Sitting of 26 July 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Colwyn Bay Urban District. Council Bill [Lords],
Margate Corporation Bill [Lords],
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation (Freemen) Bill [Lords],
Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords],
London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Worcester Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That,, when it is intended to propose Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords.]
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    PRINTING AND STATIONERY DEPARTMENT (BOMBAY GOVERNMENT).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of Bombay with a view to the Indianisation of the printing and stationery department?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has no information on the subject. The matter is one for the Government of Bombay, by which the Department in question is controlled.

    WOMEN FACTORY INSPECTORS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of women inspectors employed by the Government of India under the Factory Acts?
    Earl WINTERTON: Factory inspectors are appointed by local Governments. Definite information regarding the number of women inspectors is not available, but will be obtained.
    Colonel DAY: How many factories in this province were not inspected last year by these Government inspectors?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman has not indicated, either in the question or in his supplementary, to what province he is referring, perhaps he will put a question down.

    ANDAMANS (COLONISATION).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the views of the Government of India on the Report of the Andamans Colonisation Committee?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have received a report from the Indian gentlemen who visited the Andamans last December to see for themselves conditions in the Mappilla villages, but I cannot state the result of their consideration of the report.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Committee still being continued?
    Earl WINTERTON: The question does not relate to that. It deals with a

    IMPORTS INTO AND EXPORTS FROM INDIA OF GOLD AND SILVER COIN AND BULLION.

    Year.

    Gold.

    Silver.

    Imports.

    Exports.

    Net Imports.

    Imports.

    Exports.

    Net Imports.

    Fine ounces.

    Fine ounces.

    Fine ounces.

    Standard ounces.

    Standard ounces.

    Standard ounces.

    (a) On Private Account.

    1923–24

    …

    4,329,248

    9,892

    4,319,356

    106,640,579

    14,558,616

    92,081,963

    1921–25

    …

    12,024,013

    58,792

    11,965,221

    122,252,985

    19,961,700

    102,291,285

    1925–26

    …

    6,201,513

    65,934

    6,135,579

    108,180,111

    14,715,118

    93,464,993

    (b) On Government Account.

    1923–24

    …

    —

    —

    —

    1,195,966

    19,872

    1,176,094

    1924–25

    …

    —

    —

    —

    76,398

    13,524

    62,874

    1925–26

    …

    —

    —

    —

    166,540

    267,779

    101,239*

    * Net Export.

    specific matter. If the right hon. Gentleman wants information on the wider question, perhaps he will put a question down.

    MADRAS AND BENGAL COUNCILS (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to allocate seats for labour representatives on the Councils of Madras and Bengal?
    Earl WINTERTON: In the Madras Council there are at present no special seats for labour, and it is not proposed to create any, but it is proposed to increase the special representation for the depressed classes from five seats to 10. The Bengal Council has at present two labour seats, and it is proposed to add one for the depressed classes.

    BULLION (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what amounts India have taken in gold and silver bullion during the last three years?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    WINDWARD AND LEEWARD ISLANDS. STEAMSHIP COMMUNICATIONS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received information from the Windward and Leeward Islands that their steamship communications with the outside world are now restricted to a single unpunctual monthly freighter without cold-storage capacity; and whether, as this isolation is affecting the school and medical necessities of the islands, remedial measures can be taken through the Imperial Economic Committee or in any other way?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am aware that the subsidised steamship service hitherto operated by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company between Canada and the Colonies mentioned has been withdrawn, and replaced by a service of the nature indicated. The question was considered by the recent West Indian Conference, and a resolution passed by that Conference has been transmitted to the Government of Canada. As my hon. Friend is aware, the agreement concluded at Ottawa in 1925 between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the West Indian and other Colonies provided in Article IX for steamship services to the Windward and Leeward Islands, and pending the establishment of such services I do not consider that there is any further action which I could usefully take in the matter.
    Mr. HURD: Cannot something be done in the matter of assisting this movement in connection with the Imperial Economic Committee?
    Mr. AMERY: Arrangements have been entered into, and we ought to wait and see if they come to fruition.

    BARBADOS (CODRINGTON COLLEGE).
    Sir GEOFFREY BUTLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information from the Government of the Barbados as to the inauguration of a fund for the rebuilding of Codrington College, recently destroyed by fire?
    Mr. AMERY: I understand from the Governor that the Board of Governors of
    1672
    Codrington College are proceeding with the collection of subscriptions locally towards a fund for rebuilding, and that a wider appeal is under consideration.
    Sir G. BUTLER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to make that appeal better known?
    Mr. AMERY: As soon as they have decided what form the appeal should take, I shall be glad to support it.

  KENYA.

    KILINDINI (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the weight and value of the total exports and imports shipped at the port of Kilindini in the last years for which statistics are available; and can he give the total port dues or landing charges paid during the same period towards the cost of Kilindini port and harbour?
    Mr. AMERY: Excluding bullion and specie, the value of imports in 1924 was £7,570,502 and of exports £7,653,554. The bill of lading tonnage was, for imports, 220,333 tons and, for exports, 259,326 tons. I have chosen 1924, as my information as to tonnage is incomplete for 1925. The revenue accruing to Government from light dues, pilotage, port dues, and cranage charges at Kilindini Pier was £34,061 in 1924 and £51,909 in 1925.

    NATIVE LABOUR.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the most recent figures showing the number of natives employed in Kenya on road-making and the building of railways; and what proportion of such labour is voluntary?
    Mr. AMERY: In March, 1926, 9,539 natives were engaged on railway construction in Kenya, all voluntary labourers, and I have no reason to suppose that any compulsory labour is being employed by the Kenya Government on road construction.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is labour employed on the roads in the reserves not by the Government but by the chiefs of the reserves?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes; in the reserves there is a certain amount of labour for purely communal purposes employed in the manner indicated.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is compulsory?
    Mr. AMERY: It is compulsory.

    MILITARY SERVICE.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Military Service Bill for Kenya contains any provision for the exemption of those who object to military service on religious or other grounds?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no express provision of this kind, but ministers of any recognised denomination are to be deemed to be enrolled in their professional capacity only, and the Governor has absolute discretion to exempt any person from service.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a Clause providing for conscientious objection is inserted?
    Mr. AMERY: I think we must trust the local Government to frame its legislation in accordance with local needs.
    Mr. SMITH: Why has it been deemed necessary to introduce conscription after the Colony has managed so many years on the voluntary principle?

    RAILWAYS.
    Mr. SMITHalso asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present mileage of railways in Kenya; of this, what is the amount actually laid in native reserve territory; and what is the cost per mile for passenger traffic for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans?
    Mr. AMERY: The mileage open at the end of 1925 was 971 miles. On the second point, I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 13th April. I understand the last part of the question to relate to passenger fares. My information is not recent, but apparently the standard fares are 36 cents of a shilling first class and 18 cents of a shilling second class. The third-class fares per mile diminish as the distance increases; for example, for 100 miles, 6¼ cents a mile, and for 500 miles, 4¾ cents a mile. The difference between rates is according to class, not according to race.

    COLONIES (GRANTS-IN-AID).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the amount of the Grants-in-Aid for Palestine, Kenya, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Tanganyika, respectively, for 1924–25, 1925–26, and 1926–27?
    Mr. AMERY: As the information required by my hon. Friend is of a statistical character, I propose, with his consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Palestine.

    £

    1924–25

    197,000

    1925–26

    212,000

    1926–27

    (estimated)

    108,000

    Kenya and Uganda.

    Nil.

    Northern Rhodesia.

    £

    1924–25

    138,000

    1925–26

    100,000

    1926–27

    (estimated)

    50,000

    Nyasaland.

    £

    1924–25

    95,400

    1925–26

    110,000

    1926–27

    (estimated)

    140,000

    Tanganyika.

    £

    1924–25

    350,000

    1925–26

    350,000

    1926–27

    Nil.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

    DOMINION LOANS (TRUSTEE ACT).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will place on the agenda for the discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference the suspension of the Trustee Act, 1900, as regards the Dominion loans for a period of three years, owing to the British Government's large conversion loans falling due during the next three years?
    Mr. AMERY: Certainly not.
    Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this suggestion might have a very injurious

    1675
    effect on future Empire development generally?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes.
    Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise that this suggestion has not come from the Labour Party?
    Mr. AMERY: I shall be very glad to credit the Labour party with that.

    BRITISH GOODS (EXCISE DUTY).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received representations regarding the method adopted by certain Dominions of assessing the value for Customs purposes of British goods subject to Excise Duty; and whether the question will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    DATE OF MEETING.
    Mr. HADEN GUESTasked the Prime Minister whether there has been any alteration in the date proposed for the meeting of the Imperial Conference; and whether, if any postponement is necessary, he will consider holding a conference devoted to economic questions alone on the original date, the political conference only being postponed?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether it is now the intention to delay the date of the meeting of the Imperial Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I hope to be able to make a statement in the course of the next few days.

    NATIVE RACES.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether he can announce what place is to be given to discussion on the position of the native races in the overseas Colonies and Dominions at the Imperial Conference in October?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to answer this ques-
    1676
    tion. I do not anticipate that any discussion on the subject will take place at the Imperial Conference.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of the present Government to encourage emigration of British people to Rhodesia and Kenya?
    Mr. AMERY: As regards Kenya and Northern Rhodesia, the question of emigration in the ordinary sense does not arise. It is certainly no part of the policy of the Government to discourage the settlement of suitable British people, but it is primarily for the local Government to consider how far and under what conditions they should be encouraged. In the case of Southern Rhodesia, a land settlement scheme under the Empire Settlement Act has been entered into with the Southern Rhodesia Government.
    Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the introduction of compulsory military service will encourage British people to go out there?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no evidence that any large proportion of those who emigrate to the Empire in any case are conscientious objectors.
    Colonel DAY: Are not group settlements being encouraged in Rhodesia?
    Mr. AMERY: Not that I am aware.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of group settlements now in operation in Australia?
    Mr. AMERY: The only group settlement scheme at present in operation is the Western Australia scheme which was described in a Report (Cmd. 2673) published last month. The number of groups formed under this scheme up to the present is 135.

    BRITISH HONDURAS (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Colony of British Honduras has found it necessary to

    1677
    abandon the formation of an Agricultural Department owing to lack of funds; and whether, in view of the importance of such a Department in the development of that colony, any assistance can be given for that purpose from the Imperial Exchequer?
    Mr. AMERY: Suggestions for the formation of an Agricultural Department in British Honduras received consideration some years ago but were not proceeded with owing to the financial stringency then existing. Since that date a large and active Forestry Department has been constituted; and having regard to all the local needs and circumstances, I do not consider the necessity for an Agricultural Department to be so pressing as to justify an appeal to the Imperial Exchequer.

    TANGANYIKA (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of German subjects who have now returned to Tanganyika; and whether any of these have been given assistance from reparations moneys?
    Mr. AMERY: I have not received any report on this subject from the Governor.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman has the Report, will he let us know whether any of these Germans are, as suggested in the latter part of the question, getting any assistance out of the reparations which should come to this country?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BRITISH TRADE, RUMANIA.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the present position of British trade with Rumania; and whether, seeing that the latter country is of great potential wealth and recovering from after-War difficulties, any efforts are being made to indicate openings for trade to the commercial community?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Exports from the United Kingdom to Rumania have gradually increased each year for the last few years, while imports from Rumania have remained fairly steady. Openings for British trade in Rumania are constantly being brought to the notice of United Kingdom manufacturers in the course of the ordinary work of the Department.

    SCOTTISN DYES.
    Mr. SANDEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Scottish Dyes, a subsidised company, have sold their patent rights to manufacture jade green on the Continent to the Interessen Gemeinschaft, in Germany; and whether he is aware that this new colour is being sold by the Interessen Gemeinschaft on the Continent at considerably less price that Scottish Dyes are selling it in this country?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed that Scottish Dyes, Limited, have licensed the Interessen Gemeinschaft to manufacture jade green, but I have no information as to the price of this dyestuff on the Continent.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the few brilliant things that Scottish Dyes have accomplished, and that by the sale of it to the German combine the export of our cloth to the Continent has been absolutely stopped, with the result that there is unemployment in Lancashire?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: If the hon. Member will give me detailed particulars, I will look into the matter.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is the purpose of having a Dyestuffs Act to build up a dyestuffs industry in this country, if the persons so protected then sell their rights to the Continent?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: This is purely a matter of a jade green.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK POOL (GENERAL STRIKE).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture what sum is still unpaid for milk sent to the milk pool during the general strike; and what steps are being taken to expedite payment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. Since the 19th June the Milk Pool Accounts Department have paid 5,070 accounts, of the total sum of £213,000, leaving approximately £30,000 unpaid. I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to pay the remaining accounts, received from farmers, by the end of this month.

    EGGS (GRADING).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that there are no official standards in the London market for the grading of eggs and no official definition of what is a first-grade egg, he will take steps to frame an official standard?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware that there are no official grades for eggs in this country. The subject was dealt with in a Report on Egg Marketing which was recently issued in the Ministry's Economic Series of publications, and certain grades were suggested for consideration. As soon as my right hon. Friend has the views of representative organisations of producers and distributors on these proposals, he will consider what steps can usefully be taken.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has there not always been a different price for eggs, fresh eggs and new-laid eggs?

    ALLOTMENTS, HOUNSLOW.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a group of allotment holders at Hounslow have received notice to quit their holdings by 21st August, and will he grant them an extension of time in order to gather their crops?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: The allotments in question are not under my right hon. Friend's control, but inquiry has been made, and it has been arranged through the local allotments authority that the owner of the land will allow the tenants to remain undisturbed until the 30th September, 1926, unless he is able to come to a voluntary arrangement in the meantime for an earlier quitting on compensation being paid by him

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many women over 70 years of age have applied for old age pensions during the first six months of 1926; and how many have been granted and how many refused?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information can be obtained at an early date?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid not, because the figures of men and women are not kept.

    CASUAL WARDS.
    Mr. PALINasked the Minister of Health what number of casual wards in various parts of the country have been closed within the past two years; and whether, in view of the over-crowding in the remaining casual wards and the long distances between one casual ward and another, it is possible to make adequate provision for persons applying to such wards, in view of their statutory right to receive bed and board for the immediate relief of their destitution?
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the frequent closing of casual wards throughout the country, while at the same time conditions of serious overcrowding are reported in numerous casual wards; whether he will institute an inquiry into the sufficiency or otherwise of the accommodation throughout the country for persons desiring to use the casual wards; and, if it be found that such acommodation is insufficient, will he take steps to prevent the further closing of casual wards and, if necessary, to secure their re-opening in certain areas?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The total number of casual wards in England and Wales closed in the last two years is 12. In every case the possible effect of such closing on the casual wards of neighbouring unions was fully considered before permission to close was given As my right hon. Friend

    1681
    recently informed the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, boards of guardians have been required to re-open casual wards which have been closed, or to build new or extended wards wherever it seemed desirable.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Minister of Health what is the estimated additional cost per week imposed on the boards of guardians as the result of the present coal stoppage, and its effect upon other industries?
    Sir K. WOOD: Complete information is not available, but my right hon. Friend estimates the increased weekly cost to boards of guardians at approximately £300,000.

    INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCE AND LOSSES.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information as to the disturbance and loss in the other industries of the country which have been caused by the coal stoppage?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The figures of unemployment in various industries, published monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, furnish some indication of the effect on other industries of the stoppage of coal mining. It is not possible, on the information at present available, to give any precise estimate of the aggregate loss to the country as a whole; but the loss in production through unemployment may be estimated as not less than £100,000,000. If the unavoidable reduction in the activity of those recorded as employed is taken into account, the total loss in the period since 30th April may reach £150,000,000, or even a larger sum. These figures include the losses suffered by the coal mining industry (which may be estimated at about £40,000,000) and those caused by the general strike.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the hon. Member—I know he has given considerable study to this question—how his figures coincide with those of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman)?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have made an examination of the figures of the right hon. Member for West Swansea. I say—subject to correction—that I think he has reckoned some things twice over, and left out certain things. I think he has put the figures in some cases too high, and in some cases too low. The general result of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, £160,000,000, comes out within £10,000,000 of the figure which I have given in my answer.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to allow the House of Commons to adjourn for several months while the mining dispute is still in progress?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If, unfortunately, the mining dispute still remains unsettled, it will be necessary to summon Parliament at the end of each month in order to ask the House to pass a fresh Resolution continuing the Emergency Regulations.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that reply that the Government have absolutely abdicated their functions as a Government; and, if that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider doing the honourable thing, resign and allow some other Government to take his place?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, if the mining dispute is still on, summoning Parliament a day earlier in order to discuss a way out of the difficulty?
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Prime Minister propose to continue his present policy of starving the miners for months and months?

    IMPORTS (PREVENTION).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain British citizens have recently visited Continental capitals with the avowed object of preventing the export of coal to Great Britain which is urgently needed for essential services for the maintenance of the industries of the country; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Emergency Regulations expressly prohibit any person from doing anything calculated to impede or restrict

    1683
    the supply of fuel to British nationals, he will inform the House what action is being taken in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir; but the Emergency Regulations do not apply abroad and no action is being taken.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Do not the Emergency Regulations apply to British citizens who endeavour to injure their country and cause unemployment, by actions abroad; when they return home has not the right hon. Gentleman power to deal with them?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been advised that the Emergency Regulations do not apply to British citizens in respect of actions committed abroad.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Might I suggest to Members of the Cabinet that they should advise the British people to buy British goods and not German coal?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If a man engages in treason against the State abroad, can he be prosecuted when he comes here?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask for notice of that question. In any case, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that treason is a particular and different offence.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider framing a Regulation to deal with these cases when the Emergency Regulations are brought forward again?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider it, but I must be guided by my legal advisers.

    TREASURY BILLS (RATE OF DISCOUNT).
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the average rate at which Treasury bills have been allotted during the period covered by the present coal stoppage; and what would have been the actual saving to the nation if the bills could have been discounted at 1 per cent. below the rate at which they were sold?
    Mr. McNEILL: The average rate has been £4 7s. 3d. A reduction of 1 per
    1684
    cent, in the rate of discount would have reduced the cost by a little over £1,000,000.

    MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).
    Mr. A. GREENWOODasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any communication regarding the conclusions reached by the Lichfield Board of Guardians at its meeting on Friday, 23rd July, on the question of the continuance or non-continuance of out-relief for miners' wives and children?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is informed that the guardians resolved to continue to relieve the wives and children of strikers. He is taking steps to obtain further information.
    Mr. GREENWOODAt what scale will relief continue to be given?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries to-day.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not a fact that, according to the Press, the scale is to be half the normal scale?
    Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask whether a man who has ceased work because his employer has ceased to continue his contract is a striker?
    Sir K. WOOD: In reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), I believe there was a report to that effect but my right hon. Friend desires to obtain the exact facts.
    Mr. SHAW: May I repeat my question? Is it in order for a Minister to state that a man who has ceased worked because his employer has stopped a contract is a striker?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are inclined to mix up strikes and other disputes.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the new scale operate during the present week? Relief given as late as Friday last for the following week is at the quarter rate?
    Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say. My right hon. Friend is making inquiries to-day?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman visit the Cannock Chase area with me?

  SCOTLAND.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Land Court, on page 6 of their Report for 1925, on the question of the resumption of small holdings by purchasers for the purpose of residence thereon; and whether, in view of these remarks and the cases which have occurred since at Aberdeen and elsewhere, he will reconsider his refusal to introduce legislation on the subject?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 4th May.

    COTTAGE HOLDINGS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that legislation has been introduced with the object of enabling agricultural labourers in England and Wales to acquire cottages and areas of ground to cultivate in addition to their earnings, he is yet in a position to state what steps will be taken to afford similar or corresponding facilities to Scottish farm servants to increase their earnings?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to his question on the 6th July on this subject. I am of opinion that the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1919, provide adequate powers to enable the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to constitute small holdings suitable for meeting the requirements of agricultural labourers as well as other applicants.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that nine hours a day is quite enough for any man?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises here.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the paragraph to which I refer in
    1686
    the Government's White Paper referred, not to the constitution of small holdings, but to the additional lands which could be used as a supplement to the earnings of the agricultural labourers, and could not some similar advantage be given to actual working farm servants and not smallholders?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am looking into the whole question.

    HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what number of houses, under Government housing schemes, have been built for and occupied by agricultural labourers, and how many of such houses are intended to be built; and what amount of financial assistance has been and will be given by the Government for houses for agricultural labourers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I have no information showing the occupations of persons residing in houses erected under the various State-assisted schemes. As regards the last part of the question, the Government hope shortly to introduce legislation dealing with rural housing.

    TRADE UNIONS (ACCOUNTS).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour whether members of the public can obtain copies of the accounts of each of the trade unions; and where and at what price they can be obtained?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Members of the public can inspect and obtain copies of the annual return of any registered trade union at the Registry of Friendly Societies (Central Office), 17, North Audley Street, W.1, on payment of the statutory fees, namely, 2s. 6d. for inspection and 1s. 6d. for a copy or extract not exceeding 216 words, and 6d. per folio of 72 words above that number.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether every member of a trade union is entitled to a free copy of the balance-sheet each year?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. If my hon. and gallant Friend were a member of a trade union, he would be entitled to that.
    Mr. POTTS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether employers' trade union accounts can be examined in the same way?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    TABLE showing the INCREASE in the NUMBER and PERCENTAGE Of INSURED PERSONS, in the principal METAL and TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, recorded as UNEMPLOYED, APRIL, 1926 to JUNE, 1926—GREAT BRITAIN.

    Industry.

    Estimated number Insured at July, 1925.

    Insured Persons Recorded as Unemployed.

    26th April, 1926.

    21st June, 1926.

    Increases.

    Number.

    Per cent.

    Number.

    Per cent.

    Number.

    Per cent.

    Metal Manufacture (All Classes).

    348,460

    59,847

    17·2

    171,898

    49·4

    112,051

    32·2

    Engineering (All Classes).

    778,470

    88,780

    11·4

    141,396

    18·2

    52,616

    6·8

    Metal Trades (All Classes).

    502,570

    43,329

    8·6

    76,819

    15·3

    33,490

    6·7

    Construction and Repair of. Vehicles (All Classes).

    293,500

    16,950

    5·8

    35,077

    12·0

    18,127

    6·9

    Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing.

    223,110

    77,705

    34·8

    88,152

    39·5

    10,447

    4·7

    Cotton

    576,540

    56,640

    9·8

    143,991

    25·0

    87,351

    15·2

    Woollen and Worsted

    256,470

    24,826

    9·7

    63,933

    24·9

    39,107

    15·2

    Total of above industries.

    2,979,120

    368,077

    12·3

    721,266

    24·2

    353,189

    11·9

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE" (NARRATIVE OF EVENTS).
    Commander FANSHAWEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the frequent misconceptions of the circumstances connected with the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire," he can publish a collective narrative of the information which has been issued from time to time since that event, together with any facts which have subsequently come to the knowledge of the Admiralty, either confirming or modifying what has been published?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): As this matter has

    UNEMPLOYMENT (METAL AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES).
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in each of the principal metal and textile industries at the end of April and of June, 1926, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    been raised by questions in this House throughout the last few months, I have, for my own guidance, had a collection made of the information which is available at the Admiralty relating to the loss of the "Hampshire."
    For reasons of principle which have been explained to the House on various occasions, I am not prepared to publish the actual Report of the Court of Enquiry. But if there be a desire on the part of hon. Members that I should do so, I propose to publish a narrative of events connected with the loss of the ship, which will embody the knowledge derived from the evidence given at the Court of Enquiry as well as from contemporary official reports, signal logs and

    1689
    other reliable sources of information, and will show that the conclusions which the Admiralty have publicly stated at various times are based on very full and coherent information on all the material facts.

    ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (TRANSFEREES, FRANCHISE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the position of married men, their wives over 30 years of age, single men over 21, who, as a result of their being transferred from Rosyth and Pembroke to Devonport, under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, will be disfranchised until the autumn register of 1927 at Rosyth and Pembroke as well as at Devonport and Plymouth because they will not have the six months' residence qualification in any of these places to include them in the autumn register of 1926; and whether, in these circumstances it is proposed to take any steps to remove this disability, which affects a number of people through no fault of their own?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not had my attention drawn to these cases, but the persons in question have lost their qualification for this year's autumn register as a result of the Representation of the People Act, not of the Economy Act, and the only effect of the latter Act in their case is that they will have to wait till the autumn of next year, instead of the spring, before getting on the register again. That, however, is not a very serious matter, as there is no likelihood of a general election next year, and all ordinary local elections are held on the autumn register.

    GERMAN DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government regards the condition of disarmament in Germany as satisfactory or unsatisfactory and, in the latter case, in what respect?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): It was the hope of His Majesty's Government last November that the exchange of Notes which took
    1690
    place between the Ambassadors' Conference and the German Government at that time (and which were published in Command Paper No. 2527) would lead to the rapid conclusion of all the disarmament questions that were still outstanding. It is consequently a matter of disappointment that there are still a certain number of points—mostly, I am happy to say, of a minor nature—which are not yet settled. While for this reason my right hon. Friend expressed the view in reply to the hon. Member for Penistone on the 21st July that the position was not entirely satisfactory, he does not desire it to be concluded that His Majesty's Government regard the situation with any disquiet.

    ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantages, if any, have been secured by His Majesty's Government for this country, other than the right to construct the Tsana barrage, in return for the concessions made to the Italian Government in Southern and Western Abyssinia?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government were not seeking advantages for this country but the development of the water supply of the Sudan and Egypt, on which the future prosperity of those countries depends. The Tsana barrage is an essential element in this development, and the only object of the recently concluded Agreement with Italy was to secure Italian support in subsequent negotiations with the Abyssinian Government who alone can authorise the construction of the Tsana barrage. We shall, I hope, be able to show the Abyssinian Government that this work will serve the interests of Abyssinia as well as of the Sudan and Egypt.
    Colonel DAY: May I ask whether any subsequent agreement has been come to with the Italian Government and our representative in Rome?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The only agreement has already been made public.
    Captain BENN: Does the agreement with Italy in reference to this matter go beyond the terms of the 1906 Treaty?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. Certainly not.
    Mr. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Abyssinian Government has made any application to the League of Nations for the use of the latter's good offices or influence in connection with the recent negotiations between the British Government and Italy?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government received on the 24th July a letter from the Acting Secretary-General to the League of Nations transmitting to them a copy of a communication in which the Abyssinian Government invited the observations of the League in regard to the Anglo-Italian exchange of notes.
    Mr. BUXTON: May I ask whether it will come before the Council or the Assembly in September?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I imagine it will come before the Council.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (INDIA).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of desertions from the Air Force in India since January, 1926; how many such deserters have since been arresetd; if L. A. C. Taylor, who was granted 28 days' leave in February last, has been arrested; if the Air Force is satisfied that this man, whose previous character is very good, did in fact desert, and that there can be no question of death or of murder; and, seeing that Taylor is a white man of over six feet in height and proportionately built, and that such a man could not hide himself in a country like India without attracting attention wherever he may go, will he have inquiry made into this case?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first three parts of the question, with the exception of the airman referred to, whose case may or may not be one of desertion and who has not yet been found, there has been no desertions from the Air Force in India since the 1st January, 1926. As regards the remaining parts, inquiries are being made of India, and I will communicate the results to my hon. Friend.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this man ever reached the city to which he was given leave, and whether a period of six months is a proper time to wait before taking care of a British soldier in a country like India?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot answer the first point without notice. This is the first time my personal attention has been called to the case, and I will at once make inquiry, in response to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Cabinet Committee with regard to the safeguarding of the iron and steel trades is final so far as the lifetime of this Parliament is concerned; and, if so, having regard to the importance and present condition of this industry, what steps does he propose to take to preserve this trade for the nation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no intention of altering their decision regarding the application of the iron and steel industry for the appointment of a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my previous answers on this subject.
    Captain BENN: Why does the Prime Minister disclose the fact that this industry has applied for safeguarding, in view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade says the applications must be secret?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is so much simpler to take a question as it is asked.

    JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.
    Sir EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are now prepared to adopt the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill as a Government Measure, seeing that it passed its Second Reading and a Select Committee of this House in 1923, again its Second Reading in 1924, all

    1693
    its stages in another place in 1925, and has this year, after passing its Second Reading in this House by 222 to three, reached the Report stage; and, if so, when it is likely to be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say yet what the Autumn Session may bring forth, but I will favourably consider the possibility of giving time for this Bill.

    LEASEHOLD TENURE.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public interest in the matter, he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into questions relating to leasehold tenure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Two select Committees have already reported upon this subject, and the facts are well known to the Government. In these circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Royal Commission. The whole question is at present under consideration.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now satisfied that no money for Communistic propaganda is coming into this country from Russia direct or through any other country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My natural caution restrains me from giving a categorical reply, but I have certain special powers in this matter under the Emergency Regulations, and will not hesitate to use them if the occasion should arise.

    MR. MELLON (VISIT TO EUROPE).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is to have the opportunity of meeting the United States Secretary to the Treasury during the visit of the latter to Europe; and, if so, whether any date has been fixed for the meeting?
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the course of his visit to Europe, Mr.
    1694
    Mellon has expressed his intention to visit London for any official purposes, before returning to America?
    Mr. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend has no information beyond what has appeared in the public Press as to Mr. Mellon's movements, and he has no reason to believe that Mr. Mellon's visit to Europe has any official significance.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether in view of the reiteration by the United States Treasury of inaccurate statements concerning the Debt settlement it would not be conducive to a better understanding if Mr. Mellon was invited by the British Treasury to make himself acquainted with the facts?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is a question into which obviously I cannot go.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (ABINGDON STREET).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the annual amount of wages, and also rent and other expenses, incurred in connection with the Stationery Office in Abingdon Street; and what was the total return of sales for the last three years?
    Mr. McNEILL: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the particulars he desires in the trading accounts for the Abingdon Street Sales Office. The accounts for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24 are published on pages 170 to 174 of House of Commons Paper No. 75 of 1925, and those for the year 1924–25 on page 154 of House of Commons Paper No. 50 of 1926. Accounts for the year 1925–26 are not yet issued.
    Colonel DAY: Do they show a profit or a loss?
    Mr. McNEILL: I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the accounts which I have mentioned.

    INLAND REVENUE (TEMPORARY STAFF, DISCHARGES).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary civil servants are now under notice of dismissal from the Inland Revenue; and how many of these are ex-service men?
    Mr. McNEILL: 324 members of the temporary staff of the Inland Revenue are at present under notice of discharge by reason of the necessity to provide places for qualified ex-service entrants from the recent examination. Wherever circumstances allow, and the men themselves desire it, arrangements are being made to extend the period within which the notices become operative. The men concerned are practically all ex-service men who did not sit or who failed to qualify at the examination.

    TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers' salaries, allowances, and expenses, and benefits paid to members, other than dispute pay, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The annual return for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the union to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers shows total receipts £524,732 1s. 9d.; working expenses, £284,010 4s. 7d. (including £189,419 6s. 8½d. as salaries and allowances of officers, etc., and branch secretaries) and benefits paid to members other than dispute pay, £80,202 2s. 11d.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers of the Everton Division of Liverpool are well aware of all these things, which is their business, and that they will be quite prepared to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he wants to know it.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: How can the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) tell the House, seeing that he has no connection with Everton or its trade union men, and knows nothing about it.
    Mr. HAYES: Inquire in Liverpool and see!

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether the
    1696
    Meston Committee on the question of Grants-in-Aid has yet held a meeting to consider the draft Report; and, if not, whether the Government proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware that any meeting has been held. As I stated on the 24th June, the Government are engaged on independent inquiries into the subject.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (COMPULSORY INSURANCE).
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Transport whether, before introducing a Bill providing for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the present system of penalties imposed by insurance companies upon those policy-holders who have been unfortunate in meeting with accidents in any year?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I can assure the hon. Member that regard will be had to all relevant considerations, before the introduction of any system for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles.

    PICCADILLY CIRCUS (ROUND-ABOUT TRAFFIC SYSTEM).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Minister of Transport what was the reason for the delay in the inauguration of the roundabout-traffic system in Piccadilly Circus, and on what conditions the objections of the local authority were overcome?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The "roundabout" system of traffic devised for Piccadilly Circus started operation this morning. Personal discussions between the officials of my Department and those of the local authority have, I hope, satisfied the latter that the advantages of the scheme for this district will outweigh any possible disadvantages.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will it be possible to say whether the system has worked successfully this morning?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The system is working quite satisfactorily, and the police are handling the situation with great skill.

    WEST HAM GUARDIANS
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the salary paid to Mr. Alan Beal and Mr. John James Scott, and the amount of superannuation Sir Alfred Woodgate is receiving, the three special commissioners who have been appointed to take charge of the West Ham Poor Law Union; and what expenses are being allowed to each of the three commissioners?
    Sir K. WOOD: The salaries, including the cost of living bonus, of Mr. Beal and Mr. Scott are £764 and £864 a year, respectively. Sir Alfred Woodgate is in receipt of a superannuation allowance of £843 a year; the question of the remuneration which may be approved to be paid to them as appointed guardians under the Board of Guardians (Default) Act is under consideration.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister tell us the figures that are to be paid before the House rises for the Adjournment, or are we simply to go on as at present?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the scale of relief paid out for the week ending Saturday, 24th July, in the West Ham Poor Law Union to single persons who are not living with their parents; single persons who are living away from home; for man and wife; man and wife with one child; man and wife with two children; man and wife with three children: man and wife with four children; man and wife with five children; man and wife with six children; the value of relief in kind and the value of relief in money; and if he can now state what is the maximum scale to be paid out where there is no family income?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that the scale on which relief has been paid during the week in question is the scale followed by the late guardians during the last fortnight of their administration.
    The scale was as follows:

    s.

    d.

    Single persons living with their parents

    7

    0

    Single persons living away from home

    11

    0

    Man and wife residing together

    14

    6

    Man and wife, with one child

    18

    0

    Man and wife, with two children

    22

    0

    s.

    d.

    Man and wife, with three children

    25

    6

    Man and wife, with four children

    29

    6

    Man and wife, with five children

    33

    0

    Man and wife with six children

    37

    0

    In addition, an allowance for rent was made except to single persons. It will not be possible to state the value of relief in (a) kind; and (b) money granted during the week ended the 24th July, 1926, until Tuesday next, the 27th instant. The maximum of the scale of relief granted in any one case in which there was no family income was 41s. 6d.
    Colonel DAY: Is it contemplated to make any reductions in these scales?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Cannot we have an answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put the question on the Paper.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the percentage of interest that will be charged for the last loan of £300,000 to the West Ham Poor Law Union; the amount of interest and principal that is to be repaid each year; the total amount now owing to the Government; what amount of interest and principal has been repaid since the first loan was granted in 1921; and what amount of principal and interest has to be repaid each year until the outstanding loans have been repaid?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following the reply:
    The rate of interest to be charged on the last loan of £300,000 issued to the West Ham Guardians is 5 per cent.; the amount of principal to be repaid and interest payable each year in respect of the above loan is as follows:

    Financial Year

    Principal.

    Interest.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    1926

    …

    —

    10,397

    10,397

    1927

    …

    —

    15,000

    15,000

    1928

    …

    30,000

    15,000

    45,000

    1929

    …

    60,000

    12,750

    72,750

    1930

    …

    60,000

    9,750

    69,750

    1931

    …

    60,000

    6,750

    66,750

    1932

    …

    60,000

    3,750

    63,750

    1933

    …

    30,000

    750

    30,750

    The total amount now owing to the Ministry in respect of all loans outstanding is £2,275,000; the amount of principal repaid since first loan was granted is £425,000, and the interest paid £195,482.
    The amount of principal and interest to be paid each year until the outstanding loans have been repaid is as follows:

    Financial Year.

    Amount.

