public to subsidise an export trade, and deprive Durham and Northumberland of their customers.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, has alluded to certain safeguards in the Bill. Neither the men in the exporting districts, nor especially the owners in Durham and Northumberland, on whose behalf I am speaking, feel that those safeguards are at all adequate. In the interests of fair treatment, quite apart from the principle of raising a levy from inland consumers in order to help the foreigner, we object to a levy being allowed to be forced upon a whole district to the prejudice of some other district. It is for these reasons that I hope there will be no district levy in the Bill. I moved an Amendment on the Committee stage that would have given power to raise a central levy. If that had been accepted I should not have objected to a district levy, but a district levy without a central levy will work inequitably as between district and district.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in order to regularise the matter, may I say that the Question will be that this Amendment be insisted upon?
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I can quite confirm every word of the speech of my noble friend Lord Gainford. The levy is one of those matters which interfere with the business of the country and create difficulties which would not exist if matters were left alone by Governments. But what is the position of Durham and Northumberland in this matter? Yorkshire exports only about 10 per cent. of its production. It is enabled to place a levy on 90 per cent. of its production, so that a levy of 3d. per ton would produce about 2s. 3d. a ton on its export coal, which the Yorkshire collieries would have, to compete, not with the foreign producer only, but with Durham and Northumberland—and, I should think, Scotland too. I am doubtful whether Scotland realises the true situation. But, so far as Durham and Northumberland are con-
72
cerned, I think this levy would be disastrous if the Yorkshire collieries make use of it.
This Bill is supposed to prevent competition. Surely there could be no worse form of competition than that which will take place when you give to a district which produces 42 per cent. of the whole production of this country a levy in order to enable it to compete against Durham and Northumberland. Durham and Northumberland have collieries which to a large extent are old collieries. They have valuable coal, I admit, and they have splendid workmen, who can hold their own in competition with any men in any part of the country. But I do think that if a levy is allowed, as is intended at present, it will have very serious results on Durham and Northumberland. I should like to see what the Prime Minister will have to say when he goes down to Durham, and is accused of favouring Yorkshire instead of the district which he represents—putting on a levy which, I feel quite sure, will be almost disastrous to Durham; but I leave that to be dealt with between himself and his constituents. I hope your Lordships will give effect to the view that my noble friend Lord Gainford has put before you.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I only desire to say a few words, because I approach the consideration of these Amendments from a somewhat different angle from that which necessarily inspires my noble friends Lord Gainford and Lord Joicey. They have given reasons why this district levy would operate unjustly as between different districts, and as between the coal owners in different districts. I look at the levy from the point of view of the consumer, and it is on behalf of the consumer that I object to the district levy. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, finished his speech by saying that if we eliminated the district levy we should leave the coal industry in a confused and chaotic condition. But the exact contrary is the truth. Once you had eliminated the central levy, then the only logical thing was to eliminate the district levy too; and the confusion and chaos is created if you keep in the district levy, which can be used in the oppressive manner which has been indicated by the noble Lords,

73
Lord Gainford and Lord Joicey, instead of eliminating it, as your Lordships propose to do.
I should like your Lordships for a moment to consider why it is that the consumer is damnified by the district levy. Its object—it has been admitted in another place, and it is patent on the face of it—is to provide a subsidy which can be used to enable export coal to be sold, not at a lower price, but at no increase of price, in spite of the heavy increased cost of production which this unfortunate Bill is going to impose on the industry. The levy is going to be raised, then, at the expense of the home consumer in order to subsidise the export coal. That means that every consumer of coal in this country in addition to bearing the burden, which this Bill will impose on us all, of an increased cost of coal, is to bear that proportion of the increased cost which otherwise would have fallen in part at least upon our export trade. That means in turn that our home producers who require our coal for their own heavy industries which are already competing under the greatest possible handicap by reason of the burden of taxation, are going to be yet further handicapped by being told that they must pay more for their coal so that their competitors abroad can get it more cheaply. It seems to me that that is a most illogical and unjust provision, and it is because it is unjust that I hope your Lordships will reject it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I would like to say a word in answer to the noble and learned Viscount opposite. I do not think he really can have read paragraph (b) with which we are dealing. It is for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district. It has been pointed out more than once that it is not merely for export; it is for the very purposes of the basic manufactures to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, which may get the benefit and are intended to get the benefit of this provision. I only want to protest against his view that this is against the consumer. It is greatly in favour of these great basic consumers and is intended to be so. It is not in any way restricted to export coal. That is not the provision which is made in paragraph (b).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I find myself in a very great difficulty regarding this Amendment. I agree wholly with what has been said by the noble Lord who sits beside me about the merits of the Amendment. All through the discussions upon this Bill in another place my friends insisted that the district levy was a bad measure, and when once the general levy had been got rid of it was certainly desirable that the district levy should be got rid of too. But I confess that I find myself in some difficulty in the matter. His Majesty's Government have told us that to insist upon this Amendment might imperil the Bill. I was sorry that the original discussion which began this afternoon was not proceeded with. We had, if I may say so, what we always have from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition—a very lair and temperate statement of the case from his point of view. I rather hoped that we should have had from His Majesty's Government sonic definite answer as to which of the Amendments they regarded as vital in respect to this Bill. For my own part, I want this Bill. This Bill, like almost every other measure which passes through Parliament, is bad in patches; there are some parts which none of us like and there are some parts which some of us, most of us, I think, are very anxious to see passed into law.
The question then arises what action should we take? I must confess that the thought passed through my mind as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, was speaking, that there was some possibility of accommodation. He said more than once that this Bill would be unworkable in Scotland if this Amendment were insisted upon. Though I have no authority to say so, I cannot help hoping that with the aid of their national genius for compromise it might be possible to invent some sort of Amendment by which in those parts of the country where it is necessary to have the district levy that levy might be part of this Bill, but that it should not be insisted upon in places like those for which my noble friend beside me spoke, Northumberland and Durham, where, with their export trade, it would have a very bad effect indeed. Whether anything is possible in that direction or not I do not know. With regard to this particular Amendment, I would venture to say to His Majesty's Government that unless

75
we hear from them something very much more definite concerning the future of this Bill if this Amendment is passed, my noble friends and I do not feel that we can accept any responsibility in the matter.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be insisted upon?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 208; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Dynevor, L.

Beaufort, D.

Strafford, E.

Doverdale, L.

Bedford, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dulverton, L.

Marlborough, D.

Wicklow, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Portland, D.

Yarborough, E.

Rutland, D.

Ypres, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sutherland, D.

Ernle, L.

Wellington, D.

Astor, V.

Erskine, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Brentford, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Chaplin, Y.

Faringdon, L.

Camden, M.

Churchill, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Lansdowne, M.

De Vesci, V.

Forester, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Devonport, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Normanby, M.

Elibank, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Falkland, V.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gifford, L.

Winchester, M.

Goschen, V.

Glentanar, L.

Zetland, M.

Hailsham, V.

Green way, L.