    £

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    370,736

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    428,506

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    466,513

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    457,488

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    438,188

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    319,600

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    161,831

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    30,750

    ESPERANTO.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the publication by the International Labour Office of a bulletin in Esperanto, and to the resolution of the Workers' Group at the Eighth Session of the International Labour Conference welcoming this publication, and urging the desirability of adopting Esperanto as an auxiliary language at international conferences and whether he will take steps to indicate His Majesty's Government's attitude on this question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. Under the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference the official languages are French and English. If and when proposals are made to adopt other languages at International Labour Conferences, His Majesty's Government will consider their attitude on the question.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who learn this language find it extremely difficult to discover anyone to whom to talk?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
MARGARET GRACE BONDFIELD, for the Borough of Wallsend.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major CRAWFURD:
55. "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the cases dealt with at the Old Bailey on 19th July of R. V. Robinson and R. V. Benny, special constables enlisted during the strike; whether he is aware that these men, with another still at large, were billeted on Sir W. Bass, at 78, South Audley Street, in accordance with a Home Office scheme of hospitality, contrary to the authority of Sir W. Bass, who had confined his invitation to Government clerks or typists; whether any of the three men had been previously convicted; what guarantees or credentials are required of men offering themselves as special constables; what amends, if any, have been made to Sir W. Bass for the theft of his property by these men; whether he is aware that Sir W. Bass has been compelled to issue process against the Commissioner of Police to regain possession of the articles stolen by members of his own force; and whether any reply, other than a bare acknowledgment, has been sent to Sir W. Bass's repeated written requests for an explanation?"
Major CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. May I ask if Question 55 was put? I regret that I was not in my place when it was first called.
Mr. SPEAKER: I called the hon. and gallant Member, but received no response.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury or the Prime Minister inform the House what are the New Services referred to in this Motion.
The PRIME MINISTER: This is the ordinary form for taking New Services, provided the Regulations have been carried out which entitle us to put down this Motion. The New Services which have appeared during this Session have been four in number. One is the Board of Control in connection with the Harnett v. Bond case; another is the guarantee for the British Empire Exhi-

1701
bition and the remaining two are Emergency Services, both of which have been passed through Committee.
Captain BENN: Is it necessary to move this Motion if the New Services have been laid more than two days before the closing of the Committee?
The PRIME MINISTER: No; it has to be done in any case. They have been laid and a full opportunity has been given to the House.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 105.

Division No. 390.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mac Intyre, Ian

Albery, Irving James

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

McLean, Major A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Fermoy, Lord

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Forrest, W.

Macquisten, F. A.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Apsley, Lord

Frece, Sir Walter de

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Ganzoni, Sir John

Manningham-Butler, Sir Mervyn

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gates, Percy

Margesson, Captain D.

Balniel, Lord

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Meyer, Sir Frank

Barclay Harvey, C. M.

Goff, Sir Park

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Grace, John

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Grant, Sir J. A.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Berry, Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Betterton, Henry B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Murchison, C. K.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Grotrian, H. Brent

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Brass, Captain W.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Pennefather, Sir John

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Penny, Frederick George

Briscoe, Richard George

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hammersley, S. S.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Pielou, D. P.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Pilcher, G.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Buckingham, Sir H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bullock, Captain M.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

Ramsden, E.

Burman, J. B.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Remnant, Sir James

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hennessy, Major J, R. G.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Herbert, s.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (sury, Ch'ts'y)

Campbell, E. T.

Hilton, Cecil

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Rye, F. G.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Salmon, Major I.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Sandon, Lord

Clayton, G. C.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Savery, S. S.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Hurd, Percy A.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Skelton, A. N.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Couper, J. B.

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jacob, A. E.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F (Will'sden, E.)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Starry-Deans, R.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Kindersley. Major G. M.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Dixey, A. C.

Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Drew, C.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Templeton, W. P.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Loder, J. de V.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Elveden, Viscount

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Tinne, J. A.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wise, Sir Fredric

Yerburgn, Major Robert D. I.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wolmer, Viscount

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Womersley, W. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Barnston.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

NOES.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Purcell, A. A.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

Riley, Ben

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barnes, A.

Hardie, George D.

Scurr, John

Barr, J.

Harney, E. A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Batey, Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bondfield, Margaret

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smillie, Robert

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, H. B. Lees (keighley)

Bromley, J.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Snell, Harry

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Cluse, W. S.

Lawrence, Susan

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lee, F.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, Ernest

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Varley, Frank B.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Mackinder, W.

Viant, S. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dennison, R.

March, S.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Duncan, C.

Montague, Frederick

Welsh, J. C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Morris, R. H.

Westwood, J.

Gardner, J. P.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Gillett, George M.

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gosling, Harry

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Paling, W.

Windsor, Waiter

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Groves, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

M r. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Air Expenditure, 1924–25, and of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at
this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prince Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 107.

Division No. 391.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Briscoe, Richard George

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Albery, Irving James

Brittain, Sir Harry

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Brooks, Brigadler-General C. R. I.

Cope. Major William

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Couper, J. B.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Apsley, Lord

Buckingham, Sir H.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Bullock, Captain M.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Atholl, Duchess of

Burman, J. B.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Balniel, Lord

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Campbell, E. T.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Berry, Sir George

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Dixey, A. C.

Betterton, Henry B.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Drewe, C.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Eden, Captain Anthony

Boothby, R. J. G.

Chapman, Sir S.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Elveden, Viscount

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major sir A. B.

Clayton, G. C.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Brass, Captain W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Fermoy, Lord

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Rye, F. G.

Forrest, W.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Salmon, Major I.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sandon, Lord

Ganzoni, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Savory, S. S.

Gates, Percy

Locker Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Shaw, Capt. Waiter (Wilts, Westh'y)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Loder, J. de V.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Goff, Sir Park

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Grace, John

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Skelton, A. N.

Grant, Sir J. A.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Gretton-Doyle, Sir N.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macintyre, Ian

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)

McLean, Major A.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Macquisten, F. A.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Storry-Deans, R.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Makins, Brigadler-General E.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Malone, Major P. B.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Hammersley, S. S.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Templeton, W. P.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hartington, Marquess of

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Moore-Brabazen, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Tinne, J. A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Titchfeld, Major the Marquess of

Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Murchison, C. K.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Wanner, Captain D. E.

Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar- & Wh'by)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hilton, Cecil

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Pennefather, Sir John

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Penny, Frederick George

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Pielou, D. P.

Wolmer, Viscount

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Pilcher, G.

Womersley, W. J.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Ramsden, E.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Hurd, Percy A.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Remnant, Sir James

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Rice, Sir Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Jacob, A. E.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Barnston.

NOES.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Kennedy, T.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lawrence, Susan

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gardner, J. P.

Lee, F.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Livingstone, A. M.

Barnes, A.

Gillett, George M.

Lowth, T.

Barr, J.

Gosling, Harry

Lunn, William

Batey, Joseph

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Mackinder, W.

Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bondfleid, Margaret

Groves, T.

March, S.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Grundy, T. W.

Montague, Frederick

Broad, F. A.

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Morris, R. H.

Bromley, J.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Naylor, T. E.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Oliver, George Harold

Charleton, H. C.

Hardie, George D.

Palin, John Henry

Cluse, W. S.

Harney, E. A.

Paling, W.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hartshorn, RI. Hon. Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Hirst, G. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Dalton, Hugh

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Potts, John S.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Purcell, A. A.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Riley, Ben

Day, Colonel Harry

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dennison, R.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Duncan, C.

Kelly, W. T.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

1706

Scurr John

Stephen, Campbell

Westwood, J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Thurtle, Ernest

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Tinker, John Joseph

Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

Smllile, Robert

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Windsor, Waiter

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)

Varley, Frank B.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)

Viant, S. P.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wallhead, Richard C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Snell, Harry

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

M r. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Stamford, T. W.

Welsh, J. C.

Hayes.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Cape; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Buchanan.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
  CLASS II.

    SCOTTISH OFFICE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £102,609, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927. for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices' Expenses under the Inebriates Act, 1879 to 1900, expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1870 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland', Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides, and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."—[NOTE: £60,000 has been voted on account.]

  CLASS VII.

    SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.
    Resolved.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,858,345, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Ant, 1925, and certain Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £870,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS IV.

  PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,680,342, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £2,750,000 has been voted on account.]

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  CLASS

    MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,130, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[NOTE: £73,500 has been voted on account.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I should say, before this Debate begins, that on previous occasions on this Vote the Committee has been willing to allow me, for the sake of greater freedom of Debate, to permit reference to possible legislation in connection with the coal industry. If no objection be taken, I propose to do that on this occasion also.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I move a reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to the present position of the disastrous struggle in the coalfield. This is the beginning of the lath week of this struggle. Even if negotiations were to begin to-morrow, the length of the struggle would be a record one, because my recollection of the 1921 struggle is that, even after we had agreed substantially to the terms of the settlement, there was still an interval of about a fortnight for ballots and for meetings of the executive. So that I think it may be assumed that, even if there be an arrangement in the course of this week, this is the record struggle in the coalfield. It is a very disastrous one. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) last week estimated that the cost up to the 16th July would reach £160,000,000. It is generally assumed from the Government Bench that that was an under-estimate, and I see that Sir Hugh Bell, writing last week, estimates that the cost is something like £250,000,000, which means over £20,000,000 a week, and the loss is a progressive one, as has been pointed out by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. I see that the Board of Trade returns, which were issued the other day, show that, whereas at the beginning of this year our export

    1721
    trade was only 80 per cent. of pre-War, the last three months it is down to 62 per cent. So that, from every point of view, it is a. very disastrous struggle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in very striking words, which are quoted to-day in the "Times," and which are worth reading, made this estimate:
    "The loss of two or three weeks' stoppage would he recoverable; that of eight or nine weeks would make a deep mark on the livelihood of the whole people. A stoppage of twelve or fourteen weeks would probably mean that it will be two or three years before the country can recover.'"
    Those are the facts which we must face, and it is rather significant that, when he used those words, he regarded 14 weeks as being the maximum. I wish he were quite sure he was right. I propose to call attention to this struggle at this stage for two reasons. The first is, that we shall be separating in a few days. The next is, that there is an opportunity which has come again, I think, for a peaceable and an honourable settlement. I can assure my hon. Friends who represent mining constituencies that there was no desire to take the handling of the question out of their hands, but we thought it was desirable that somebody not intimately associated with the matter should raise it on this occasion. There is another opportunity which, I think, has come providentially in the course of the last few days, and it has come through the intervention of the representatives of the churches in this country. The "Times" to-day, in a very remarkable article, which, I hope, hon. Members have had an opportunity of discussing, makes these observations. Having first of all referred to several proposals which have been put forward, or might be suggested for the settlement of this dispute, it goes on:
    "No other proposals have a comparable basis of knowledge and authority (to the Report of the Commission), and none contain the promise of that permanence which is essential for the well-being, not only of the mining industry itself, but of every other industry which, directly or indirectly, depends upon coal. Parliament to-day will undoubtedly express the opinion of the nation if it affirms that an agreement is to be sought and found on the lines prepared by the Commission."
    That is a very remarkable statement, coming from the leading supporter of the Government in the Press. I think there is an opportunity which has come within the last few days of carrying out that
    1722
    suggestion, of making that agreement effective.
    4.0 P.M.
    That has arisen out of the intervention of certain Bishops and clergy and ministers of religion. There may be two views with regard to interference by the Churches in matters of this kind. I observe that some of the papers charge them with butting in, and let me say at once that the clergy are not equipped by training, or by study, or by temperament to express opinions upon questions of wages and with regard to business arrangements. They generally, very wisely, leave those matters to the laity. They provide the stimulus and the appeal, and the more worldly-minded laity do the rest, and the combination is a very effective one. What wages should be and what business arrangements ought to be—I agree that is not a sphere in which the clergy can be helpful, but surely, when there is strife in the nation and strife which divides their own Churches, they are entitled to intervene, to put in a plea for conciliation and agreement, and they have not gone beyond that on this occasion, not in the least. The actual proposals which they have put forward are proposals which have either been accepted by the Prime Minister at different stages in the controversy or to which he has raised no objection, with one exception, and that is an exception where they have the memorandum of the Chairman of the Commission in their favour. All that they have done is to put forward proposals which others have formulated and to which the Prime Minister from time to time has given sanction. But the question is not whether it is right or wrong for the clergy to intervene; the thing that matters is the reply of the Miners' Federation, and it is to that I propose to draw attention. The Miners' Federation in their reply to the Churches say:
    "The suggested terms of settlement have been submitted to the full executive, and we are instructed to inform you that if a settlement can he arrived at upon the terms set nut in the enclosed document, the committee are prepared to recommend their acceptance by the miners."
    They go on to use words which I think are full of significance and full of promise:
    "Further, they indicate their readiness to make every endeavour to assist in the

    1723
    reorganisation of the mining industry to ensure its success."
    What are the proposals which are referred to there? They are very important, because the Prime Minister has promised, in a letter which he wrote to Wallsend, that the Government will do all that they can to obtain a full discussion of any reasonable proposals. Let us see what they are. The first one is that the Commissioners are to be called back to work out in greater detail the proposals of their Report. No one will claim that the Report has been carried out by the Government at present. Several vital recommendations made by the Commissioners have been left out altogether, or have been deferred, or postponed, or put off by the appointment of other committees; some have been dropped altogether. The very first recommendation dealing with royalties has been abandoned; that with regard to reconstruction has been very inadequately carried out; that with regard to selling has simply been referred to another committee; research, and may other points which I could mention are left out altogether. What is it that this document proposes? It is that you should re-appoint your Commission, and that they should work out in detail their recommendations with regard to reconstruction and to wages. Surely that is a reasonable thing in itself, and I am sure the Prime Minister must see that. In fact, he used words about a fortnight or three weeks ago which indicated that he was in favour of carrying out the Report of the Commission provided he got an acceptance of it. If words mean anything this letter of the Miners' Federation constitutes an acceptance.
    The Report is not clear in many respects. There have been disputes among people who start endeavouring to interpret it as to the meaning of the Clause with regard to reconstruction and with regard to wages. Therefore, it is very desirable that the Commission should be called back in order to give an interpretation of their own proposals. The right hon. Gentleman himself said some time ago that the owners and miners were unlikely to agree. That has been obvious to everybody for over a year. It is getting less likely except on the basis of complete defeat and surrender on one side, and that
    1724
    is a very cruel and crude process of arriving at an agreement. An agreement is a misnomer when it is reached under these circumstances. Therefore, an impartial authority must intervene. This leads to the next proposal, and the most remarkable Proposal, which is contained in this document which is accepted by Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook on behalf of the Miners' Federation. It is that if anything is left at the end of the three or four months which it will take to work out the details upon which agreement has not been obtained, you should then have a joint committee with an impartial chairman, and that his award should be accepted. This is the first time that we have had that declaration, and I urge the Government not to throw away the opportunity which this involves. These words are so important that I think I will read the actual Clause:
    "At the end of the defined period, if disagreements should still exist, a joint board, consisting of representatives of both parties, shall appoint an independent chairman, whose award in settlement of these disagreements shall be accepted by both parties."
    That is a very startling concession, and it would be a grave disaster if the opportunity were thrown away. It is the first time that anything of the kind has ever been suggested in the coal field. It is a tremendous step for them to have taken. There have been protests, I believe, from parts of the coal field with regard to it, but the executive have accepted it, and it is certainly not for the Government not to accept it. Let me point out here what the right hon. Gentleman himself said in a speech which he delivered at Norwich a few days ago, because it bears upon this vital issue:
    "Here is the coal industry "—
    said the Prime Minister—
    "where owners and miners appoint chartered accountants to investigate and report, each on their behalf, where all the facts are available on which judgment could be given by a competent arbitrator. There is no industry where so much data is available, where negotiations would be more easily possible, where the position is less necessary, but it goes on week after week, because .facts are unpalatable and neither side is willing to accept the arbitration and verdict of an outsider. There is presumably in their opinion no one in the whole world sufficiently able or impartial to sit in judgment on the coal industry. I repeat that that is an unreasonable position to take up."