Hambleden, V.

Greville, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hill, V.

Hampton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hood, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ancaster, E.

Mersey, V.

Harlech, L.

Bathurst, E.

Novar, V.

Harris, L.

Beatty, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sumner, V.

Hawke, L.

Bradford, E.

Ullswater, V.

Heneage, L.

Clarendon, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Aberdare, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Alvingham, L.

Illingworth, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ampthill, L.

Joicey, L.

Doneaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Annaly, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lawrence, L.

Dudley, E.

Armstrong, L.

Leconfield, L.

Feversham, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Leigh, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

Askwith, L.

Luke, L.

Grey, E.

Auckland, L.

Melchett, L.

Halsbury, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Methuen, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bayford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Inchcape, E.

Berwick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Iveagh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Jellicoe, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Mountgarret, L. (V. Mountgarret.)

Lauderdale, E.

Brownlow, L.

Lindsey, E.

Carson, L.

Mowbray, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lytton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Macclesfield, E.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Malmesbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton, L.

Midleton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Minto, E.

Conyers, L.

Pedesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Remnant, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Onslow, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Rossmore, L.

Peel, E.

Cusbendun, L.

Roundway, L.

Plymouth, E.

Danesfort, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Powis, E.

Darling, L.

Sackville, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

St. John of Bletso, L.

Sandwich, E.

Denman, L.

Saltoun, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Deramore, L.

Sandys, L.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sempill, L.

Spencer, E.

Desborough, L.

Shandon, L.

Stanhope, E.

Digby, L.

Sherborne, L.

Sinclair, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vernon, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Sndley, L. (E. Arran.)

Vivian, L.

Southampton, L.

Swansea, L.

Waleran, L.

Stafford, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Wargrave, L.

Stanmore, L.

Templemore, L.

Wavertree, L.

Strachie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Weir, L.

Stratheden, L.

Trenchard, L.

Wharton, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Aberconway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

De La Warr, E.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

Lindsay, E.

Buckmaster, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 12, line 17, after ("interests") insert ("or is unfair or inequitable in its operation")
Page 13, line 24, after ("interests") insert ("or is unfair or inequitable")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because they consider that the duties of committees of investigation should be confined to the protection of public interests.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do insist upon the first of these Amendments and, if I may, I will indicate in a very few words why I regard it as important. Your Lordships will remember that by an earlier clause—Clause 2—a central board is set up. By Clause 3 district boards are set up and provision is made that any coal owner in one case or any district in the other case which feels aggrieved by a scheme shall have the right of going to arbitration. Clause 5 is a clause which purports to give protection to the consumer and it is the only clause which gives any protection to the consumer. Under Clause 5 protection is afforded by setting up a committee of investigation in each district—I dealing with the districts for convenience of illustration—consisting of five people, two representing the industry, two representing the consumer and the fifth being an independent Chairman all five are to be nominated by the Board of Trade. These persons are charged with the duty of investigating consumers' complaints. But when we come to look at subsection (6), which is the one with which we are immediately concerned, we find that although the committee of investigation are charged with the duty of investigating the complaints
78
of consumers, they have no power even to report that a complaint is well founded unless the complaint is one that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests.
I ventured to point out to your Lordships' House when the Bill was before your Lordships on a former occasion that there might be a great many cases where there was grave injustice to art individual consumer, or even with regard to a class of consumers, with regard to which it could not be said that any public interest was involved, but where there was real unfairness or inequity or injustice to the individual consumer. Under the Bill as it stands there is no power for the committee of investigation even to report that such a complaint is well founded. The Amendment with which we are immediately concerned gives to the committee of investigation the power and the duty, if they find that a complaint that a particular scheme is unfair or inequitable is made out, so to report to the Board of Trade in order that the Board of Trade, if they agree with that view, may take steps to remove the injustice.
I entirely fail to understand on what principle it can be said that that is an unreasonable Amendment. The reason which the other House gives I hold in my hand. It says that:—
"… they consider that the duties of committees of investigation should be confined to the protection of public interests."
If any other protection had been afforded to persons who were inequitably affected and who were treated with injustice by these schemes, if any other means were afforded for investigating or redressing injustice, I should accept the proposal at once. But as the clause stands the committee of investigation, which is the only body which the Government have seen fit

79
to set up with any power to investigate such an injustice, are confined to the protection of public interests. In other words, in any case of individual hardship there is to be no right even to get an investigation or report. It is because of that that I ask your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment and I do hope that the Government, who when this was discussed on an earlier occasion seemed not unsympathetic, will soften their hard hearts and agree with the Motion which I now make.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON. My Lords, I am glad in this case to be able to offer to the noble and learned Viscount an olive branch which I trust he will accept. He is perfectly right in saying that we displayed a sympathetic attitude to this Amendment at the Committee stage and I claim on behalf of my colleagues on this Bench that we do not yield even to him in anxiety to protect the consumer. But I think I should draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to a distinction between Clause 5, subsection (6) and Clause 5, subsection (8), to which there is a later Amendment standing in my name. Clause 5, subsection (6) applies only to the provisions of a scheme.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: To the operation of a scheme really.
LORD THOMSON: Subsection (8) applies to the operation and subsection (6) to the provisions. If the noble and learned Viscount will refer to subsection (6) he will see it says:—
"If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme. …"
that is the distinction that I wish to draw. Therefore my olive branch consists in offering an Amendment to subsection (8). The Amendment is as on the Paper. Under that Amendment when schemes become operative and prices are fixed among other things, any injustice inflicted on an individual can be redressed. I submit that that really covers the point of the consumer. I trust that your Lordships will accept my Amendment at least as a half-way house towards meeting the wishes of the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only speak a second time with the leave of the House, but as an invitation has been addressed to me by the noble and gallant Lord perhaps I may be allowed to explain why I cannot accept the olive branch. It is not from any distrust of the offer, but because really it does not meet the case. So far as subsection (6) is concerned it is quite true that it deals only with any provision of the scheme which is contrary to the public interest. Subsection (8) deals with the acts or omissions of persons in respect of their functions. When we are dealing with the provisions of a scheme which inflicts hardships on the individual, no redress is given by subsection (8) and no redress is given anywhere else unless this Amendment is insisted upon. When I come to subsection (8), I hope to indicate to your Lordships why the limitations inserted in the proposed Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord really render the Amendment quite nugatory in its effect, but I do not deal with that point now because it obviously arises later.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I now come to the Amendment on page 13, line 24. This raises the point that I mentioned just now in regard to subsection (8), as to which the noble and gallant Lord offers an olive branch. The reason why I do not feel that the olive branch is of any real effect is that it is so prickly that it will be impossible for anybody to grasp it. The proposal of the noble and gallant Lord is that the committee of investigation may report that the act or omission of any person in respect of their functions under the scheme is "unfair or inequitable" and that it is a matter which
"can be rectified without detriment to the public interest or to the proper and efficient operation of the scheme."
I agree, of course, that the public interest has to prevail, and I agree that, if in the public interest it is essential to do something which would be unfair or unjust to the individual, in the last resort the individual interest must be subordinated to the public good; but I submit that there can be no reason why, in that case, the invariable practice should not be followed and why the indi-