    1725
    At that very moment, the Prime Minister had, I think, in his pocket a proposal accepted by Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook to take the judgment of an impartial arbitrator upon the very facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four months!"] If they can get through the difficulties in less time nobody wants to put it off. I will come to the question of the four months in a minute. Let us confine ourselves to that point to begin with. This is not something which the Prime Minister said three months ago—it is too much to ask him to stand by that—this is something which he has said within the last fortnight, and I ask him to point out what is the difference between the proposal which is contained in the letter of Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith to the representatives of the churches and the very proposal which he puts in here. It is the very first time that we have had this. I think, as a matter of fact, injustice has been done to some of the speeches made by Mr. Herbert Smith from time to time, and the concessions which he has indicated as clearly as any man could, having regard to the difficulties which he had, and the fact that he had to enter into negotiations on the subject. I will just give one or two of them in order to show. He has never, so far as I can recollect, uttered the slogan, "Not a penny off the wage and not a minute on the hours." He is opposed to the extension of hours, and he has said quite distinctly that if he had to choose between reductions of wages and an extension of hours, he would have no hesitation in recommending reductions. But he has made one or two very remarkable speeches. I called attention to them at the time, but no importance was attached to them by the Government. For instance, there was the occasion when he said:
    "What I did say was that I was prepared to start at page 1 and go to the end of the book"—
    Which means the Report—
    "which would have meant examining a reduction of wages."
    He was prepared to examine that proposition. What more can you expect. When starting negotiations, somebody says, "Well, you must accept either an increase of hours or a reduction of wages." He says, in so many words, "I will not assent to an extension of hours,
    1726
    but I am prepared to examine the question of a reduction of wages." Is not that a perfectly fair position? I agree with the comment of the Trade Union Council on the declarations which he made:—
    "It will be plainly seen by anyone that these two statements"—
    and there have been many others—
    "were exactly the same, and could only imply an acceptance of all the implications in the Report of the Royal Commission. including the possible readjustment of wages, if the rest of the recommendations of the Report were also to apply."
    I agree, but what matters now is this: You have got away from the slogan, and you have got now to a definite position, above the signatures of the two officials of the Miners' Executive, that they are prepared to assent to a reference back to the Commission with a view to working out the details of the Report on reconstruction and wages; and, if there is anything left upon which there is disagreement, they are prepared to refer the matter to an impartial chairman and to stand by his decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "And a susbsidy!"] I cannot deal with that question at the same time. The very next point I was coming to was financial assistance, which is also in these recommendations:
    "That financial assistance be granted by the Government during the defined period"—
    which is four months—
    "under a scheme to be drawn up by the Commissioners."
    There are objections to a subsidy. I have stated them here. There were only 12 who voted against it. Objections on principle to a subsidy cannot be taken by hon. Members opposite or by the Government, unless they are prepared to say they were absolutely wrong in assisting to give a subsidy previously. What I want to point out is that the Prime Minister has accepted the principle of a subsidy quite recently. Only the question of amount remains. On 1st June the Prime Minister made the following statement—I can read the whole passage if anybody says I am unfairly quoting it, but I will read only the few lines that matter:
    "a temporary subsidy in sonic form or another, whether it be to aid time period while negotiations are proceeding"—

    1727
    which is exactly the proposal here—
    "or whether it be to aid certain districts, after the negotiations have succeeded, I cannot say—but for one of these two purposes, it may be for both, I believe some assistance will be necessary."
    Therefore, the principle which is embodied in the proposals of the Churches, which have been accepted by the Miners' Federation, is also accepted by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] No Commission can work out the details of a matter of that kind except, of course, subject to the supreme control of the Treasury. The proposal in the Churches' document is that the subsidy should extend to four months. The Prime Minister himself proposed three months. I quote from the "Times" of 25th March, when he first made his proposal to the Miners' Federation and the mineowners. It ends:
    "After pointing out that he was prepared to give financial assistance, the Prime Minister himself suggested three months."
    That is the difference, that the Churches suggest four months and that on 25th March the Prime Minister suggested three months.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: £3,000,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The £3,000,000 came later. That was one of the afterthoughts which were, I am afraid, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that was the Prime Minister's idea at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hidden hand!"] Not so very hidden! Let me point this out to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Less will be required now. Money will go further now in the way of a subsidy than it would go at the beginning of the struggle. Why? Because prices have soared very considerably. Export prices are up 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. Of course, they will drop, but they will not drop immediately, and it is quite an open question whether, with wisdom, the export prices would return to the figure they were at when the stoppage took place. At the time of the stoppage the export prices were artificial prices, they were fictitious prices, they were prices caused very largely by the working of the subsidy; and even before that there was competition, which was a pretty wild one,
    1728
    between one firm and another inside our country, which did not put us in the position which we ought to have been in with regard to the prices which we could have exacted from the foreigner. At the present moment a subsidy would go very much further than it would have gone three or four months ago.
    The amount of the subsidy was very largely due to the way in which it was paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was like Providence, he rained on the just and the unjust alike. He gave his subsidies to prosperous concerns that did not need it—just the same amount of subsidy as he did to concerns that could only just keep going by means of it. If there were a little wisdom in the way the subsidy were worked out there is no reason why it should be a very high one. I have even heard people say that possibly £3,000,000 might be sufficient. PersoNaily I should not have thought so. I want to be quite frank about that; I do not think it would, and I think it would be a mistake to arrive at an agreement on the assumption that £3,000,000 would be quite adequate. According to a right hon. Friend of mine, we are losing per week about £15,000,000, and it is a progressive loss. According to Sir Hugh Bell we are losing over £20,000,000 a week. At worst the subsidy would not be one-half of one week's loss; and if the Government agree upon the other principles of that document, that is, a reference back to the Commission to work out the details of reconstruction, and an independent chairman to decide fiNaily what the figures should be, I cannot believe they would stand in the way of a settlement of a dispute that is so disastrous to the industry of the country because they are afraid of increasing by just a few millions the subsidy which they have offered.
    What are the alternatives? There is only one alternative and the Government know it. The alternative is the extension of hours. The real struggle is between the recommendations of the Commission and something which the Commission turned down—the extension of hours. The leading Government organ says to-day:
    "Parliament to-day will undoubtedly express the opinion of the nation if it affirms that an agreement is to be sought

    1729
    and found on the lines prepared by the Commission."
    The lines prepared by the Commission are the lines which are laid down in this document, which has now been accepted by the chiefs of the Miners' Federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No subsidy!"] The Prime Minister has accepted the principle of a subsidy, as I have pointed out, and so has the Chairman of the Commission—"financial assistance in order to carry the transaction through." If a subsidy is the only thing in the way—well, I shall be surprised if the Prime Minister says no. Do not let us use the subsidy in order to masquerade the demand for an extension of hours. I know that I cannot discuss the merits of a Bill already passed, although you have been good enough, Mr. Hope, to suggest that we have latitude with regard to future legislation, and I do not propose to transgress. But the Eight Hours Act is a voluntary one, and although I cannot discuss the wisdom or otherwise of having carried it, I can discuss the probability and the desirability of its being brought into operation, and I can discuss the question of how long it is likely to take to force its acceptance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"]—and whether it is worth the nation's while to prolong the struggle in order to let the owners have their way in that respect. So far the attempt has been a failure. The fact that a few thousands have gone back only emphasises the unanimity with which the miners have rejected this alternative.
    The Government promised not to legislate in the absence of an agreement. On the 15th of May the Prime Minister said:
    "If the parties agree that it is advisable that some temporary modification should be made in the statutory hours of work, the Government will propose the necessary legislation forthwith, and give facilities for its immediate passage."
    An agreement between the miners and the mineowners was a preliminary condition to any legislation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer denies it, I will read it again?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)indicated assent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad that my right hon. Friend voted for that Act under a false appreciation of the promise
    1730
    given by his chief. These are the Prime Minister's words:
    "If the parties agree that it is advisable that some temporary modification should be made in the statutory hours of work, the Government will propose the necessary legislation forthwith and give facilities for its immediate passage."
    That is, if there is agreement between the parties with regard to the extension of hours, then the Government would bring in legislation; but there was no agreement between the parties. There is no doubt at all about this, that if we are to wait until the miners surrender on the question of hours it will prolong the straggle for some time.
    Mr. BATEY: Another 12 months.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will prolong it for some time. There is no doubt about that. It must be obvious to anyone who is watching what is going on. Mr. Herbert Smith has made quite clear what his view his. I hear men say, "Is it not very much better that the miners should have exactly the same wage, even if they put in an extra half-hour or three-quarters of an hour or hour?" I do not think those who argue like that can have given real thought to the problem. What does it mean? If there is prosperity the reduction of wages disappears, they automatically get back their wages—automatically, more or less; but prosperity will stand in the way of a reduction of the hours of labour once the increase has been accepted. Let us look at the figures given by the Report. The Commissioners point out that if you extend the hours of labour by one hour you increase the output by 30,000,000 tons.
    In the alternative, you reduce the number of workers by 130,000. What does that mean? It means that, when the demand is least, the work is longest and you are to produce the most. You produce the most when the demand is least, and the suggestion is that you should gradually diminish the hours of labour, as the mines become more prosperous. This means that, when the demand is most, you must reduce the hours. The miners realise perfectly well that, once you give a concession upon that point, if you make it a reduction of wages that is something you can get back, but if you make it on hours it is a very difficult thing to get back at all. They had to get legislation in order to make it im-

    1731
    possible for the minority to stand in the way of a general reduction of hours in the mines. That is why the proposals of the Government with regard to amalgamation have been brought in. It is in order to prevent a minority of owners making amalgamation impossible. The Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to shops was in order to prevent a minority of shopkeepers making it impossible to close the shops in a given area. It is the same thing here. I was in the House of Commons when the struggle for the eight hours was going on for a great many years, and I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here too. I think he was. The vast majority of the miners were in favour of it. There was a minority against, and it was only by introducing legislation that it was made possible for an eight-hour day to be introduced into the mines. The moment, therefore, you get an Act of Parliament that makes it permissive, if, by exhaustion, you drive the miners back to their old hours, it will be a very slow process before they can get back to their present conditions. What is the result? You will have a permanent lowering of the standard of living in the mines instead of going forward.
    Mr. BATEY: That is the intention.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In 1919 what happened? The recommendation in favour of seven hours, my recollection is, was unanimous. It was signed by Mr. Adam Nimmo, and if the owners signed it the Government may depend upon it that it was not too generous a concession under the circumstances. There were very important members of that committee, great industrialists, who were in favour of a gradual reduction to six. Sir Althur Balfour, who was the head of the great inquiry into the industrial conditions; Sir Thomas Roydon, a great shipowner; Sir Richard Duckham, and Mr. Justice Sankey. Three of them were great business men, and they were in favour of a gradual reduction to six. Seven hours does not mean seven hours. Seven hours, according to the Report of the Commission, means sometimes eight, but on an average it means seven hours and 37 minutes, working out of the sunlight, working under conditions of
    1732
    momentary peril, and I do not think that that is fully realised, and that ought to be taken into account. Take the figures given by the Commission. The average number of deaths from accidents in the mines between 1922 and 1924 was 1,200; seriously injured, 4,900; disabled for more than seven days, 197,000—that is with a million workers. I do not think that seven and a-half hours ought to be converted into eight and a-half unless it is absolutely, demonstrably essential for the very life of industry in this country.
    Can the Prime Minister be surprised that the miners and their leaders say, "If we have got to choose between a temporary reduction of wages and an extension of hours, in this dangerous trade, we would rather take a temporary reduction of wages"? I do ask him not to commit the Government, and, by committing the Government, commit the country to a disastrous struggle in order to force an extension of hours upon an unwilling industry, because that is what the struggle is coming to at the present moment. That is really the choice between the Report of this Commission. They, after examining the situation carefully, came definitely to the conclusion that they were against it. They point out that France has the same number of hours. Belgium has the same number of hours. They point out that the output of the French miner per person is only two-thirds of that of the British miner, yet the French miner has his seven-hours day underground, according to this document. They say that it is a definite lowering of the standard, and they point out that one effect of it will be that, if Britain lengthens her hours, the other countries will follow suit. They will be forced to do it, because of the inferiority of their mines, of their difficulty in competing with us at the present moment, and, if we increase the hours of labour, in order merely to exist, they will have to increase their hours, and we shall be in a worse position than ever. I think it is worth while to remember the actual words of the Commission:
    "If Britain lengthens her hours, these other countries will certainly consider whether they should not follow suit. All that would have been achieved would have been a general lowering of the standard of leisure in all mining countries."
    I ask the Prime Minister not to commit us by a refusal of these terms to driving

    1733
    the miner, by a process of exhaustion, to a permanent lowering of the standard of living, not merely in this country, but throughout the mines of Europe. He has to choose between two alternatives, and this is the time to choose one of them. One is the owners' policy. They have never swerved from it. They have given lip service to reconstruction, but they have never really been in favour of it; they have done their very best to limit it. They have confined it to the initiative of the owners, and they have come to the conclusion that there is no harm in this Bill from their point of view, nor is there. It is the price they paid to the Government for the agreement to increase the hours. Repeated Commissions have sat upon their industry, but they have never yet said a word that gives them credit for efficiency; on the contrary, every Commission that has investigated has come to the conclusion that there is much to be done to reconstruct the industry and make it more efficient. But I must say this for them, that when they have an idea, they stick to it, and their one idea has been to increase the hours of labour. If they get their way, it will prolong this struggle; it has prolonged it already. It has made negotiations impossible while that Bill was going through the House of Commons, and while an opportunity was given to the miners to make up their minds.
    What will happen? If, under the cruel lash of necessity, the miners are driven to accept this alternative, there may be a temporary relief, but there will be temporary embarrassment and permanent mischief. You wilt have an immediate increase in unemployment by 130,000, for you are not going to produce an extra 30,000,000 tons of coal which nobody will buy. So, therefore, you put 130,000 more miners out of work. You will have a general lowering in the standard of living in the mines, and distrust between capital and labour. You will have a removal of the pressure for increased efficiency; you will keep unrest alive in the coalfields. You will begin again an agitation, about hours this time, where you want peace. You will have the same haggling about hours and reduction of wages which you have got now, and you will have a perpetuation of strife, ill-will and bitterness. That is what the acceptance of the owners' tactics and strategy means. On
    1734
    the other hand, if the Churches' policy is adopted, the Report of the Royal Commission plus an independent Chairman, a reference to the Commission of the details of their proposal, a small subsidy which will not amount to half the weekly loss, you can put the coalfields on a sound business footing; you will procure the hearty co-operation of the miners, and you will restore goodwill in the coalfields for the first time.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I wish, indeed, it were as simple a matter to get peace and prosperity and co-operation in the coal industry as one might imagine from the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with a good deal of what he has said, and I disagree with some of it, but I agree most strongly with an observation which he made at the beginning of his speech, when he said that there are two points of view about what took place the other day, and about the intervention of the gentlemen who had intervened. There always must be two views—the view of the man in office and the view of the man in opposition. There is nobody in this House who is so well qualified to give the right answer to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as he himself would be if he stood where I stand to-day.
    I wish to avoid to-day as far as I can controversial matter, and I wish to indulge as little as possible in quotations from past speeches. There is only one quotation which I wish to use. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee in making any explanation of apparent discrepancies the right hon. Gentleman found in certain observations of mine which I made in March, except to suggest to the Committee that time has passed since then, and that the situation financially is a very different one from what it was then. There is just one observation I would make. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair in what he said about certain remarks I made at Norwich. It is quite true that a letter was sent to me, but it was not until a few days afterwards that I saw the deputation, and still think that in view of the letter I received, having had no opportunity of discussion, I was justified in the observation that I made. I would remind the Committee—and this is the only quotation I am going to make

    1735
    from this source, because it shows the difficulty of the whole situation which we are all up against, and it was made before I went to Norwich possibly—that I received a letter from the Bishop of Lich-field with the signature of the Secretary of the Miners' Federation attached to it. It was only in Monday's "Daily Herald" that I read that the same gentleman said, referring to a reduction of wages, that when reorganisation proposals are put into operation, wages reduction will be unnecessary. [Laughter.] That is a very different thing, and it is not a laughing matter at all. It shows the way in which reorganisation has become almost an obcession with some people in their belief that reorganisation in itself may be able to provide so much more than others think it will. The whole point of reorganisation has yet to be proved, and there is no leader, no economist but knows that you have to wait a long time for the fruits of reorganisation, however energetically it may be put into effect. Whatever reorganisation may be done it cannot put the industry on its legs in a short time.
    I think I ought to try and put before the Committee the offer—I do not know whether it is exactly an offer—the question that the deputation of the Churches put before me and discussed with me. It has been said that we turned down the proposal, and we turned down arbitration. The proposals, as the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, contained in the fore-front a suggestion that there should be an immediate resumption of work on the conditions obtaining last April, and that for a period not exceeding four months the Government should give financial assistance. Proposals of that nature in one form or another cropped up during the discussion preceding this particular dispute, and the views of the Government regarding a subsidy have been stated many times. It is quite true that in March last, when we had no stoppage of any kind, when our anxiety was to avert a stoppage and when the finances of the country had not been hit by a stoppage, we could have gone almost to any length which could have been agreed to between the parties in order to tide over a period; and in spite of the Commission's Report saying that the subsidy ought to be brought to an end at once and never again introduced, we felt that we should have the
    1736
    House of Commons with us in asking for almost any subsidy within reason to have got a settlement then.
    The fact that the representatives of the Churches were putting forward these suggestions had got into the Press on Saturday morning—I do not know how—and that is why I felt it my duty to reply immediately by letter that a subsidy in such a form could not be considered, because there has always been in many men's minds the impression that a subsidy, and a considerable subsidy, would be paid. This rests partly on the wish being father to the thought, and partly on the fact that subsidies have been paid in the past in other circumstances. I thought it was of particular importance to repudiate the suggestion that whatever desire there might be on either of the two sides to come together, or to discuss matters or to negotiate, that desirable process could only be achieved by an increased subsidy being found from any source whatever.
    I did not deal with the question of arbitration in my reply, because that part of the proposal, and the form in which it appeared, was bound up with a suggestion which the Government could not see its way to accept. The House will remember that arbitration was the basis of the proposal which I put forward at the beginning. I thought then, and I believe now that the dispute is one that can properly be dealt with by arbitration, but if it be that even under the conditions which were laid before me by the representatives of the Churches that the one side, so far as arbitration is concerned, is willing to regard it as an open question, that I regard as progress and a step forward in the right direction. But, of course, this is bound up with the question of a subsidy for four months, which is far too long a time to keep the industry, after what it has gone through, in a condition of uncertainty, an uncertainty which must be prolonged in a discussion of that kind. When I said that we could not see our way to give a subsidy, the representatives of the Churches then asked about a loan, but they put no definite suggestions forward with regard to that or with regard to the precise meaning of the loan. I explained that the Government could not undertake a loan, as it would be as bad for credit as a subsidy.

    1737
    It was difficult to see how a loan could be arranged, because the industry itself it not an entity, but consists of a number of various concerns and different societies, each of them an independent financial unit, and it seems to me impossible to find a body which could borrow or give the security unless the Government were brought directly into it.
    Supposing the loan was to be repaid by the coal trade in any form you like divided amongst the owners, the men and the royalty owners, you would in fact be carrying out such a process by mortgaging the future of the industry to that extent, by placing a charge upon it, when it is at present manifestly uneconomic over a large area, as was expressly laid down by the Report. It was because of the uneconomic situation in which the coal industry was working that the Report said there was no escape from the situation except by immediate action and the reduction of working costs. The industry has already received a subsidy of £23,000,000 in order that the necessities of the case may be thoroughly examined, and the Report of the Commission has been issued. It may well be that in the case of the subsidy, some people profited by it who ought not to have done so. I think that subsidy shared those difficulties with subsidies which had been given before, and indeed it is very difficult in practice, and I hope it may never arise again that a large subsidy will be given to any industry. I have pointed out over and over again the impossibility of seeing that that does even justice, and it would be impossible for that burden to be borne by the still more unfortunate industries in the country.
    5.0 P.M.
    There were certain very practical difficulties which were raised among the points brought before me by the representatives of the Churches. It is not as simple a matter as it appears to contemplate the reappointment of the Royal Commission with a view to that body working out the details of the terms of a reorganisation scheme and a reference to wages in their Report, the results to be incorporated by the Commission in a Parliamentary Bill or Bills. The impossibility of such a proposal as this was pointed out with great force and effect by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
    1738
    for Carnarvon, and this is the only quotation I will make, because it puts the matter in better language than I can use. Speaking in the House of Commons in August, 1919, referring to the Sankey Commission, the right hon. Gentleman, after pointing out that the reference to that Commission included two separate classes of subjects, one an immediate question—the question of the hours of labour, said:
    "The others were great questions of policy relating to the conditions of industry and the best method of working it—its organisation, questions of waste in the present system of working, the social conditions under which the miners live, nationalisation of minerals, State ownership and management of mines, and co-operation of the workers in the control of the industry. Those were gigantic questions of policy. Some of my hon. Friends and many outside seem to assume that when a Government appoints a Commission, it is in honour bound to accept all its recommendations and to put them into operation. I never heard of that doctrine in the whole history of the House of Commons. There have been multitudes of questions referred to Royal Commissions. There have been some whose recommendations have been legislated upon, and there have been many in which this was not done. But even taking those where the Government and Parliament immediately took action, it has never been suggested that the Legislature was bound to take every recommendation exactly in the form in which it was made…. I never uttered a syllable which would commit the Government, and certainly not Parliament—which I had no right to do—to accept any recommendation made by the Royal Commission upon every subject referred to it. I said the Government would give respectful consideration and attach due weight to everything the Commission reported. That I have done. There are certain questions which you can refer to arbitration—questions of wages and of hours of labour—and the Government treated the Sankey Commission as practically the arbitrator in respect of the questions of hours and of wages. But when it comes to a great question of policy, that was a totally different matter…. That would have been an abrogation of the functions of Parliament and of Government." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th August, 1919; cols. 2001-1, Vol. 119.]
    I think that that was very well and very fairly stated, and I quote it to show what I think must be the view of every Government. I want to remind the House that the present Government, having that Report—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out that the Prime Minister, after he had read it, undertook to accept that

    1739
    Report and to legislate upon its recommendations, provided the parties accepted; so I assume the Government had considered the recommendations and were prepared then to put them into operation.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was just coming to that, and was trying to draw from it the lesson that I had been much more generous than the right hon Gentleman. The present Government offered to give effect to all the recommendations of the Report, distasteful as some of them were to the Government, if they could thereby secure peace. We tailed. In spite of this, the Government have introduced a Bill, which will become law in a few days, giving effect to every one of the Commission's recommendations requiring legislative action except two, which could not conceivably make the slightest difference to the immediate situation. [interruption.] I would point this out to hon. Members. At the time that the offer was made, and during the discussions we had with both the parties, they could, if they had then co-operated with us, have joined with us in helping to frame the action taken upon the recommendations of the Report. But they would not help us, and that is why we had to legislate without help. It is a little hard on the Government if hon. Members opposite, who represent a party that would not co-operate at that time, should blame us for having fallen short in any way from the interpretation they would have placed upon various recommendations in the Report, Having got to the point where we are now, it is a little difficult to understand how it should be necesary to have a new subsidy in order that detailed schemes of re-organisation could be worked out. It is no sign of weakness, even now, to enter into negotiations. A decision to enter into negotiations is really a sign of recognising the rights and the responsibilities of leadership. Even now, as I have said before, the door is open to negotiation. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we said at the beginning of these struggles that, if the two parties, as was said in the Report, agreed, we would legislate on the question of hours. There was no negotiation; there was nothing going on; and it seemed to the
    1740
    Government, after mature consideration, not that we had any price paid to us, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—but that, as I have explained to the House over and over again, when the parties did come to negotiate, it would be found in the case of certain districts that no wages reduction could ensure those districts starting, and, by the very hardship of the case, negotiations must take place in certain cases on hours, if not on hours and wages, unless an agreement were come to that certain parts of those districts should be allowed to go entirely derelict.
    We have proceeded—in addition to what we have included in the Bill which will be discussed again to-morrow—with the consideration of other steps recommended in the Report, and we have taken action now upon certain recommendations which did not require immediate legislation. Now the right hon. Gentleman, and sometimes Members sitting opposite—and possibly some this afternoon will do the same—seem to think that it is a dilatory proceeding on our part to set up that very admirable and competent Committee which we have set up to examine the question of sales. I really do not now what alternative there is. There has never been anything of the kind covering a whole great industry, or even part of a whole great industry, so that there is very little experience in this country to go upon. For Parliament to attempt to legislate on a subject so closely touching the daily life and business of an industry without the fullest knowledge would be an act of lunacy, and it would only result in disaster later on. The name and character of the chairman and members of that Committee show at least that the subject will be examined right through to the bottom, and I think we may hope that, whatever the results of their deliberations may be, they will, at any rate, be practicable, and will be justified by the evidence that they are able to procure. They are meeting for the first time this afternoon. Then we are asking a number of influential persons to form a Fuel and Power Council, as recommended by the Commission. The Commission recommended a systematic extension of research and experiment bearing on the problems connected with the industry. We are devoting and developing our own work on the utilisation of coal and the

    1741
    study of fuel as rapidly as the necessary research workers can be got together The present programme involves an expenditure this year more than twice that of four years ago, and, as the programme develops, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's permission, the expenditure will grow. The Mining Industry Bill gives the Research Department power—[Interruption].
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was heard in perfect silence.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government has decided to provide additional money to help private initiative if it is seriously anxious to help research. If the coalowners set up a really adequate organisation for co-operative research into coal winning and all that belongs to it, the Government will do their part, and, if really promising methods of producing smokeless fuel and oil on an economic basis are set up, the Government will help to prove out the plant on a commercial scale. There, again, progress is being made, but many people are too apt to jump at what we may hope to see from this research in a few years' time, and imagine that this autumn or winter results which will inevitably come in time can be obtained at once. The purchasing Departments of the Government are prepared to buy from the output of any new plants at the market price. The Government proposals cover the whole ground of the chapter on research. [Interruption.] I venture to suggest that there is a heavy responsibility resting on leaders to-day who are not willing to come into the negotiations—[Inter-teruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Committee wishes to hear the Prime Minister to the end, and there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members later.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I mentioned a few moments ago the suggestion that the miners were prepared to consider, or, if you like, to have, arbitration. The suggestion was linked up, as I showed, with other matters. I have been told that it stands by itself, but there is no difficulty in proceeding, so far as I know, with arbitration, if the parties think that it is a better and more expeditious method of reaching a settlement than by ordinary negotiation and settling between them-
    1742
    selves. In this country we have, perhaps, been rather cautious in adopting arbitration. I think that that is a sign of very healthy independence. But there have been many occasions when, for one reason or another, it has not proved possible to reach a settlement, and the good sense of all parties has agreed that it is better to place the facts before an impartial tribunal, whether by way of a committee or a chairman, and to accept its decision as an alternative to the long and costly method of continuing a strike. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though there were no alternative but to go on until, as he expressed it, the miners were beaten or forced to their knees.
    Mr. BATEY: That is what you want.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No one on this side of the House wants, or ever has wanted, that. Negotiation can be started. There is nothing to stop it. There is nothing to stop negotiation at all. There have been many forms of arbitration and many forms of tribunal. There has never been ally difficulty in setting up a fair and impartial tribunal on lines that have conformed to the views of those concerned in the dispute. I do not see why there should be any greater difficulty to-day. Such a tribunal, under an independent chairman, has masses of information before it which have been gathered together, partly as the result of the discussions in the last few months, partly as the result of the elaborate system of joint investigation which has been carried on now for some time past.
    I know the importance that is attached to reorganisation, although I have to utter some words as a caveat on that subject, but I cannot conceive why such a tribunal should not begin by making up its mind what would be the probable effect upon the economic position of the industry of the various proposals included in the Bill that is now going through Parliament, and of the subjects to be discussed by the various Committees which have been set up. The Committee could then satisfy itself on this point before proceeding to reach conclusions as to the question of wages or hours. A policy of that kind seems to me to be well fitted to bring about a reasonable and equitable settlement. There has been no discussion yet between the two parties

    1743
    of any kind because the break occurred before they had got down to it, or even got near to it. It seems to me that now both parties are in a much better position to do that. There is only one word that perhaps I might add. Supposing the two parties would come together for negotiation or for arbitration, we would do all in our power to help. We cannot impose legislative settlements—[An HON. MEMBER: "You did with hours!"] That is not a settlement. There has been no negotiation at all as to whether, inside that, with any modification a settlement may be possible to be reached. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have said neither side could settle!"] I felt that three months ago. I cannot see now why they should not. They have both been through a term of bitter experience, and if it is not possible for men to learn by passing through a term of bitter experience, indeed I should lose hope that they might ever learn wisdom.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I think everyone in the House and outside it who has been waiting with considerable expectation for the statement the Prime Minister was to make will have heard it, and will read it, with profound dissatisfaction. My first great difficulty is this. What does it mean? The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten, at least, for four-fifths of his speech, that we are in the middle of a very disastrous trade dispute, and that the purpose of this Debate, if it serves any purpose at all, is to try to make some contribution to the termination as quickly as possible of that dispute. He finishes up by saying—how easy it is for any of us to say it—why cannot the two sides negotiate? Why? Very largely owing to the right hon. Gentleman himself. When he was reminded by my hon. Friend behind me in an interjection about what he himself said, that the two sides could not successfully negotiate, really it is not enough for him to say he said that a week or two ago, and he hopes they are both wiser than they were when he spoke last. He knows as well as I do that the history of this trade, the experience of this trade, is not going to make negotiations possible between those two sides themselves either to-day or tomorrow or the next day. I am certain the Prime Minister knows that. More-
    1744
    over, when he went on elaborating that point he mixed up negotiation with arbitration. Does he mean to tell this House and the country that he believes that either the owners or the men at the present moment are prepared to accept arbitration? I am sure he does not. Does he mean to say that at the end of a 13 weeks' dispute either side, whether it is the winning side or the losing side, is going to bind itself, not for the termination of this dispute, but beyond the termination of this dispute, for a period of time after this dispute? The suggestion made by the Prime Minister to-day to arbitrate is not the Bishop's suggestion, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. I am aware he seems to have taken a prejudice against the Bishops since they ceased to preach piety.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): As a personal remark, I say that is an absolutely unwarranted and unwarrantable statement.
    Mr. MacDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the proposal made by the Prime Minister regarding arbitration, dissociated from the other provisions of the Bishops' statement, was not the proposal made by the Bishops. He knows perfectly well that the Bishops never would make such a suggestion. It is absolutely futile. What is the position? What has he done? The right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to say on the dispute as it is to-day. He has told us this proposal was made to him through the medium of the Ecclesiastical representatives. What has he done? He has simply rejected it sans phrase—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —and those who believe that this dispute should be carried out to an abominable finish are the only people who say "Hear, hear." I know one of the great complaints of the Tory party was that there was a certain gentleman about of the name of Mr. Cook. One person who is supposed to think of nothing except to prolong the strike! There are serried ranks in front of me, and no one has led them more successfully than the Government.
    We ought to know two things. We ought to have this clear. Does the Government believe in the Royal Commission's Report or does it not? If it

    1745
    believes in the Royal Commission's Report, when is it going to carry it into effect? The other thing we want to know is this. Does the Government believe in peace? The Government has had offer after offer and opportunity after opportunity given it to make peace—[Interruption]—not the peace the hon. Member below the gangway and his friends would like I admit, but a peace which would have some modicum of justice embodied in it. Again and again they have had their opportunity. Again and again the Prime Minister has said, here and outside, that he wishes for peace, and from the beginning of the struggle to this moment he has never lifted his little finger for peace. It is very hard for me to say that. [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to go on.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am prepared to repeat it. What is the position to-day, to go back upon this point of negotiation? The Prime Minister says to both sides: "Why do you not begin negotiating?" Why did he not stand out of the negotiations until such time as the owners showed their hand? What is the use of the Prime Minister talking about going to the miners now to negotiate after he has put a bludgeon into the hands of the owners? If the Prime Minister had said to both sides four weeks ago, "Go into negotiations," the owners then were not armed with the eight-hours day to force upon the negotiations. He has, first of all, handed over a weapon to the owners. He has equipped them with knuckle dusters. Then he comes up this afternoon, in the thirteenth week of this deplorable struggle, having armed one side, and says to both sides, "Why not negotiate?" Miners are human, and miners feel things quite as much as I know hon. Members opposite do. They feel the remark I made just now. The miners have been feeling exactly the same way, and it is no use talking in the way the Prime Minister talked during the latter part of his speech, because it is not going to bring peace, and it is not going to help to goodwill in the industry.
    The Government really ought to make it clear what its position regarding the
    1746
    Commission's Report is. First of all, regarding wages, the Commission's Report has been violated by every step the Government took before and since the lock-out has taken place. The Royal Commission has said quite definitely that wages will have to fall. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you accept that?"] The Royal Commission has said that in its opinion wages must fall. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you accept that?"] But the Royal Commission at the same time said no sacrifice ought to be asked. The Government violated that condition of the Royal Commission's Report from the very beginning of the negotiations. That is perfectly plain. Whether the miners are going to be prepared to accept a reduction of wages or not remains to be seen; but before they accept any reduction in wages they are perfectly entitled to say to the Government, "You must give us some security that if that reduction is to be accepted by us, all the opportunities to obviate, it must first be explored in the industry." That is the Report of the Royal Commission. I raised this question before, and I took this line; the Government took the other line. The Samuel Memorandum, which was issued after the calling off of the general strike, supports me rather than the Government in that respect.
    I am amazed at the Prime Minister's excuse and apology for himself in regard to the question of hours. The Royal Commission's Report says that hours must not be touched until there is agreement between the two sides. The Prime Minister knows that perfectly well. "Ah," says the Prime Minister, "in exploring the ground I came to the conclusion, my colleagues, my Cabinet came to the conclusion, that in a settlement which was to be economic hours had to be dealt with. Therefore, pending their coming together, I thought that I would change the law and allow the negotiators on behalf of the owners to bring an eight-hour day into the negotiations." Is that carrying out the Royal Commission's Report? If the miners had accepted the Royal Commission's Report, and carried it out in that way, there would have been nobody who would have been more righteously indignant than the Prime Minister himself about the miners having broken their word and their bond. The Bill which will be before us again this

    1747
    week—the Mining Industry Bill—is not the Royal Commission's Report and is not the Royal Commission's recommendations. It as nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am willing to end my sentence there, but I prefer to go on and to say that it is nothing but an encouragement to the owners to suit their own personal interests and amalgamate where there is profit, not for the miners but for themselves, profit not for the nation or their own pockets, and to refuse to amalgamate when that profit does not exist. They can do that now. It is true that the stamp will cost one penny or twopence less under the Bill than it would have done had the Bill never been passed.
    The Government have never accepted the Royal Commission's Report, except in words. From the beginning to the end of the negotiations the Government have never carried out the Royal Commission's Report. In their legislation the Government have violated the Royal Commission's Report. In their handling of Mr. Herbert Smith, at the opening of the negotiations, before the lock-out took place, they violated the provisions of the Royal Commission's Report. Yet this Government repeatedly states, with the same sort of uncertainty that characterises the English weather, "We are in favour of the Royal Commission's Report." It is true that they said at first—they have not always given this qualification—that they accepted it providing the other two sides did the same. Of the other two sides the owners never accepted it. The only party that came near to an attempt at acceptance was the miners. [Laughter and HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Hon. Members are not more amused at me than I am at them. I repeat that the miners are the only party that offered at the beginning a tentative acceptance. [Interruption.]
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Oh!
    Mr. MacDONALD: Certainly.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very specific statement. He has said that the miners accepted the Report, and that owners did not.
    Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member surely does not assume that I had
    1748
    finished my argument on that point. The only barrier between the hon. Member getting his information from me was the interjections of his own side.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Which is my side?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member's side is his own, I admit. The hon. Member seemed to be surprised that I should have used the expression "tentative acceptance." Hon. Members opposite must appreciate the fact that at that time the negotiations were about to be entered upon. Mr. Herbert Smith and his friends were to be the leaders of the negotiations on one side. In these circumstances, does anyone mean to say that before the court was constituted and before the case on either side was stated, either the owners or the miners were going to say exactly what they would accept? Certainly not. What did Mr. Smith say? My right hon. Friend has quoted him. I heard him. Mr. Herbert Smith said: "I am prepared to consider the Report from A to Z"—that was the original form of his statement—"and I am willing to abide by the findings."
    Mr. HOPKINSON: His findings.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Is the hon. Member having a joke? Is this Debate a sort of country fair or is it the House of Commons Mr. Smith's statement was as I have said. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say what does that mean? [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he mean?"] What did he mean? Was it not the duty of your Government, 13 weeks ago, to bind him down to it, and to say, "What did you mean?" Instead of that they closed their doors because of some mishappening at the "Daily Mail" office, and they never said a word about the statement and never followed it up. They never took the least step to find out what he meant. They closed the doors, and then said that whilst the general strike lasted no negotiations could take place. Again and again they have had the same opportunity. The other night, on the Third Reading of the Eight Hours Bill, when we still had the matter before us, the Prime Minister wound up by a formula, a rather familiar one, which was taken up next day by the newspapers as though it were an offer for peace. Some of my colleagues round about me also thought