81
vidual who is being unjustly treated for the public good should not be compensated by the public.
As the noble and gallant Lord's Amendment stands, no such provision is inserted. If provision were made that, where there is an injustice to the individual which is essential for the proper operation of the scheme, then compensation should be given to the individual, to be assessed by arbitration, I should be content. Under his Amendment as it stands, if the committee were to come to the conclusion that the particular injustice was essential for the public interest, then the individual would not only have to suffer the injustice but would receive no sort of compensation in respect of it. That has never been the practice of Parliament, so far as I know. Where it is necessary for the public good to take land or injuriously to affect property by interfering with private rights, then, of course, the public interest prevails, the private right has to be subordinated to the public good, but the individual who is being injured for the public good is compensated by the public Exchequer. In the absence of some such provision as this it seems to me that the noble and gallant Lord's Amendment does not really assist the particular cases that I have indicated, and for that reason I have to ask your Lordships to insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON had given Notice to move, That this House doth not insist on the following Amendment: Clause 5, page 13, line 24, after ("interests") insert ("or is unfair or inequitable"), but proposes the following alternative Amendment:
Clause 5, page 13, line 24, after ("interests") insert—
";or
(b) that any such act or omission as aforesaid is unfair or inequitable to the complainant and that the matter can be rectified without detriment to the public interest or to the proper and efficient operation of the scheme."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret extremely that the noble and learned Viscount should ask your Lordships to
82
insist upon this Amendment. He has explained the point more eloquently than I am capable of explaining it, and has shown the necessity for the private interest being subordinated in certain cases, but I fail to see how we can introduce into this Bill a measure for compensating individuals who suffer thereby. Such an Amendment has not previously been suggested in either House of Parliament. It is brought forward at the last moment. It seems to me that the Amendment that I have the honour to submit meets the whole point put forward by the noble and learned Viscount. and I submit to your Lordships that so far as justice and equity are concerned, it is almost inconceivable that any individual should really suffer if the Amendment standing in my name is inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After ("doth") insert ("not") and after ("Amendment") insert ("but in lieu thereof proposes the following alternative Amendment:
Clause 5, page 13, line 24, after ('interests') insert—
(';or
(b) that any such act or omission as aforesaid is unfair or inequitable to the complainant and that the matter can be rectified without detriment to the public interest or to the proper and efficient operation of the scheme.')"—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 14 line 5, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(10) Any person aggrieved—

(a) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interests, or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, or where such a report has been made is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board of Trade in relation thereto; or

(b) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to refer a complaint to arbitration under subsection (8) of this section;

may, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission who shall have power to make such order as they think fit.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment would defeat the purpose for which committees of investigation are constituted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, once more I have to ask your Lordships to insist upon your Amendment. I can explain quite shortly what its effect is. Under the clause as it stands, any consumer who is aggrieved can apply to the committee of investigation and, if the committee thinks that the point is made out, it refers the matter in the one case to the Board of Trade, or, in the other case, makes a representation that ultimately brings the matter to arbitration. Obviously it is quite right that there should not be let loose upon the framers of these schemes an unlimited flood of litigation, and accordingly the committee of investigation is set up in order to provide prima facie protection; but it might very easily happen that in certain cases—where, for instance, the actual committee of investigation consisted of persons who were in competition or even trade hostility with those whose complaint was being investigated—a complaint might be made which had great weight in it and which the committee failed to appreciate and failed to report.
In such a case the Amendment which your Lordships saw fit to introduce at any rate gave to the individual a right to go to arbitration. As I have said, it prevents a flood of litigation being let loose, but it does give to the individual who is aggrieved and who thinks his complaint has not been appreciated or his grievance met, the right to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, which is the body which is charged under this Bill with the duty of investigating matters of complaint. He has a right to ask that the Commission, if they think that he has I made out a prima facie case, should allow the matter to be investigated. That does not seem to me to be an unfair provision to make. It is the only protection that the individual consumer is afforded, and for that reason I hope that your Lordships will insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government are unable to accept this Motion, because they think it would open the door to appeals too wide. With regard to the noble and learned Viscount's point regarding competition in connection with committees of investiga-
84
tion, we think that, if a prima facie case is not made out before a practical body, the matter ought to rest there. I think the tendency of modern times—I certainly hope so—is to restrict the right of appeal and not to enlarge it. I quite agree with what my noble and learned friend has said. These people have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission in order to obtain leave to appeal under the circumstances, but we think that it is a pity that even this temptation should be offered, since this would lead to additional litigation by a litigant whose case has been turned down by a practical body. Accordingly I trust that your Lordships will not insist upon the Amendment.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 15, line 4, leave out ("under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the obtaining of essential information of a confidential character would be impeded unless the highest degree of secrecy were ensured.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Leave out clause 11.
Leave out clause 12.
Clause 13, page 18, line 25, leave out ("Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Clause 13, page 18, line 33, leave out ("Commissoners") and insert ("Board")
Clause 13, page 18, line 35, leave out ("of Trade") line 40, leave out ("Commissioners") in both places and insert ("Board") in both places.
Clause 13, page 18, line 41, leave out ("and submit")
Clause 13, page 18, line 42, leave out ("to the Board of Trade")
Clause 13, page 18, line 43, leave out ("and submitted by the Commission")
Page 19, line 14, leave out ("submitted by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission") and insert ("prepared by the Board of Trade under this section")
Page 19, line 33, leave out ("submitted to the Board of Trade") and insert ("referred to the Railway and Canal Commission")
Page 19, line 35, leave out ("Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission") and insert ("Board of Trade")
Page 19, line 40, leave out ("Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission") and insert ("Board")
Page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
Page 20, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission") and insert ("Board of Trade")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because they consider it preferable to establish a body of Commissioners with special qualifications for the purposes of Part II of the Bill, rather than to extend the functions of the Board of Trade to matters outside the ordinary province of a Government Department.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, here I am glad that for a very brief space harmony is restored between the two Front Benches. I am going to move that your Lordships do not insist upon these Amendments, which embodied the substitution of the Board of Trade for the Reorganisation Commission. I recognise, of course, that we are asking your Lordships to go back upon a decision which was taken with great deliberation and which I believe to be a perfectly right derision. At the same time there are, undoubtedly, elements to be considered which, as I have already had an opportunity of saying to your Lordships a short time ago, lead us to hesitate a little bit before we insist upon these Amendments. In the interests, therefore, of a safer form of legislation, and of conciliation, I move that this House do not insist upon these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Atinendments.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, when the noble Marquess said that harmony was now restored for a moment between the two Front Benches, I thought I might allude to the opening remarks which he made to your Lordships, which very much struck me. He spoke, it seemed to me, in a sort of pained and diffident manner, almost as if he were the leader of a forlorn hope, and fearful of success, and I could not help wondering whether my
86
eyes deceived me when I looked at the Benches opposite, the usual occupants of which were overflowing on to this side of the House. Apparently when we came to the first Division the noble Marquess was not so much without support as might appear from the plaintive character of his speech. I am not sure whether on reflection your Lordships are taking a wise course in insisting upon the Amendments which have been insisted upon. It is possible that there may be considerable difficulties arising in the matter, and I think under the leadership of the noble Marquess you are rather light-heartedly insisting upon considerable alterations of the framework of the Bill. It may be a satisfaction to the noble Marquess to know that he has so much support in insisting upon the duty of this House to act as a revising Chamber and make such important alterations in important Bills.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 13, page 19, line 4, after ("that") insert:

("(a) no scheme prepared under this section shall be referred to the Railway and Canal Commission unless the owner of at least one undertaking proposed to be amalgamated or absorbed by the scheme assents to the scheme being so referred;

(b)")

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because cases may occur where, although the owners are not averse to amalgamation, no one of them, is willing to accept responsibility for allowing a scheme to be made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this Amendment was inserted in Committee in order to secure that at least one of the amalgamated undertakings should approve of the amalgamation. The reason was of course that we did not see, and do not now see, how an amalgamation is to work if everybody who is to be in the amalgamation is opposed to it. That was the reason why we put the Amendment in; but here again we desire to respond to the appeal of the noble Earl opposite—I hope he will not think I am any longer plaintive—that we should be conciliatory. I therefore move that his House do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 13, page 19, line 11, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(2) In the consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission of a scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section seven of the Act of 1926 (which 41 relates to consideration of schemes by the Commission):—
(a) shall not confirm a scheme unless satisfied—

(i) that it would be in the national interest to do so, and

(ii) in the case of an amalgamation scheme that the scheme—

(a) will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal, and

(b) will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking; and

(iii) that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby; and'").

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it would hamper the proper exercise of the discretion of the Railway and Canal Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Subject to a small drafting Amendment I move that your Lordships do insist upon this Amendment. The important words to which I direct the attention of the House are on page 5 of the Amendment Paper, and in paragraph (a). Subsection (2) reads as follows:—
"(2) In the consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission of a scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section seven of the Act of 1926 (which relates to consideration of schemes by the Commission):—
These are the words which we propose should be enacted in order to guide the Railway and Canal Commissioners in their decisions upon these schemes, which include amalgamation schemes. The House will realise that the Railway and Canal Commissioners are a wholly different body from the Reorganisation Commissioners, whom we have reluctantly replaced in the Bill. The Reorganisation Commission is an ad hoc body, but the Railway and Canal Commissioners, of course, are not an ad hoc body, but a semi-judicial body, which has inspired the
88
public with great confidence for many years. The Railway and Canal Commissioners of course appear in the Bill. They are the final authority upon the scheme. We have no distrust whatever of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, provided only they know the conditions upon which they are to arrive at a conclusion, and this Amendment states in clear terms the conditions which they have to bear in mind.
First of all they shall not confirm a scheme unless they are satisfied that it is in the national interest. That is in the Bill. Then comes the next condition, in the case of an amalgamation scheme, "that the scheme will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal." That is to say, that it is not to be a theoretical but a commercial reason which guides the Railway and Canal Commission. They can only do it if it is actually going to lower the cost of production or disposal. We inserted that in order to prevent any wildcat schemes of amalgamation going through. Besides that we want to protect harassed interests. In case one amalgamated body will suffer financially much or at all by the amalgamation we want to protect it. So your Lordships, in Committee, put in these words: the Commissioners shall not confirm a scheme unless satisfied it
"will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking."
That is to say, there shall be no injury done unless the particular injured undertaking is fully bought out and so compensated for any injury which may be caused to it. We think that if those two conditions are put into an amalgamation scheme, whether worked by the Board of Trade or as the Bill now stands by the Reorganisation Commission, a great deal will have been done to prevent the Bill from unfair operation. Lastly, there is the condition "that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby." That already is in the Bill. I beg to move that with the substitution of the words "submitted to" in the place of "prepared by," near the beginning of the new subsection, that this House doth insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment, with the substitution of "submitted to" for" "prepared by" in line 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD JOICEY: Lords, I confess that so far as I am concerned I have no belief whatever in these proposed schemes of amalgamation. I think that when people have developed large industries, employing thousands of people, put all their capital in them, and spent the greatest part of their lives in making them successful, and they are suddenly told that they must amalgamate with somebody with whom they want to have nothing to do, that is a most extraordinary position for Parliament to place anybody in. I should like to deal with some of these gentlemen who bring forward schemes of this sort. Of course, where a concern is almost bankrupt, and sees a very good business adjoining, it will naturally want to amalgamate; and surely the least you can do, if the Commissioners have the power to compel them to amalgamate, is to Gee that the other concern is protected in a reasonable way. I have no belief whatever in these amalgamation schemes. The power of compulsory amalgamation is one which Parliament has never given before. There has never to my knowledge been a compulsory amalgamation when people did not want it, and, so far as the industry is concerned, you will find precious few cases in which there will be any economic saving by amalgamation. The probability is that, instead of costs being-decreased, they will be increased. I think there will be a great many surprises when this Bill comes into operation. But I think that you ought to give any protection that is possible to those who are compulsorily amalgamated; and on that ground shall support the position taken up by the noble Marquess.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I think the House ought to realise that the small Amendment introduced by the noble Marquess is really rather fundamental. Altering the words "prepared by" to "submitted to" the Board of Trade means that all schemes will come under this Amendment. That, I think, is the deduction from that alteration of words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The reason why we are striking out the words
90
"prepared by" the Board of Trade is that, your Lordships having agreed to replace the Board of Trade in the main part of the Amendment by the Reorganisation Commission, the scheme will no longer he prepared by the Board of Trade, and therefore we put in the words "submitted to" instead.
LORD THOMSON: That covers all schemes of arty sort or kind?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD THOMSON: But that is in the Government Bill, I think. I think I must admit that the noble Marquess is right on that. I did not understand the actual history of this Amendment in this connection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is so. I hope I am not misleading the noble and gallant Lord.
LORD THOMSON: As regards the main purpose of the Amendment I submit that it is undesirable, and, if it is not undesirable, it is unnecessary. After all, the Railway and Canal Commission is a very important body, almost part of the High Court. It does not consist of simple-minded folk who would be easily imposed upon, bat of people who under this Bill are given powers of deciding certain large matters—and the larger their powers and the greater the discretion left to them the better in the opinion of the Government. Instead of that, this Amendment really limits their discretion. It specifies certain points—not all the points—they have to consider. The Railway and Canal Commission will have to consider a vast field of facts brought before them in connection with the scheme; but, by specifying certain given points in the terms of the Bill, by implication one rather belittles the other points, which are equally important. That is the line on which the Government opposed the Amendment on the Committee stage; that is what still remains our principal objection—namely, that it does limit the discretion of a very responsible body, the Railway and Canal Commission, and specifies certain points for their consideration, and therefore by implication belittles and renders of less importance other equally important points.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I propose to put this Amendment to the House—that the words "submitted to" be inserted instead of "prepared by" in the second line.
On Question, Whether the words "submitted to" shall be inserted instead of "prepared by"?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Argyll, D.

Ypres, E.

Gifford, L.

Bedford, D.

Glentanar, L.

Marlborough, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Greenway, L.

Rutland, D.

Brentford, V.

Greville, L.

Sutherland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Hampton, L.

Wellington, D.

Churchill, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

De Vesci, V.

Harlech, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Devonport, V.

Harris, L.

Camden, M.

Elibank, V.

Hastings, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Falkland, V.

Hawke, L.

Linlithgow, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Heneage, L.

Normanby, M.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sailsbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Winchester, M.

Hambleden, V.

Illingworth, L.

Zetland, M.

Hill, V.

Joicey, L.

Hood, V.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Albemarle, E.

Novar, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Ancaster, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Kylsant, L.

Bathurst, E.

Sumner, V.

Lawrence, L.

Beatty, E.

Ullswater, V.

Leconfield, L.

Bradford, E.

Leigh, L.

Clarendon, E.

Aberdare, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Aldenham, L.

Luke, L.

Denbigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Melchett, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ampthill, L.

Methuen, L.

Annaly, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Dudley, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Monk Bretton, L.

Feversham, E

Armstrong, L.

Monkswell, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Fortescue, E.

Askwith, L.

Mountgarret, L. (F. Mountgarret.)

Grey, E.

Auckland, L.

Halsbury, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Mowbray, L.

Harewood, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bayford, L.

Oriel, L. (F. Massereene.)

Ilchester, E.

Berwick, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Incheape, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Iveagh, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborouoh.)

Jellicoe, E.

Brownlow, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carson, L

Rayleign, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Lindsey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rossmore, L.

Roundway, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Conyers, L.

Sackyille, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

St. John of Blesto, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun, L.

Midleton, E.

Cushendun, L.

Sandys, L.

Minto, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sinclair, L.

Morton, E.

Darling, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Southampton, L.

Onslow, E.

Deramore, L.

Stafford, L.

Peel, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Strachie, L.

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Stratheden, L.

Powis, E.

Dyneyor, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dulverton, L.

Swansea, L.

Sandwich, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Erskine, L.

Templemore, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teynham, L.

Spencer, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Thurlow, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Trenchard, L.

Stradbroke, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Vivian, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Forester, L.

Waleran, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wavertree, L.

Wicklow, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Weir, L.

Yarborough, E.

Cainford, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENT.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Hemphill, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L.

Meston, L.

Arnold, L.

Passfield, L.

Reading, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Shandon, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Denman, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Russell, E.

Doverdale, L.

Thomson, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Wargrave, L.

Astor, V.

On Question, Amendments to the Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the effect of that is to take out the words "prepared by" and -gut in the words "submitted to." Therefore, the Motion that I have now to put to your Lordships is that this Amendment be insisted upon; that is the Amendment which contains the words "submitted to" instead of the words "prepared by."
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendment, as amended, insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 20, line 32, at end insert ("Provided that—

(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, 1920, and this section;

(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.")

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because they consider it desirable to reduce for every day of the week the maximum hours of 'work permissible in coal mines.
THU MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THU MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given Notice to move, That this House does not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 14, page 20, line 32, but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
"Provided that, if before this sections comes into operation 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 on the coming into operation of this section, 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 throe of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section.
At any mine to which an order made under this section applies, the order shall, if the application aforesaid so requests, provide that where an extension of time is in any week made Under the said Section three, the 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."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, we now come to the spread-over Amendment. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by repeating what I have already said this afternoon in favour of the spread-over Amendment. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me just a moment or two in order to explain the form of new words which I am going to propose to substitute for the old words. Your Lordships are familiar with the Amendment as it stood in the Bill when it was read a third time, and we propose

95
not to insist upon it in that form but to make a distinction in the words as they appear in the print which lies on the Table. There is a slight modification in that print which I will explain in a moment. But the form of this spread-over is that the parties, instead of coming to an agreement amongst themselves and the spread-over operating thereupon, will have to operate through the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will be under an obligation, under the terms which I am about to move, to put the spread-over system in force where this application has been made to the Board of Trade by the employers and by the miners—a purely optional arrangement.
If your Lordships ask why we make this change in the drafting, I cannot give, I am sorry to say, a very clear answer. As far as your Lordships who sit on this side of the House are concerned we should be quite content with the old drafting, but it has been represented to me that it would give much greater confidence to the workers if they were allowed to proceed through a central authority. As the Bill was drawn when it left your Lordships' House, they would have been under the impression that they were not free agents in the matter, because, as I said, there would be a sort of moral coercion which would have forced them to agree, and, therefore, the words which I now propose are preferable. I see no objection whatever, from our point of view, to these words, and therefore I move the Amendment in the new form.
Since I handed the Amendment in at the Table it has been represented to me that the opening words of the proviso are a little too restricted. As it is printed it says:—
"Provided that if before this section comes into operation an application …"
It has been represented to me that the miners and the owners of a mine might change their minds after the section has come into operation, and want to bring the spread-over system into force. They have four months in which to make up their minds, but they may not make up their minds in the four months. They might try the 7½ hours rigid system, and then say: "This won't do; we will have the spread-over after all." If certain words were left in the Amendment as I have had it printed that would not be
96
Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, I propose to move it in the following form:—
"Provided that if"—
leaving out the words "before this section comes into operation"—
"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."
Here I have left out the words "on the coming into operation of this section" and inserted the word "forthwith." It is a very slight modification in the Amendment as it is printed, and I hope your Lordships will consent to it. I have said enough, I think, to explain the character of the new draft, and the reasons why, in our humble judgment, your Lordships ought to insist upon the spread-over system being inserted in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 14,page 20, line 32, but proposes 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, 1.919, 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 to which an order made under this section applies, the order shall, if the application aforesaid so requests, provide that where an extension of time is in any week made under the said Section three, the 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).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not rise to say anything in regard to the exact merits of this Amendment, though I confess I do not like it. I would invite the attention of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, to the emphasis which he has on more than one occasion lately laid upon the extraordinary undesirability of moving Amendments which are not printed upon the Paper in the last stage of a Bill. If ever there was an occasion on which that principle should be applied surely it is the present occasion. The noble Marquess wishes to amend the Amendment, and that is a thing against which the noble Marquess himself on other occasions has entered the strongest protest.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may only by way of explanation, say at once that the noble Earl is confusing two things—the Third Reading of a Bill and the consideration of Commons Amendments. These matters are all matters of regulation and practice, and I have had the experience, as the noble Earl has, on a number or occasions of the Commons Amendments having to be considered sometimes even without having the opportunity of printing anything at all. They come perhaps at the last moment. Therefore, the rule does not apply.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as I was responsible for the original Amendment passed by your Lordships which has been rejected in another place, I want to say at once that I have no objection to the altered form which is now suggested by the noble Marquess. The owners have not the slightest desire to try to put undue, pressure on the men in any district to secure a spread-over if the men do not want it. All we want is a free opportunity of being able to place our case before the men in order to show the men that it is to their interest as well as the interest of the industry that there should be a spread-over. If there is to be a reduction of hours obviously there will be a reduction of work and if there is a reduction of work there will be a consequent reduction of pay. The last thing the miners want is a reduction of pay. So far as I hear from managers in different parts of the country there is no indisposition on the part of the men to work their full length of time at the present moment. They are anxious to make their earnings as big as they can
98
and they ale working well and are not complaining of their hours. Even on a gala day, when a meeting was addressed by Mr. Graham in Fifeshire, when the resolution against the spread-over was put to the meeting, I understand that only thirty miners held up their hands to support the attitude of the Government.
It seems quite true, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in his opening remarks this afternoon, that the men are not at all agreed amongst themselves in regard to the rejection of an Amendment of this character. It is almost, vital to the industry when you consider that the position is that in South Wales without a spread-over there will be an increased cost of from Ls. 6d. to 2s. a ton, in Scotland 10 d., in Northumberland from 8d. to 1s. and that in Durham it will vary from 5d. to 9d. That increase is so considerable that it will mean the closing of a great number of pits. The men do not desire that pits should be closed and that they should be prevented from working, it is vital to them as well as to the industry that the operation of collieries shall go on and that agreement should be permitted between then men and the owners in connection with the spread-over; that the men should be able to apply to the Board of Trade and that the owners should be able to do the same, which is really tantamount to an agreement being made between them. We have no objection to the particular form of the Amendment so long as there may be an order for a spread-over and as long as there is opportunity to place clearly before the men the position that increased costs would close collieries and result in a great number of men being thrown out of work.
As a matter of fact, the difference between the spread-over and the reduction of hours proposed in the Bill is equivalent to the industry being able to pay £5,000,000 more in wages than otherwise they would be able to pay. If there is any difficulty about those figures I can explain them, although it is a rather complicated matter owing to the agreement that the men should be paid 85 per cent. of the proceeds and the owners should get only 15 per cent. The owners only get their 15 per cent. if there are sufficient proceeds to enable the owners to get their remuneration as