    1749
    it was an offer for peace. I did not. It was not an offer for peace. Yet, if that Bill, in the interests of the miners and in the interests of peace had been suspended for a couple of days, there was a good chance of something being done. It had to be suspended next day in the House of Lords because their friends, apparently, sold them and were not willing to deliver the goods.
    If that Bill had been held up for a couple of days, after it had gone through this House, to allow the expectation that centred round the Prime Minister's statement next morning to be explored, it was possible that something might have been done. When the Bill was introduced it was well known that various attempts were being made and had gone a little way towards providing some way in which the difficulties might have been surmounted; but the moment the Bill was introduced, every door to negotiation was closed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) three times in this House made suggestions for peace. You cannot ignore these things. Those of us who feel that opportunity after opportunity has been missed by this Government cannot ignore these things. Hon. Members opposite apparently think that the only thing that will satisfy them is that one side should surrender absolutely. If you put up a proposal, a very absolute one like a slogan, or one that errs on the other side by being too small, we are told that that is no good. Everybody who has been engaged in negotiations of this kind knows perfectly well that that is always how negotiations start. Either you put up something you are prepared to argue upon, or you put out something which is a feeler. That will be the case until the judgment day. Any such proposal ought to be seized upon at once and made the basis of negotiations. That opportunity has been offered again and again in this House but everything has been rejected.
    Here we are again, after 13 weeks. The Eight Hours Bill is an Act of Parliament. You think you are going to have a great victory, I suppose. You think that the Warwickshire men are going back. You think that you are going to have district agreements. The Prime Minister adumbrated that in his speech—district this way, district that way, district the other way. Perhaps he did not mean district agreements. I hope he
    1750
    meant that that was going to modified on the basis of national agreement.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, exactly as set out in the Report.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am very glad that I have got that. Some of them would like to think that they are going to have district agreements, and to smash the, national agreement. I do not wish them joy of their achievement. I would much rather have an agreement, a settlement, something which will last. My own conviction is that in industrial affairs, as in international affairs, peace is the condition of progress. An agreement come to by methods of peace is something that has a foundation; an agreement, come to, or an acceptance, as the result of the stricken field has no foundation at all, and everybody is watching for an opportunity to upset it at whatever cost to themselves, their trade, or the nation. That is what the Government is facing now. I am sorry that the Prime Minister's speech was not more hopeful. It means nothing; it is no contribution to our immediate difficulties. You can go on appointing committees; they may be good committees or they may be bad committees you can go on making investigations, scientific and otherwise; that is all right, but it is not going to take one hour, not one single second, off this terrible dispute which is oppressing this nation, and threatening its very existence at the present time.
    As to the eccleciastical suggestions, I do not agree with every word or with every principle, but I do agree in this—and this is what we should seize upon and build up into some system of peace—that there ought to be an interregnum during which work is being done. I do not see how you can avoid that or get it unless you are going to have some financial assistance from the Government. And the Prime Minister has said that he is willing to do it. After so many losses, he cannot say that he is not going to implement the promise he made three months ago to give at least £3,000,000. The losses every day are getting greater, and, if he can stop a loss of £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 by throwing into the mining industry £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, he is a good financier. If he is going to allow £10,000,000, £15,000,000, £20,000,000

    1751
    or £30,000,000 to be lost not only by the coal trade—some hon. Members. may say they jolly well deserve it—but by the whole industries of our country, if the Prime Minister says he will not on account of his poverty find £3,000,000 in order to save £10,000,000 or £30,000,000, he may get the applause of his many followers, but he will not get the thanks of the industrial sections of the community.
    A temporary, provisional period, with some form of public assistance, call it a subsidy or anything else you like—I do not like the word "subsidy," and I do not like the idea of a subsidy—which must be given, and then, at the end of that system, arbitration. I know there are difficulties; I know there are objections. Anyone in a debating society can put forward good objections, but we are not here to debate for debating sake, but to try and get the nation out of the difficulty in which it finds itself. Here we are in this difficulty. How are you going to get out of it? There is no way out so far as I can see except on the lines of what is known as the Bishop's offer, modified if you like; changed words, if you like; changed ideas, if you like. Why not get them together and discuss the whole thing, tell them what the Government is prepared to do, instead of quarrelling with the Church which has given us a much needed demonstration that it is not the organisation of the rich and the comfortable, but a great inspiring faith, whether it is established or non-established, with some application to the lives of the common people and has some contribution to make to the material uplifting as well as to the spiritual inspiration of the people? Why not take that view, thank them for their efforts, and determine to do everything we can to carry those efforts to a successful issue?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated very specifically that the Miners' Federation have accepted the Report of the Commission and that the owners have rejected it. I should like to know on what occasion the Miners' Federation accepted the recommendations of the Report and on what occasion the owners refused.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I must apologise to the hon. Member for not replying to him immediately when I was speaking I was going to refer to what Mr. Herbert Smith said at the Memorial Hall on the Saturday morning before the General Strike was declared. He said that he would accept it; and nobody followed it up.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: What Mr. Herbert Smith said was that he was quite ready to go through the Report, read it carefully, and then abide by the conclusions be reached.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps the hon. Member will take my word. I heard what Mr. Smith said, and I read it afterwards. He said much more than that.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I suggest we should refer to the written word when we get outside this House. What Mr. Herbert Smith said on that occasion was this, not in these words, but this is the effect: "I am prepared to go through that Report most carefully and to abide by any conclusions that I reach." [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong!"] In confirmation of this it must be realised that 48 hours later Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, said that in no circumstances would they accept any reduction in wages or any extension of hours. Therefore, I take it that Mr. Smith's examination of the Report would not lead him to the conclusion that an immediate reduction of wages or an extension of hours was absolutely necessary in order to save the industry from disaster. With regard to the contention put forward that the owners did not accept the recommendations of the Commission, I endeavoured to get from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) what he meant by that statement, and I also endeavoured to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as to what he meant. I say that neither of them have any ground whatsoever for making that very serious statement, and I am prepared to give way now if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will tell me in what particular the owners have refused to accept the recommendations of the Commission.
    Mr. MacDONALD: The evidence is in innumerable forms, but I was thinking principally of the letter which the owners sent to the Prime Minister and which was communicated to the Miners' Federation on the Friday before the declaration of the general strike. The letter reached the Federation at a quarter-past one on the Friday afternoon.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: In what way does that letter indicate that they refused to accept the Report?
    Mr. MacDONALD: By demanding an eight-hours' day.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The Report itself says that
    "should the miners prefer some extension of hours the Government, no doubt, will be prepared to authorise it."
    Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this is going in face of the Report? Does he say that the Government have gone against the Report in passing the Eight Hours Act? I ask the Committee really to consider the matter carefully. The Commission says that the necessary reduction in wages may be so drastic that the miners may prefer an extension of hours instead. Therefore, the passing of the Eight Hours Act is not going against the recommendation of the Commission, but rather is it to help forward their recommendations so that it may be possible in some of the exporting districts to avoid the terribly drastic reduction in wages which would otherwise be necessary. All the world knows what it would mean to South Wales without a subsidy on the basis of a seven-hours' day. It means a wage such as the South Wales owners refused to put forward as long as they possibly could, because it was such a miserable wage, and, therefore, when conditions in a district like South Wales were such that only a miserable wage could be offered, on a seven-hours' basis, surely sheer humanity demanded that some increase of hours should be put forward instead. [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: In a Debate of this sort it is not to be expected that there will not be a certain amount of interruption, but, if it be carried to a point where argument is impossible, then the only conclusion is for me to report a state of disorder.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I am doing my best not to be provocative, but facts seem to be provocative to certain hon. Members opposite. I was trying to show that the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech were not correct, that neither of his statements was correct.
    Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member read out the answers to the questions of the Miners' Federation and tell us whether the owners have accepted them or not?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I have the answers here, but there are four printed pages, and I think the Committee would prefer that I did not read them all.
    Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member tell us how many times the owners say they agree and how many times they do not agree? I find that they agree eight time out of fourteen.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: How can the owners say that they can agree to nationalise royalties? What on earth has it to do with the coalowners, or how can they introduce legislation to make it possible? And there are half-a-dozen other suggestions of that kind. The owners are not people so utterly lacking in modesty that they can undertake to introduce legislation in this House. If the hon. Member will look through their replies, he will find that in every case where they are called upon to do anything the owners say they are prepared to do it. What further acceptance than that is wanted I fail to understand.
    6.0 P.M.
    I have not finished with the right hon. Gentleman yet. His final suggestion was that the people of this country should go on paying the subsidy because it was cheaper—and here, again, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was with him— because it was cheaper to pay blackmail than to face the situation. I dare say that some people think it is cheaper to pay blackmail than to "call the bluff"; but I understand from the Prime Minister's speech that he prefers to "call the bluff" rather than pay the blackmail. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn). What were those proposals? Something

    1755
    that he called "unification of the industry." He was quite unable to say what it meant, but the blessed word "unification" was good enough; it was an excellent catchword; it had the requisite number of syllables. And the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that is a possible basis of negotiation between the parties. [Interruption.] He specifically referred to the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Ogmore, and those suggestions were comprised in the word "unification," and nothing else, on both occasions.
    Let us refer for a moment to what this Debate has turned upon mainly, what are called the Bishops' proposals. I notice that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and, I believe, the Prime Minister, referred to these Bishops and other clerics as the "representatives of the Christian Churches." In what way are they representative? Who put them in that position? Who formed the Industrial Christian Fellowship? Who elected them to represent the Churches? The whole thing arises in its present form from that remarkable document, the Archbishop Committee's Report on the relations of Christianity to industrial problems, when a certain number of people, some cleric and some lay, formed themselves into this body which now attempts to dictate to the people of England and to dictate on very foolish lines indeed. It may he thought that these gentlemen and these clerics have some spiritual ground for interference, but anyone who has read the literature which is published by the Industrial Christian Fellowship must agree, I think, that their claim to any spiritual authority is completely obliterated by what they publish. Take, for instance, the most striking point in the Manifesto of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, which is this:
    "We assert our belief that the moral and spiritual progress of the people demands that the best possible standard of living should everywhere be maintained."
    I, being a mere pagan, do not deny this. It may be that no one can be good or make spiritual progress unless he is comparatively well-to-do: It may be true; but these ecclesiastical gentlemen are not paid their stipends for preaching that sort
    1756
    of thing—that no one can be good unless he has gold or silver or brass in his purse; that no one can be good if he has only one coat, or if he has no shoes, and no staff; and, more than all, that no one can be good if he has "nowhere to lay his head." Whether that statement may be sound or not, it is not the sort of statement that we expect to hear from those who call themselves representatives of Christianity in this country. Again, they talk repeatedly of Christian Socialism. In fact, the Fellowship is the lineal descendant of the original Christian Socialists. How can one combine two such things in that way? How can one combine the Socialist belief that it is more blessed to receive than to give, with the Christian belief that "it is more blessed to give than to receive?"
    Here we have so-called representatives of the Christian Church interfering with things which do not concern them—and which they certainly cannot understand from the evidence of their own proposals—which they put forward as representatives of Christianity, basing the whole of their appeal on the grossest and most utter materialism that has ever been preached, even from the Labour Benches opposite. Pretty representatives of the Christian Church! I have more to say about these gentlemen. We industrialists, if they had done their duty in times past, if they had given us a Christian country in which to build up our economic, industrial and political system—we would have built up an industrial system suitable for Christians; and the only reason why we have not done so is that they have so utterly failed in their own proper business, perhaps through interfering with other people's business, that we have not got a Christian nation in which to build up a Christian industrial system.
    So much for that remarkable body which presumes to come in at this stage, and suggest, first of all, that we should yield to blackmail, and then, at the end of four months of paying blackmail, that we should find ourselves in exactly the same position as we are in now. If .arbitration could possibly be any good at the end of four months of paying blackmail, why on earth cannot arbitration be some good now? If Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith really mean an acceptance of these proposals, why on earth cannot they be asked

    1757
    whether they will accept arbitration here and now, arbitration in full accord with the recommendations of the Report, which involve a most drastic reduction of wages, a reduction so drastic in some districts that the Commissioners themselves say that, distasteful though it is to have to allow an extension of hours, they feel it possible that some districts may have to accept an extension of hours in order to keep reductions of wages within reasonable limits?
    Much has been heard of the recommendations of the Report for the reorganisation of the industry, and too little has been said, certainly by hon. Members opposite, about certain very much more specific and definite recommendations. For example, are we to follow out the recommendations of the Report for reconstruction while completely putting on one side this statement:
    "We think the continuance of the subsidy indefensible. The subsidy should stop at the end of its authorised term, and should never be repeated."
    That is the sort of recommendation of which we do not hear much from this Committee of Bishops. Another very specific recommendation that we do not hear a great deal about is to be found on the following page.
    "If the present hours are to be retained we think a revision of the minimum percentage addition …. is indispensable. A disaster is impending over the industry, and the immediate reduction of working costs, that can be effected in this way, and in this way alone, is essential to save it."
    How many hon. Gentlemen in the Labour party or the Liberal party have told us of those recommendations of the Report? How many moves towards a complete acceptance of the Report in these respects have been made by Messrs. Cook and Smith? Not very many. I have completely missed them myself.
    Turn for a moment to a much more important thing, and one of more practical importance, and that is the fact, which seems to be fixed in the minds of a lot of non-technical people not Associated with the industry, that one has only to put into effect the proposals of the, Commission's Report, and .then almost instantaneously a state of peace and prosperity will reign in the industry. The Commission most specifically stated that the real trouble in the industry is that the costs of production are too high, with the present hours and wages. Hon.
    1758
    Members of the Labour party will possibly remember that that is a very specific statement in the Report. The Commissioners say:
    "We are unanimously of opinion that the costs of production, with the present hours and wages, are greater than the industry will bear."
    That being the case, it seems that the obvious remedy is to reduce the costs of production. Yet we get a series of proposals for reorganisation which, in the course of a generation or two, may possibly, although it is doubtful, have some effect upon the cost of producing coal, but, certainly, can have no effect whatsoever, except in the wrong direction, on the cost of producing coal in the next six months. For instance, take one or two cases. It is urged that holidays should be paid for. Is that going to reduce the cost of producing coal—by paying one week's or a fortnight's wages to the miner who is on holiday? Hon. Members opposite can possibly agree with me that the effect of that recommendation would be rather to raise the cost of production. It may be said that the moral effect will be so great that the men will strive to get much greater production. But everyone knows perfectly well that when holidays are near everyone is working his hardest in the pit to earn as much as possible for the holidays. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that a man will work harder than he does now, as a preliminary to taking a holiday, if he is paid for the holiday. The actual effect of this proposal would be an average rise in the cost of producing coal of about 5d. per ton. There is another suggestion:
    "The general establishment of pit-head baths is necessary. This should be undertaken by the Miners' Welfare Fund, which should be increased by a substantial contribution from royalties."
    Why that particular injustice should be perpetrated the Commission does not say. There is the proposal nevertheless. Does anyone suggest that a contribution from royalties and the taking of a .proportion of the welfare money is going to reduce the cost of producing coal? Not likely. Here is another suggestion:
    "For all new collieries, a proper provision of houses for the workers should be a condition of the lease."
    Every, one knows that when a. new colliery is opened the owners have to build houses for their workmen, or else they do not