99
well as to enable the men to get their wages, but the men are guaranteed their wages in any case. The costs of the reduction in quantity as the result of the diminution of time would be equivalent to 6d. a ton and that on 240 million tons is equivalent, as your Lordships will see, to £6,000,000, which would mean a difference of £5,000,000 in the capacity of the industry as compared with what it could pay if the full daily reduction of hours took place throughout the country.
There is one further Amendment to which I should like to draw attention which I think should be made in the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess. The words in the Amendment as it appears on the Paper are almost identical with those which were passed at the Committee stage. They refer to a practice which has grown up in many of our coal mines, where the men themselves almost take the law into their hands and say: "We want to be out of the pit in time to go to our football matches or our recreation, and we want to be above ground by 12 o'clock and to get our half day's holiday legalised." At present men cannot legally go to work earlier than a certain hour. It is to enable them in their own interests to get their half holiday that this provision has been inserted in the Bill, but, by the words proposed by the noble Marquess the ability to go earlier to work on the Saturday morning would be restricted to those cases only where there is a spread-over.
I think your Lordships will realise that it is reasonable, whether the men have accepted the spread-over or whether they work 7½hours a day, that if they desire by agreement with the owners to go to work earlier on Saturday mornings they should be at liberty to do so. Therefore, with the leave of your Lordships, I would like to propose an Amendment to the second paragraph of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess. That paragraph begins: "At any mine"—and I propose to strike out the following words—"to which an order made under this section applies, the order shall, if the application aforesaid so requests provide that," and, after the word "workmen" in the last line on page 1 of the Amendment, to insert "by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen." The paragraph in the proposed Amendment would then read:—
100
"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, …"
and so on. That would make it quite clear that all the men would be able to go to work earlier on the Saturday instead of the provision being restricted to those Who accept the spread-over. With that alteration I quite accept the alteration of form in the Amendment which is moved by the noble Marquess and I hope your Lordships will pass it into law.
May I add that the great reason why we object to the reduction of hours is on account of the position of the industry? Collieries are going out of work almost every day. In the last three or four weeks four or five collieries have been closed down in Wales and three or four in the County of Durham, and I think probably two of my own collieries will be closed down and notice given to another 2,000 men in the course of a few days. We cannot find markets for our coal, it does not pay to work collieries only three days a week, and we have to concentrate our output. It is time the men realised the position of the coal industry and the position of the iron and steel industry and other industries dependent on coal. We want the men to have the whole of the facts before them so that they may decide whether the spread-over should be accepted. I believe it is in their own interests.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In the second paragraph leave out ("to which an order made under this section applies, the order shall, if the application aforesaid so requests, provide that"), and after ("workmen") insert ("by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment relating to the spread-over. Outside this House appeals have been made to your Lordships to be courageous and to insist on this spread-over. That is a ridiculous request. Your Lordships have many critics, but no one has yet called in question your courage. Rather would I appeal to your wisdom. Is it wise to insist on this Amendment? Undoubtedly it is your duty, and I am sure it is your desire, to say and to do what you think is best for the country.

101
I have already indicated on the Second Reading the reasons why your Lordships should accept the clause as originally drafted—namely, (1), that the proposals do not reduce the general level of English working hours below the general level of Continental working hours; (2), that the system of 7½ hours plus one winding time is responsible for the production of 100,000,0010 tons out of the 250,000,000 tons of coal annually raised in this country; and (3), that the proposals make for peace and the acquisition of the good will of the miners. I am aware of the figures—the serious figures—put by Lord Gainford, but it is hoped that the reorganisation of the industry which your Lordships have agreed to, if your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment in that respect this afternoon, will make a difference in the cost of production.
I cannot add a further argument to those three, but I would venture to remind your Lordships again that the House of Commons does not agree to this Amendment and that the Bill in its present form is really a compromise to which we are committed. We cannot alter it without the consent of both parties. There is still something to be said in this country for the man who "sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it is to his own hindrance." Under the old Act the number of hours worked was eight. The miners wanted seven, and the compromise has been effected under which the hours are to be 7½ plus one winding time. How much -it is to be wished that parties to disputes in the coal field were familiar with the story of the Sibylline Books, which your Lordships know so well ! Those who reject a reasonable compromise may have to pay the uttermost farthing for something less than they might originally have obtained.
With regard to the proposed spread-over, the miners are of opinion that it renders illusory the concessions which they think they have obtained under the compromise to which I have already referred. The figures have already been given to your Lordships but, as this is a matter of such vital importance, perhaps I may be permitted, at the risk of detaining your Lordships two or three minutes longer, to give those figures again. Under the spread-over, there
102
will be no change of hours in most of Scotland, all of Northumberland and Durham—
LORD GAINFORD: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord on that point to say that 30 per cent. of the men would work less hours under the spread-over than they do at the present time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but I will put the case for the miners. It would make no change of hours in the afternoon and night shifts in South Wales and, in addition to that, Yorkshire, Notts, North Derby and Kent are not affected in any case. As regards the rest, some reduction, it is true, would take place, but it would be so small as to be insignificant. If you want peace in the coalfields, would it not be advisable to uphold this compromise? The House has many expert coal owners to advise it, but unfortunately it has not a single miners' leader, who could put the case from a practical and technical point of view far better than I can ever hope to do. They do not want the spread-over. They will not work it.
As they have no spokesman in this House, let me read two very short extracts from what their spokesman said on this point in the House of Commons. Mr. Hartshorn, the well-known miners' leader and now a member of the Cabinet, in a reply on this question on June 4, which your Lordships will find in Column 2329 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, said—and I draw your Lordships' special attention to this—
"I am going to tell the House why we would infinitely prefer to have this Bill defeated and bear the consequences than to have the spread-over."
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that he was not quite able to give details—of course he could not—as to the feeling of the men on the subject. Let me read the next sentence of Mr. Hartshorn's speech:
"The hon. Member has just said that the opposition is coming from the miners' members of this House and not from miners' members outside. 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."

103
Let me read one other short sentence, for this House, although it has many expert advisers, is unfortunately deprived of the advisers of the men. Mr. Hartshorn continued—I am now quoting from Column 2340—
"We are satisfied that the Amendment, if carried"—
that is, this spread-over Amendment—
"can only result in very serious trouble during the next four months. As soon as this Bill is passed we have to make agreements in every coal field in Britain, and the coalowners know that they can hold the threat over the heads of the miners and that unless the miners agree to a reduction of wages they will insist upon an Order in Council changing these hours."
Assume that that is all wrong, and that your Lordships are right. If you insist upon this Amendment you will certainly cause disappointment to thousands of miners. You will certainly cause difficulties in the coal fields. You may even cause serious trouble. Heaven knows we have got enough trouble in England at present, what with unemployment and bad trade. Do not add to these troubles by insisting upon this spread-over. Finally, let me ask your Lordships whether it is worth while. If this 7½hours plus one winding time were to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable, if it were to last for ever, that might be another question, but your Lordships will remember that it is only to remain in force until July 31 of next year—13 months—and over and above that it is not to come into force for four months. Is it worth while, for nine months, to cause all this disappointment, all these difficulties, and the possible trouble which I have indicated to your Lordships. I beg your Lordships to pause before you insist upon this Amendment.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I would not detain you at this time except for the very remarkable speech which we have heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am speaking here for the miners of South Wales, and I say that every statement which he has made is entirely incorrect, and that Mr. Hartshorn does not represent the views of the miners. Far from having trouble if this Bill is passed with the perfectly optional spread-over, we shall certainly have a strike in South Wales if it is not done. Without the spread-over we
104
have got to make new wages agreements, and these wages agreements will compel a reduction in wages. It is an economic fact, and the miners' leaders in South Wales, responsible men, are in favour of the spread-over. If the noble and learned Lord will give me the opinion of Mr. Tom Richards and not that of Mr. Hartshorn I will listen to him. Mr. Hartshorn's opinion is not worth this House's attention. Recently there have been two ballots in two of the largest collieries in South Wales, and I am informed that the ballots resulted almost unanimously in favour of the spread-over. Thousands of miners who are employed by the company of which I am chairman are, I am assured, almost unanimously in favour of the spread-over. What answer has the noble and learned Lord got to those facts? He has no answer, and I say that the picture which he has presented to your Lordships is entirely false.
We are fighting here for the liberty of the British working man to be able to earn his living, and the Labour Party are striving to throw him on the "dole." I should never have thought it conceivable in this country that the Labour Party, at the dictation of some of the miners' leaders, would deny to the working man the liberty of making up his own mind as to whether or not be will adopt a certain scheme. Such an attitude on the part of the Labour Party is inconceivable. It is indefensible, and I would like to go to the country upon the matter. The noble and learned Lord spoke as if we were endeavouring to compel the scheme to be adopted, and Mr. Hartshorn seems to have fallen into the same error; but the men are entitled to refuse it, and if they do not want it none of these things will happen. The noble and learned Lord knows South Wales and he knows that you cannot compel a single collier to do anything that he does not want to do. Colliers are the most independent men in the country, and cannot be compelled to do anything that they do not want to do.
Then what is the use of these figures about hours in this country as compared with hours on the Continent? The noble and learned Lord knows that the conditions in South Wales are entirely different from those in Yorkshire, and it is not a question of averages at all. There is

105
a different technical position, and I am heartbroken that the Lord Chancellor should begin this discussion with a desire for peace and yet refuse to allow peace in South Wales. I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to allow this Amendment to be re-inserted, and to accept this provision. We know as a fact that it was only due to an accident that this matter was not settled before. As a matter of fact this question was almost a fait accompli, and do not let us take up this pedantic, non possumus attitude. I hope that in the interests, not of the coal owners but of this country and its industry, and in the interests of the miners themselves, your Lordships will reintroduce this Amendment and leave the responsibility to the Labour Government of throwing still more tens of thousands of people upon the "dole," which is what they have been doing ever since they came into office.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, having listened to two speeches of a diametrically opposite character, I find myself in complete agreement with the forcible speech of the noble Lord behind me, Lord Melchett. The Lord Chancellor, in his remarks, made a very strong appeal to your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment which is now before the House. The reason for that is that the question of (hours is obviously the most important part of this Bill. It is the reason why this Bill has been introduced by the Government. They have given pledges to their supporters as to the hours which will be enacted, and round this provision of the Bill as to hours there are other clauses which it is hoped will assist and reorganise the industry. The real kernel of the Bill, however, is the question of hours, and I think the Government feel that they will be going back: on their pledges if they give way in any degree on this question of hours. This is a very important matter, and I was rather sorry to hear from the Lord Chancellor, when he began his speech, that he felt that noble Lords in this House might have been influenced by pressure from outside to insist upon this Amendment regardless of the consequences which he seemed to foreshadow, I will not say in a threatening manner, but certainly in a very serious manner. I think that the Lord Chancellor is as fully aware as any of us that noble Lords in this House are determined
106
to do their duty in this House by the people of this country; and I am quite sure that, whatever decision is taken by them in the Division shortly, that decision will be free from any bias whatever, but will be taken in what they truly and honestly believe to be the best interests of the country.
I think the noble Lord behind me has dealt with the dicta of Mr. Hartshorn, to which the Lord Chancellor referred. Mr. Hartshorn was quoted by the Lord Chancellor as saying he believed that not one single miner would agree to the spread-over. The experience of myself and of a great many in this House is entirely different. Those of us who are in touch with the miners hear from a great many quarters that the idea of the spread-over is one which appeals to them, and which they are convinced would be an improvement on the Bill. I know nothing about what goes on behind the scenes, but I do feel that before this question was decided in the unanimous manner in which we are told it was decided—and the unanimous manner in which the decisions of the Miners' Federation are come to from time to time—there were great differences of opinion; and I am inclined to say that Mr. Hartshorn made a very exaggerated statement, and that there is a feeling in all the coalfields that, where this provision would operate—because it would not operate in a large portion of the country—this permissive provision would be for the improvement of the Bill and in the interests of the mining community.
I am quite prepared to be very sympathetic to the apprehensions which I know exist, and have existed, in the minds of the miners themselves. If this Amendment in its original form had been enacted in the Bill I am inclined to think that the miners themselves would have felt—wrongly, I think—that by legislation one of their bargaining counters had been taken out of their hands. But I think that noble Lords will agree with me when I say that in the Amendment which is now before the House the arrangement is entirely of a permissive character, that there is no force majeure in the hands of the owners for compelling the men to accept this provision whether they like it or not. And I am quite sure that when it is understood how this Amendment differs from our previous Amendment a