    1759
    get the men. But raising the standard of housing is another matter, and, however desirable it may be on general grounds, if it has to be paid for by the industry it will certainly not reduce the cost of getting coal. On the contrary, it will be a further capital charge on the production of coal, and will have an influence in the opposite direction.
    So, if you go through practically every proposal of the Commission you get the same thing—no appreciable reduction of costs in any case, and in several cases a very material increase. Therefore, what hope is there of putting the industry on a better basis, on an economic basis, in the course of the next year or two, simply by carrying out all the recommendations of the Report? That was the attitude adopted by the Mining Association of Great Britain from the start. When the Prime Minister said that if both parties would accept the Report he was willing to accept it and to pass the necessary legislation, the Mining Association of Great Britain took the same view as the Prime Minister.
    They did not like the recommendations; they did not think the recommendations were any use, and I venture to say that nobody intimately concerned with the coal industry really does believe that these recommendations can possibly put the industry on an economic basis; but, for the sake of peace, just like the Prime Minister, they were willing to swallow the whole lot and they did so. They did not get any response, although the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that Mr. Herbert Smith accepted the recommendations of the Report. No doubt that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, but, despite that, I think myself that the general public and certainly the Prime Minister were under the impression that they refused to accept that Report, and most of us are under that impression still. "Not a cent. off the pay, not a second on the day" does not really represent a definite and heart-whole acceptance of the Report.
    I have laboured this point about the recommendations, and I have done so because they have never been dealt with fully in the House of Commons, and the result has been that both Members of the House of Commons and the public outside, and the newspapers in particular,
    1760
    are still hanging on to the absurd idea that by some miraculous means, if we carry out these recommendations, the coal industry is going to be placed on its feet and restored to an economic basis at once and possibly that the April rates of wages with a seven-hour day can be paid economically. The whole idea is so utterly preposterous to those who know, that it is just as well that somebody—even so humble an individual as myself—should publicly state that there is absolutely nothing in the way of an appreciable reduction in cost to be got by putting into effect every single one of the recommendations of the Commission.
    The only one that might benefit the coal industry, but would do so in a very dangerous way, is the recommendation about selling combinations and syndicates. That is a very dangerous proposal indeed. When most of our heavy industries, and steel and iron in particular, are just keeping their heads above water with the utmost difficulty, against foreign competition, are we deliberately to set out by Act of Parliament to create rings and trusts in the coal industry and to put up the cost of fuel against industries which can hardly bear the burden as it is—and to do that, mark you, on behalf of an industry where the workers are very much better paid and have shorter hours than the wretched people employed in the other heavy industries? Surely it is enough that the steel workers, the engineers, the cotton workers and all the others have been paying week by week, almost, I might say, year by year, because of the enormous subsidies granted in times past by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—subsidies compared with which last year's subsidy looks comparatively small—must be remembered. Surely it is enough that these subsidies should have come out of the pockets of very much worse-paid workers. I say that the great point of the Commission's Report to which the country will hold is, that no subsidy shall be paid by poor men for the benefit of other men who are better off. I venture also to say, because I may criticise the Government in a way in which Members behind me cannot do, that if the Prime Minister had made that fact perfectly clear at an early date this unhappy dispute would have been practically over at the present time.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Did the hon. Member ever record any protest against this iniquitous procedure last year?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I was absent from the House, but I may say that members of the Government did consult me about it. They wanted opinions upon it—even the most humble opinion—and I advised them strongly to face the music and not to give a subsidy. I was not in the House when the subsidy was discussed.
    I do think that the Government have, from time to time taken steps—perhaps they had reasons of which I am not aware —which have had the effect of unduly prolonging this dispute. The holding up of the Eight Hours Bill in this House and in another place undoubtedly protracted this unhappy dispute. There was no possibility whatever of a settlement of any kind in the South Wales area on the seven-hour day. I think if one could get the opinions of the miners' leaders in South Wales, they would agree that the wages payable on the seven-hour basis in South Wales, under present conditions, were such that they would not have cared, even under the pressure of starvation, to ask their men to accept them. On the contrary, the wages payable, with the extra hour, in South Wales are wages which many workers in this country would be only too glad to earn; they are wages at the rate that was being paid in 1921 when the cost of living was much higher than it is to-day, and there are millions of workers who would be only too glad to get back to the 1921 basis of wages and to enjoy the higher standard of living which the lower cost of living has rendered possible. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite have anything to say, and if they rise to say it, I shall be pleased to give way. I am not like the right hon. Gentleman their leader, who will not give way when his assertions are challenged.
    Mr. SPENCER: A great deal has been said about the owners accepting the recommendations of the Commission. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the owners' reply to No. 1 Recommendation, taken along with their reply to No. 8 Recommendation, can be said to be an acceptance of the Commission's recommendations generally? I ask the hon. Gentleman how he reconciles those two replies.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: No. 1 Recommendation is:
    "Before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry, it shall be definitely agreed between them that all practicable means for improving its organisation, and increasing its efficiency should be adopted as speedily as the circumstances in each case allow."
    The owners' reply is:
    "The owners, for their part, are prepared to do everything in their power to improve the organisation and increase the efficiency of the industry."
    Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member now turn to No. 8?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The recommendation is:
    "The amalgamation of many of the present small units of production is both desirable and practicable. This may often be effective from within, but in many cases it will only take place if outside assistance is given. Any general measure of compulsory amalgamation on arbitrary lines would he mischievous.
    The owners' reply is:
    "The owners agree with the views expressed by the Commission that any general measure of compulsory amalgamation would be mischievous"—
    Is that enough?
    Mr. SPENCER: No, go on! The hon. Member is coming to the nice bit.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The reply continues:
    "and the best results are to be obtained where the initiative comes from the undertakings concerned. The owners note that the recommendation which the Commission make as to legislation is dealt with in the Government's declaration and, as in the case of the proposal for the nationalisation of minerals, with which it is connected, it does not arise for discussion between owners and workmen but becomes a question for Parliament."
    Mr. SPENCER: May I ask the hon. Member is it not really a question between workmen and owners; and, in view of that reply, how can it be said that the owners have definitely agreed, as is suggested, to Recommendation No. 1. It is preposterous.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the recommendation. The recommendation is that certain legislation might well be passed by the Government to compel amalgamation in certain cases and the owners naturally reply "We do not pass legislation that is a matter for Parliament."
    Mr. SPENCER: In the first recommendation you have to deal with the measures that have to be taken before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry. Those measures include reorganisation, but when you get to reorganisation, and especially to amalgamation, the owners immediately say, "This is a question with which the men have nothing to do." How can you say, in view of that statement, that they have accepted these recommendations?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Neither the coal-owners nor the men have anything to do with what legislation the Government will pass. This is a recommendation for legislation and the Government in the first instance said they were prepared to carry it out and they have been carrying it out in the Mining Industry Bill. If the hon. Member thinks it is a rejection of the Report because the Mining Association of Great Birtain refuses to pledge itself to pass legislation, I suggest that this Committee will not be in agreement with him. The point remains that we must disabuse our mind of any idea that one part of the Commission's Report can be taken separate from another, part; that is to say that these proposals for reorganisation, in any way, conflict with that very specific statement which I have already read that the cost of production must be reduced at once and that the only way which the Commission sees of reducing these costs is by a reduction of the wages cost on coal. The Commission gives some very valuable tables in support of that view.
    One feature that is very prominent in this Report is that again and again the Commission say one thing on one page and say something diametrically opposed to that, on another page. For instance, on page 293 they said:
    "1925 is probably more nearly typical than any other year since the war."
    That is in regard to the basis of coal prices.
    "In the immediate future it is difficult to see any outside force that is likely to lift coal prices materially above their present level. They may so rise, but it is unsafe to count on this. The minimum wage cannot safely be fixed with reference to anything more."
    That is the whole basis of their recommendation on this point, but elsewhere in connection with the reduction of
    1764
    wages which they contemplate the argument is that the price is going to rise considerably. I merely give the Committee that particular example of what is throughout the Report the very curious phenomenon, that you get on one page a statement specifically on the one side of the argument and on another page you get a statement which is equally specifically on the other side of the argument. The carrying out of a Report of this sort is a very difficult thing for so sorely harassed an industry as the coal industry.
    The nation as a whole has come to the conclusion that it is not going to pay blackmail any more. It has had enough of that, particularly if those sums of money are to be given to the better-paid man by the worse-paid man, so that I think we may take it, from the Prime Minister's speech, that the subsidy is knocked on the head once and for all. It is a great pity that it was not knocked on the head as soon as the Report was issued because, in that event, the coalfields of Great Britain would be at work at the present moment and prosperity would be coming back to the other industries of our country. That being the case, we can now get the industry on an economic basis and miners will find that the coalowners of Great Britain are prepared to listen most patiently to any suggestions differing from the suggestions which they themselves have put forward in the various districts.
    It may be that their intention in not putting forward their suggestions on a seven-hour basis was in order to avoid drastic cuts in wges, and I think everybody must admit, in their heart of hearts, that such cuts would have been necessary in the exporting districts, and particularly in South Wales. But if the miners concerned, in one district or another, come to the conclusion that they would sooner have it "half and half "—a bit off the wages and a bit on the hours—they will find plenty of owners to negotiate with them on that basis. The whole thing is to make the industry self-supporting so that it does not become a pauper industry taking the pence of the poor in other industries. Once we get upon an economic basis, now that the intolerable, burden upon the industry of the seven-hour day has been removed by legislation,

    1765
    we can trust those who direct this industry to see that the conditions in it shall be better and happier in the future than they have ever been in the past. Those of us who have been intimately concerned in this industry for many years know that in it, more than in any other trade, there has already grown up that new spirit which we all desire to see—the spirit which makes the directors of a great industrial concern regard it as a trusteeship for the good of the country and the benefit of those employed in it.
    Everyone in the mining industry must know case after case where whole districts depend upon the prosperity and the wise conduct of some colliery concern. We all know of cases where there are populations of almost 100,000 persons directly dependent for their whole living on the pits in the neighbourhood, and cases of 25,000 and 30,000 population directly dependent on one colliery are comparatively common. We know of many cases where those who direct the collieries in question direct them far less as commercial concerns than as principalities, in which they are rulers, not for their own benefit, but rather to ensure the happiness and prosperity of their people. It is no easy thing, it is no soft job, if I may put it that way, to be responsible in these days for the very livelihood of scores of thousands of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen. That responsibility has been taken up in the right spirit in many instances, and I cannot help thinking that as time goes on those who have lagged behind in regarding industry from the point of view which I have so briefly indicated will be brought up to the same pace as those who are at present the real leaders in industry—those who regard industry, as I say, as a principality, to be ruled for the good of its inhabitants, and not merely as a constant source of ever-increasing income for themselves.
    Mr. HARNEY: The first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), to which we have just listened, formed an elaborate philippic from the hon. Member to the clergy, from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, and the last part of it was an equally elaborate censure on the Report. For my part, I regard this question as a very serious one. Not only is its gravity brought home to me by my
    1766
    sense, in common with that of the rest of the community, of its appalling effects upon our industrial prosperity, but representing, as I do, a mining constituency, I cannot but be deeply affected by the personal touch that I there have in seeing thousands of men, quite as decent, and quite as reputable, and quite as level-headed as the hon. Member for Mossley, who are content to go on, day after day, suffering great misery, and persisting, in spite of all sorts of pressure being put upon them, because they genuinely believe they are right. It is merely beating the air for the hon. Member, following what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War said in another Debate the other day, to say that substantially the Report of the Commission is being carried out. That is wholly untrue.
    The salient features of that Report I number as five. The first is that all the minerals should be acquired by a Coal Commission, which would then be empowered to deal with the conditions that render the working of the leases most favourable. It was not the sixpenny saving that the Commission were thinking about, but about wages, about the handicap of royalties, about the psychological effect that these things have upon the men, and about the difficulties which stand in the way of a real amalgamation until you have the minerals so handled. That has been thrown absolutely aside. Take the second—amalgamation. They went out of their way to emphasise that you will never have the sort of amalgamation they desired and thought necessary if you leave it to the initiative of the owners. It is left to the initiative of the owners. In the third place, they recommended municipal selling, which has been jeered at by the hon. Member for Mossley. I know nothing about its advantages and disadvantages, but, being more modest than the hon. Member, I am prepared to submit my judgment to that of experts on the subject. Fourthly, they specifically laid it down that the men are not to be asked to suffer less favourable conditions until the work of reorganisation has been set about. What have the Government done? They say: "Suffer the unfavourable conditions now, and we will think about reorganisation." Lastly, in four or five pages of closely reasoned matter, the Commission show

    1767
    that the eight-hours day would be disastrous. The Government bring forward a special Bill to introduce the eight-hours day. That is the way in which the Government have dealt with the Report.
    Now let us see what the owners have always been demanding. Ever since the 1919 Act the owners have been imploring a return to the eight hours' day. They have got their way. The owners have always been saying: "Hands off, Government. Leave the men to us, to economic laws, to 'the dismal science,' and all will go well." That is pretty well the attitude that is now being taken. The owners have said: "We do not think the Report is a solution of the difficulty." I ask earnestly those who do me the favour of listening: Can they wonder that the miners throughout the country are saying: "We have been sold. There is but one voice heard in the Cabinet, and that is the voice of the owners"? Notwithstanding that the Sankey Commission, the Land Acquisition Commission, and the Samuel Commission, one and all, said: "These mines that are unprofitable are so because of the percentage that are badly managed, badly equipped, and badly organised, and if you are to set this industry on its feet, the point to attack is the managers', the capitalists', the owners' side, and not the men's side," what do they find? They find the Government turning a listening ear to every word the owners say, and telling us now that the way to reform that industry and put it on its legs is not by putting any burden on the side that alone is responsible, where the fault lies, but to say: "Men, strain your backs and tighten your belts in order to remedy the difficulty." I make no pretence of having the knowledge that the hon. Member for Mossley pretends to have, but I say, as an ordinary, common-sense person of the world, that when experts are picked for their scientific knowledge by the Government, study the question for months, and then give out a Report, with all due respect to him, I think their views are more worth hearing.
    I submit to this Committee that the Government have brought all the disasters, in the midst of which we are now suffering, upon us by really beginning the solution of this thing at the wrong end. I have little doubt myself that had they come forward manfully
    1768
    and said: "We do not see eye to eye with the Commission, but these gentlemen have been our nominees; the subject is a complex one; they have gone into it and we have not; we asked the country to give us millions of money while they were working out their solution; they have given us their views, and we will accept them"—had they said that, they would then have got a listening ear from the men if they had turned to them and said: "Miners throughout Britain, we are prepared, here and now, to set about really doing what the Commission recommend, but we ask your co-operation, as we ask that of the owners, to put up with some little loss or inconvenience while the readjustment is being made. "I am as convinced, as I am that I hold this paper in my hand, that the pits would now be open with very little assistance from the Government, and ill-feeling would never have been created. And then, if the reorganisation had been carried out and it was found that, in fact, the majority of the pits would not pay under present conditions of labour and wages, I have no doubt the men would bow to the inevitable, because they would then know that they had had a fair deal, and that it was up to them, as during the War, to suffer something for the good of the whole community.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: That is exactly what the Government said, and the miners refused it, point blank.
    Mr. HARNEY: Why does the hon. Member make an interruption so often, when he is answered and shown to be wrong so often? Once more, if he will pardon me saying so, he is totally wrong there. I could give him a document that would take a long time to read, but it is in the recollection of everybody who read the Report that what occurred was this: The Government said: "If you two, mineowners and miners, agree to the recommendations, we will accept them." That was not what the Commission said. They said, on the contrary: "The only way to right this position is for the Government to take it in hand and legislate." They said particularly, for instance, with regard to the grouping of the mines: "It will never be done, and in 20 years it will be just as bad, if you leave it to those

    1769
    engaged in the industry. The only thing is for you, the Government, to take it in hand yourselves and do it."
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The Government promised to do it.
    Mr. HARNEY: The Government did not promise to do it. If you ask me to do a certain thing, and I say: "I will agree to do it, if A and B both ask me to do it," is that the same thing?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: It is in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Commission.
    Mr. HARNEY: Now, that being the position, and to all of us who look at this question earnestly, and not frivolously, and who make speeches not for the purpose of showing their extraneous and irrelevant wisdom about ecclesiastical and other matters, the question is not "What has been done in the past?" but "What can be done to-day?" In my submission, it is not too late to make amends. Every Member on the Government Bench who is true to himself must acknowledge that their plan, so far, has failed. The hope entertained was to run through the Eight Hours Bill and to post up on the pitheads that the men could go back to work on the pre-stoppage terms, if they would work an hour longer, and it was thought that greed would overcome resistance. It did not. The men have not gone back anywhere, except a few thousand in Warwickshire, where practically they have been bribed by higher wages. Every candid member of the Government and of the Opposition must know that the plan about the eight hours has failed. The Church has come along. The hon. Member opposite says, "Oh, do not mind the Church; they are nobody. The Archbishop of Canterbury, compared with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), is a poor fool." Really, had the country the advantage of making the hon. Member himself Archbishop of Canterbury, he would have so worked out his Christian doctrines that there would have been no industrial strife at all.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a signatory to the document.
    Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member mentioned the Archbishop as well.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not mention the Archbishop.
    Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member said the signatories of this document were following out what the Archbishop of Canterbury said.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not say that. It had nothing to do with the Archbishop, who was not on the Committee.
    Mr. HARNEY: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, that, of course, there is a limit to ecclesiastical activities, the same as there is to secular activities. But when a public dispute reaches the point where bad blood is being created throughout the country, where millions are in destitution, whereby a spirit of abandonment and revolution is being kept alive, then I do not really know what clergymen are for, if that be not a proper case for them to step in to use their conciliatory and pacific influence. But whether they ought or ought not to have stepped in, the fact is that they have. The fact is that the miners, who have resisted, amid gibes and sneers, for about 13 weeks, will resist until physical strength fails them, when they know that, at all events, they have behind them the moral sanction of a great body of ecclesiastics, in thinking that their case is at all justifiable. They will win the public sympathy on the same account.
    I mention these things to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. It may need moral courage on his part, but statesmen who go down to history are those who show moral courage. All of us in our youth have read that great speech of Burke on Conciliation, which required great moral courage at the time, and of all the speeches that great orator delivered none will live as long as that, for that reason. And so I say it is a great opportunity for the Prime Minister now to say, "I bow to such a strong and emphatically expressed opinion coming from such a source. I bow to it doubly, because it comes at a time when I have practically to admit that my own scheme has failed. Therefore, not thinking of self-glorification, but thinking only of the good of the country, I am prepared to retrace my steps." The Wallsend Election told a tale. It showed the

    1771
    strength of the popular breeze. It is true my own party lost their £150, but the party opposite lost 6,000 or 7,000 votes. Wallsend has said, with reference to coal, exactly what Mitcham said three years ago with reference to housing, and, if the Government are wise, they will take the warning in this case as they took it in the other. They retraced their steps with reference to housing, with the result that that very excellent Minister, the Minister of Health, is now able to say that houses are going up all round. So with coal, they would be very wise if they were to retrace their steps, even at the eleventh hour. The terms of the Bishops, putting it shortly, are to refer the matter back to those gentlemen who made the recommendations, and to say to them, "You know what was in your mind. Work it out in detail, and while you are doing it, the mines shall be opened by reason of a subsidy or some form of assistance being given, and if, at the end of four months, everything is not settled, then the miners are prepared to go to arbitration." That is the position.
    The Prime Minister said to-day, "I have always been in favour of arbitration. I am in favour of it now. I would agree to that portion of the clergymen's circular, except that it is tied to a subsidy." The right hon. Gentleman is not present to hear me, but, if he were, I would like him to answer these questions. Is the reason that he will not accede to the arbitration point, because it is tied to a subsidy, a reason based upon principle? If it be a reason based upon principle, how does it lie in his mouth, when, contrary to the hopes of a few like myself, he introduced the subsidy last year, and how very unwisely it comes from his mouth to say to the miners throughout the country, "I was willing to accept the principle of a subsidy, and to mulct the community to the tune of over £20,000,000, when I wanted that money to mobilise my forces in order to beat the miners. I had no scruples about it then. But when I am asked for money to help the miners, then I hold up my hands in holy horror." It is a very unwise position to take up. On the 1st June the Prime Minister said:
    "It is obvious that whatever settlement is arrived at, sooner or later—and I hope it may be sooner—some assistance may be needed. Here I am going dead against the
    1772
    Report, which hon. Members are sometimes so fond of quoting across the Floor of the House, when I say that it will probably be necessary to render some assistance, and we shall be prepared to do it…. I have never hesitated, when adopting to the full the recommendations of the Report, to maintain the view on this point alone, while I agree emphatically that it is impossible to continue the existence of the industry by continued subsidy, that a temporary subsidy in some form or another will be needed, whether it be to aid the period while negotiations are proceeding, or whether it be to aid certain districts…. I believe some assistance will be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1926; Vol. 196, col. 673.]
    On principle, to what does the Prime Minister object? Is it to go forth to those men whom we are trying to conciliate, "When the Report recommends things which you like, it is waste paper, but when it recommends things which the owners like, it is sacrosanct. When it recommends no extension of hours, tear it up. When it recommends that there should be no further subsidy, and it suits the owners, it should be accepted. We must obey them." Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he said to-day, "I am not prepared to give a subsidy or any assistance for so long a period as four months"? Do I understand that to mean that it is not principle which is holding him back, but that the financial situation to-day is very different from what it was a couple of months ago, and therefore he cannot do it?
    If that be the position, I want to put two points. The first is, if the principle of the subsidy goes, and if, as a matter of finance, it is shown—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runchiman) has shown, and no one has questioned it—that the whole of this subsidy or assistance which is asked for to bridge over the period when arbitration would settle everything—the whole of that period, in keeping the mines going on exactly the same basis as the subsidy kept them going before the 1st May—would not involve as much expense as one further week of strike, how can the Prime Minister be genuine, and expect to be believed, when he says: "My real objection to arbitration is that it is tied to a subsidy, and my real objection to the subsidy is that we cannot now afford it"? What does he mean? Think of a man saying, "I cannot afford £1,000 to save me a loss of £10,000."