107
great deal of the genuine opposition will disappear. By that I mean the opposition in principle to this Amendment which was in the minds of a great many interested in the mining industry in all parts of the country. They will realise that this Amendment is in their best interests, and in the best interests of the country as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has made an appeal to your Lordships in regard to the state in which industry finds itself at the present moment. There is not one of your Lordships who is not very susceptible to that appeal, and who does not realise the very difficult and very dangerous position in which industry stands at the present moment. The Lord Chancellor appealed to you to let the Bill go through in its present form, in the hope, he said, of acquiring the good will of the miners, and in the further hope of obviating trouble and of not creating difficulties. I differ from the noble and learned Lord altogether. We have arrived, almost for the first time, at a stage in the whole industry when both sides (I am speaking particularly of the men now) fully realise the great difficulties in which we both stand. The men know perfectly well that the employers during these last few years have been spending their capital and working their mines at a loss, certainly in the hope that the trade would improve, for their own benefit—I am not saying that that was not their idea—but also in the interests of the industry which has meant so much for the country. There is a far greater understanding at this moment and a far better chance of owners and men coming together and, in the four months at their disposal, working out a plan by which the industry can, we hope, emerge into smoother and calmer waters. Here is the opportunity, here is the elasticity which we are proposing in this Amendment to give to the industry.
I should be a bold person if I ventured to make any prophecy, but I am quite sure that, if this Bill goes through with this Amendment, the meetings of owners and men are likely to take place in a far better and more useful atmosphere than would be the case if you rigidly enacted the 7½-hour provision. I need hardly say that I hope that in the four months which are before us, with
108
a spread-over of an entirely permissive character, and with no stronger influence on one side or the other—a stronger influence of which the men are apprehensive—discussions will take place, out of which we shall find that in many districts, rather than see mines thrown out of operation, rather than see the dismal roll of unemployment increased by hundreds of thousands of men, the miners will come together on the lines of the spread-over, and work this Bill, which will shortly no doubt be enacted.
I do not feel entitled to go more deeply into this matter. It is only that I feel entirely in disagreement with the Lord Chancellor who opposed this Amendment. He fears that any step which is taken by your Lordships for putting elasticity into the Bill is taken as a hostile move on our part towards the mining population. On the contrary, I feel that the effect will be of an entirely different character, and that this permissive power will enable mines to be worked which would otherwise, unfortunately, be closed, will enable a larger sum of money to be paid in wages, and will at the same time, I believe, improve a Bill on which none of us look with very great favour, but from which, we hope, may come some of those benefits which noble Lords opposite have told us it contains.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with respect to the Amendment to the Amendment, to which I have not addressed myself, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say this. I cannot be responsible at all for the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed in the second paragraph. I have not had time to consider it and I should not like to recommend it to your Lordships. My noble friend is, of course, a far greater authority on this question than I am and I yield to him entirely in that respect; but I cannot take any responsibility for putting in these words without further consideration. I am responsible for the slight modification in the earlier part, which appears to me to be justified. Of course, if your Lordships are willing to agree with my noble friend Lord Gainford your Lordships will, no doubt, be right and I shall be wrong; but I cannot take the responsibility for it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will now put the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford.
On Question, Whether the House shall agree to the Motion not to insist upon the Amendment in Clause 11, page 20, line 32, but to insert 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 wards '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, 1920, 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 the 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.")
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 162; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Spencer, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rutland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Cushendun, L.

Sutherland, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Wieklow, E.

Deramore, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Yarborough, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Camden, M.

Desborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Chaplin, V.

Doverdale, L.

Normanby, M.

Churchill, V.

Dulverton, L.

Salisbury, M.

De Vesci, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Winchester, M.

Elibank, V.

Ernle, L.

Zetland, M.

Falkland, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Albemarle, E.

Goschen, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hailsham, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Beatty, E.

Hambleden, V.

Forester, L.

Bradford, E.

Hill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E.

Hood, V.

Gainford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Novar, V.

Gifford, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Sidmouth, V.

Glentanar, L.

Sumner, V.

Greville, L.

Dudley,' E.

Ullswater, V.

Hampton, L.

Feversham, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Aberdare, L.

Harlech, L.

Grey, E.

Addington, L.

Harris, L.

Halsbury, E.

Aldenham, L.

Hastings, L.

Harewood, E.

Alvingham, L.

Hawke, L.

Iddesleigh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Heneage, L.

Ilchester, E.

Annaly, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Inchcape, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Illingworth, L.

Iveagh, E.

Armstrong, L.

Joicey, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort)

Lauderdale, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Kenmare, L.(E. Kenmore.)

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.']

Auckland, L.

Leconfield, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Leigh, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lloyd, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bayford, L.

Lovat, L.

Midleton, E.

Berwick, L.

Luke, L.

Minto, E.

Biddulph, L.

Melchett, L.

Morton, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Monkswell, L.

Onslow, E.

Carson, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Peel, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mowbray, L.

Plymouth, E.

Moynihan, L.

Powis, E.

Clifford of. Chudleigh, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Sandwich, E.

Clinton, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Selborne, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Somerleyton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Southampton, L.

Trenchard, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strachie, L.

Vernon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Roundway, L.

Swansea, L.

Waleran, L.

Sandys, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Wavertree, L.

Sempill, L.

Templemore, L.

Weir L.

Sinclair, L.

Teynham, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Russell, E.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Passfield, L.

Reading, M.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is a small consequential Amendment which I hope your Lordships will allow me to make in the Interpretation Clause, Clause 18. In that clause in the definition of "District" there is a reference to Part IV of the Bill. The Amendment which has just been inserted relates to Clause 14, which is Part III of the Bill. Therefore in the Interpretation Clause we must leave out "Part
112
IV" and insert "Parts III and IV." It is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 18, page 23, line 40, after ("Part") insert ("III and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments: the Committee to meet to-morrow.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.