    1773
    That is the same thing. If he cannot afford it for four months, can he afford it for one month. Will he say that? Will he agree to any temporary assistance at all for the purpose of carrying out the suggestion of these bishops? If he is prepared to do so, I have no doubt he will be able to get the men to agree. There is nothing sacred about four months. All that is wanted and asked for is that a breathing-time be given, to ascertain in two, three or four months during which the Commission are telling us what they really had in their mind when making the recommendations, and in trying to bring the men together. If at the end of that period they are not brought together, can the men do fairer and say, "As far as we are concerned, appoint an independent tribunal, and we agree to accept its judgment"?
    7.0 P.M.
    I do hope somebody will convey to the Prime Minister the views, however humble, of Members like myself. I represent a very strong element of the mining community up in Durham, and I know a good deal of the conditions in Northumberland. The men there are miners of the class who live on the export trade, and who now cannot be sent back into the pits without some form of reduction in wages. These men are asked at the present time not merely to do what the Commission said, namely, to suffer a cut of 10 per cent. while reorganisation is going on, but to suffer a cut of 10 per cent. as well as to work an additional hour, and now the manager caps that by posting notices at the pits saying to the men: "You know before the stoppage you were working under a special agreement which gave you 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. more, on the average, in wages than the other districts in Durham were getting. That arrangement was made to suit me, the manager. I now tell you that before I apply the eight hours, and a further drop of 10 per cent., you must agree to give up that 25 per cent. which you enjoyed before the stoppage took place."
    Can you expect men with blood in their bodies, and with any'sense of indignation or anger, to put up with a thing like that? That class of men is incensed by such a petty, mean trick as that, but they are still willing, if it be honestly put before them, to say, "Reopen the pits
    1774
    with some Government assistance for this period of four months, and during the interval let the Coal Commission work out what they think will put the industry on its legs, and then at the end of four months, if it is not settled, let it go to the arbitrator, and, if he says we are to suffer this 10 per cent. and the 25 per cent. and the eight hours, or whatever the decision, we will abide by it." [HON. MEMBERS: Not eight hours!"] Hon. Members are quite right. There should only be a reduction of wages. Perhaps the Committee does not appreciate how it is that these men feel so keenly with reference to hours. There has been a struggle for the shortening of hours going on for generations. Commission after Commission has reported, and it was won in 1919, and even then, in the very Act of Parliament establishing the seven-hours day, so strong was the feeling that there was a section—a most unusual thing in an Act of Parliament—saying that when economic conditions justified it, the seven hours was to be reduced to six. The men say, "Here is this reduced period of straining our backs, which we have won after endless strife, and if we are to go back now to the longer period, it is gone for ever." There is a positive difference, and they know it, between a reduced wage and lengthened hours. If you reduce the wage, economic conditions will soon settle it, and foreign countries cannot cut wages unless economic conditions allow them. But with reference to the hours, that is a matter of political, Parliamentary and legislative action. If you lengthen these hours, then Belgium and America will follow, and all you will have done is, not to benefit your own community, but to lower the conditions and standard of existence. Therefore, they will not have this hour. I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but I trust that some advantage will be taken of the action of the Churches to try and bring about a settlement.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am sure every member of the Committee will have listened with great interest to the grave considerations which were put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). There is no question at all as to the terrible effect which the coal strike is having on

    1775
    the country. Everybody who is connected with any form of industry knows how trade is paralysed, how commerce of any kind is becoming very difficult, and that the uncertainties which are created are daily having the effect of sending many orders, which otherwise would have been placed in our own shops, to other countries.
    I think it is impossible for us to contemplate what is happening in this country at the present time without making up our minds that some method must be found by which these deplorable disputes may be settled, and disaster to the nation prevented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), the other day, gave a lurid account of the losses which were being suffered by this country every week through this coal stoppage. I think he erred on the side of minimising rather than exaggerating the amount, because from the experience which I myself had in the course of the last strike in 1921, my belief then was that the losses suffered were much greater than the figures which my right hon. Friend gave to the House last week.
    Suppose we take a glance back over the series of years since the War. I find it stated in books of statistics that this country has lost during that short period something like 195,000,000 working days, by stoppages in industry, and that the losses caused up to the end of last year, not including those which we are suffering this year, have to be computed at no less than £1,000,000,000. That figure is not a very exaggerated one when we remember the total losses in 1921, and all the additions, caused by other stoppages, that have to be made to that figure. That is a computation which skilled people in these matters have made. The House should realise that it is a figure which exceeds the amount of our debt to America.
    I should therefore like to reinforce the suggestion that we must in the immediate future find some method of avoiding these devastating and appalling losses arising out of the troubles in industry, which, one would suppose, we being children of one family, we would desire to settle in the way least injurious to the family as a whole.
    1776
    One of the interesting parts of this Debate, along with some other Debates which have preceded it, is the new found adhesion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the company of bishops. The account which he gave this afternoon of their acumen and their practical capacity was certainly not very flattering, but nevertheless they have seemed on certain recent occasions to have become his bell wethers. On every occasion they have led him astray. They took him down the wrong turning when the general strike began, and they have deflected his proper course on the present occasion.
    I am sure there must have occurred to many minds an episode in history which I know my right hon. Friend very well remembers. It was the occasion when Cromwell was invading Scotland, and he was confronted by the Scottish Army under the command of a sturdy old soldier, Sir David Leslie, who was occupying with his army a very formidable position, so formidable that Cromwell thought it was impossible to dislodge him, so he halted. Shortly afterwards, to his great surprise and relief, he saw this army descending into the valley, where he was very easily able to defeat them and break them into a rabble. The explanation was that the clergymen who accompanied the Scottish Army had urged this manœuvre, and, in spite of all Sir David Leslie's protestations, in the condition of the Scottish Army at that time—which was more like a public assembly than a disciplined force—the clergymen succeeded in having their views adopted. The result of that unhappy battle has never been forgotten in Scotland, and the Scottish clergy seem to have learned a lesson and got a warning from it which do not seem in any respect to have yet percolated into the country south of the Tweed.
    After all, to the ordinary layman there appears a very wide scope for the clergy of this country in connection with industrial disputes, within their proper sphere, to inculcate a spirit of peace and harmony and to attract to their churches, which unhappily they are not doing now, the masses of the people to listen to doctrines which would serve the State very much better than their interference in more practical matters.

    1777
    It seemed to me that a part of my right hon. Friend's speech to-day was addressed to a situation which has passed over. He rather complained, as I understood, that the Government had not taken up some suggestions of Mr. Herbert Smith at an earlier stage in this dispute, and he referred in particular to the speech of Mr. Smith in which he described how he was ready to go through the Report of the Coal Commission page by page, although he did not make it very clear as to the conclusion he would come to at the end of it. There is a phase that period which I am afraid my right hon. Friend has forgotten regarding the dealings of the miners with the Trade Unions Committee. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has given a revelation of what took place within that body. Several days after that speech by Mr. Herbert Smith the Trade Unions Committee came to the conclusion that the miners would not depart from the slogan which they had given forth to the world, and the Trade Unions Committee found the situation so obdurate and the attitude of Mr. Herbert Smith and his Committee so intractable that they entirely gave up the attempt to persuade them to adopt the Report, and in consequence the general strike was called off.
    I will not refer to some of the very picturesque language used in the account of these proceedings which speared in the "Locomotive" Journal, but one remembers that the Trade Union Committee not only came to the conclusion that it was a very unwise thing to starve on a slogan and to let 300,000 men go out of work because the highly-paid men in the mining industry were unwilling to forego any of their earnings in order to allow the industry to be carried on through the period of difficulty, but they also made it quite plain that, as far as they were concerned, they believed that the miners should have receded from the obdurate position which they took up and should have been ready to discuss at once the question of wages.
    My right hon. Friend has declared in favour of a subsidy being granted at the present time in order to reach a conclusion of these troubles. I recognise the position may now be different, but, like myself, he was very unwilling that a subsidy should be granted at the beginning of August last year. Unfortunately, I have not been able to
    1778
    change my mind upon the bad principle of granting such subsidies, and I find throughout the country a growing opinion among wage-earners in other industries that no further subsidy should be granted. I read in the newspaper only this morning an interesting document signed by a certain number of co-operators of the West Hartlepool Co-operative Society. They make an illuminating disclosure upon many of the questions which have been agitated in this House for some time. For instance, they tell of their experiences in operating a mine called the Shilbottle Colliery in Northumberland. It produces a very good coal, a household coal which commands a higher price—they put it at 4s. or 5s. a ton more—than ordinary coal, and yet they say they have been conducting this mine for some time at a terrible loss. During the subsidy period the full loss was £22,000. They received £10,000 from the Government, leaving them in the end with a loss of £12,000. Those are startling figures, especially as they enjoy one of the conditions which is supposed to be a panacea for all our ills, that is to say, there is no middleman concerned in the sale of that coal. It goes direct from the colliery to the purchasers. What do these co-operators say with regard to the subsidy?
    "Many co-operative members are unfortunately out of employment and, like some of us, on the dole. Do the Bishops propose that another subsidy should be imposed upon us as taxpayers to provide a second subsidy for men who work shorter hours and receive higher pay than we do? Is it any wonder that Mr. Cook prefers words, and the invention of weekly slogans, rather than facing the facts?"
    I am perfectly certain that what is expressed there by these co-operators of West Hartlepool describes the feeling which prevails among the working people of this country.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Wallsend!
    Sir R. HORNE: Nothing could receive less support from popular opinion than the idea of granting a further subsidy, which is the hinge upon which turn all the proposals put forward by the clergy. Without a subsidy, as I understand it, arbitration is supposed to be impossible, although I do not see why it should be. If arbitration be a good principle to adopt, I do not see why it should not be

    1779
    adopted now, although a subsidy is not granted.
    Let me turn to another subject of complaint. It is said that the Government are not carrying out sufficiently the Report of the Royal Commission. It is perfectly true that the Government gave their adhesion to that Report, but only on the condition that the two other parties concerned were to give equal support to it. There has not been that concurrence of opinion, and accordingly, as I suppose, the Government have taken their own method, as they were entitled to do. What is there sacrosanct about the character of this Report? In my judgment the most valuable thing done by the Commissioners is the compilation of the excellent collection of data about the industry. I decline for my part to let my judgment become a victim of this Report. I do not see why I should be asked to pledge myself to everything that is there said, or to all its proposals. There are certain recommendations to which I am entirely opposed. It is out of the question to say that any of us who do not give adhesion to all parts of this Report are entering into heresy or sinning against the light. One part of it, indeed, I regard as entirely fallacious and as based upon erroneous grounds. I think the Commissioners started the consideration of this question in the wrong way. Instead of considering how this industry could fairly be conducted under present conditions, and making arrangements for alterations of wages in future, according as conditions changed, they seem to have said to themselves, "How must we alter this industry in order that the wage shall be paid which was paid in April?" That is a totally uneconomic and fallacious method of approaching this question, and they have arrived at what I regard as a very impotent conclusion. I am putting it more bluntly than it is put in the Report, but it is one of the main conclusions that the only thing to be done is to cut off pits and to restrict output.
    In my view the restriction of output of a commodity in which we are in competition with many of the other nations of the world is the worst possible policy. It can be done with a commodity
    1780
    like rubber, where we have got what is almost a monopoly, but here we are dealing with a commodity in which we are competing with all the other great countries in the world for export trade. We are compelled by the force of circumstances to bring our prices down to the prices at which competitors sell, which means bringing our costs down to a figure which will enable us to offer the goods at the lowest price. We cannot do that by restricting output. The great thing is to have the utmost possible output in order to be able to spread the costs of working over as large an area as possible. By that means one is enabled not only to sell the goods at a cheaper price but also in a more regular flow. That is what America has proved beyond all doubt, and I should have thought it impossible that any enlightened person, talking about our coal trade, would have adopted that particular fallacy—would have suggested to a great industrial country like this, where coal is vital to our existence, that we should do something to restrict output, thereby undoubtedly raising prices to our own consumers.
    What are our industries suffering from to-day? All are suffering from the same malady—that their costs are too high to allow them to compete in foreign markets with other countries' commodities. Are we going to bring down their costs by adding to the price of their coal? One of the reasons why I demur to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon that the permission to work eight hours a day should either be obrogated or cancelled is that I regard the possibility of working eight hours a day as one of the essential means by which we may get such an output as will enable us again to claim some of the more important coal markets of the world, will enable us to sell in competition with our rivals, and will enable us to give a regular and good wage to the miners of this country. I say this with regret, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, he and I were supporters of the seven-hours day when it was initiated in 1919; but the things we were told at that time have proved to be false. We were told it would not make any difference to output; but everyone knows that, even taking the output of the best year since the Seven Hours Act operated, the since the Seven Hours Act began to

    1781
    operate, the average output per man per annum has decreased by 25 tons; just as when the eight-hours day was inaugurated, there was a similar reduction in the output per man per annum.
    My considered belief, after going into all the figures and data, is that this country cannot afford in normal conditions to carry on more than about 50 per cent. of its mines upon a seven-hours day. I do not believe it possible. It is the effective time at the coal face that counts, because it is only there that the output is being got, and the effective time at the coal face, I am assured, though I am not prepared to enter into controversy about this with my hon. Friends opposite, is less than seven hours; it is put by the Commission as 5¾hours. I do not think it is possible to recompense the capital which it is necessary to sink in a mine by an effective day of only 5¾ hours at the coal face.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I say that is largely the fault of the management. Reorganisation would get rid of that.
    Sir R. HORNE: I have said on previous occasions what I have to say about reorganisation. In my view no reorganisation can possibly bridge the enormous gap between costs and prices to-day, and so I do not go into that aspect of the matter. But when hon. Members say the owners are responsible for this, let me remind them that the pits of this country cannot be so badly conducted seeing that in the last 60 years output has been multiplied by three times, and has all been sold. This country has a very remarkable record in coal mining as compared with other countries, and it is only in this country that we ever hear any criticism of our mining organisation, or the way in which the mineowners do their part. A remark this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs proved what I am saying. He said Continental countries were finding a difficulty even now in competing with us, and that if we adopted the longer day they would have to make their day still longer. If that be true, it means that our mines are run as efficiently as those on the Continent, and every one who has travelled knows that to be true. Some of the aspersions upon the coal mining industry of this country
    1782
    have been unjustified and cannot be supported by facts.
    Mr. SPENCER: Have you read the article in the "Colliery Guardian" this week?
    Sir R. HORNE: I pass from that question to say one final word. There was a reference to research in the speech of the Prime Minister. Criticisms are made in this House from time to time of our lack of enterprise in adopting new methods or going in for more research in order to make better use of the coal we have in the country. I am one of those who are eager to see the best possible use made of coal, so that none of the value in it shall be wasted. It has been my duty to take a particular interest in this matter, if the Committee will forgive me a personal reference, because during the War, when so many oil-tankers were being sunk and the supply of oil became difficult, the Admiralty asked me to go into the question of how to get oil out of coal, and from that time onwards I have been closely in touch with the methods being tried. The House can be assured that Great Britain is not behind any other country in the world in the matter of research on this point. Most countries are exchanging the results of their researches. Great Britain is giving a part of the money which it is devoting to research to the development of a process which at the moment is being developed in Germany, because it can be more easily developed there. But it cannot come to fruition at the very best for a certain number of years. There are other methods which are being considered at the present time both in this country and in America, and it is encouraging to note that both the Americans and the Germans are inquiring very anxiously as to our processes. Many people think that these experiments will give good results at once, and people are led to believe that you only have to adopt such and such a device and everything will be right. But it is a very different thing to get good results in the laboratory and success in practice on the commercial scale, and many things that look to be very fruitful in the laboratory prove to be impossible in actual commercial use. People must not be led astray by thinking that these things are not being gone into. In my belief the coal-masters, are in very close touch with these questions, and I am sure that if any

    1783
    reasonable proposal is put to them which will result in a profit the coal masters of this country will be only too ready to take it up. I am very glad to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government is making such assiduous efforts in this direction, and that they will continue to do so in the future. So far as the Debate is concerned, and with the criticism that has been made of the Government, while I do not agree with all that they have done, I think that nothing has been left undone to bring this dispute to a close and my vote will therefore be with the Government in the Lobby.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: The new development which has occurred since the last Debate took place on this mining question has, undoubtedly, been the intervention of the leaders of the Churches, both of the Anglican Church and of the Free Churches. They have certainly introduced a new atmosphere and new opportunities for settlement which were quite absent before they came on to the field. Therefore, I welcome with all my heart the great work which the Bishops and the Free Church leaders have done in this matter. I have listened this afternoon to attacks upon the Bisohps for their intervention in this dispute, some of them cynical, some of them interesting, and some of them ill-informed. But nobody has suggested, nor could suggest for a moment, that in anything which they have done they have been moved by any desire other than the desire to promote a settlement, to produce a better feeling between the parties, and to see what could be done even now to bring people to reason and to a Christian point of view. I am very much surprised that people should still imagine that modern churchmen still take the view that the function of the Church or of the Free Churches is merely to preach platitudes, or to give a general sentiment without any practical implication, and that they are in the future going to refuse to take an active and useful part in practical social problems of the day.
    The right hon. Gentleman who just sat down spoke of some Bishops or some clergy who had misinformed some Scottish soldiers in a battle, and I thought that was an extraordinary revelation of the right hon. Gentleman's mind,
    1784
    because he does look on this matter as a battle. Throughout his speech to-day, and on many other occasions, I do see essentially what has been referred to before as the class war. The right hon. Gentleman looks upon the coal-masters, as he calls them, and the commercial interest, as a separate interest which has a certain right and a certain point of view quite irrespective of the interests of the people as a whole. But the clergy do not look upon this matter in this way. They do not look upon it as a battle, but as a deplorable tragedy which arises from the want of the application of Christian principles to industry, and the Bishops are not in this matter because they want to side with one party or the other, but because they think that, in all this talk about economic problems and commercial problems, it is really, like so many other problems, a moral problem. Therefore they come forward with suggestions for a settlement of this dispute. Their proposals have not been put forward as final or as definite proposals, but merely as suggestions. As I understand it, they have come to one of the parties in this industry and said, "Will you tell us what will satisfy you?" And I think it is greatly to the credit of the clergy and to the Bishops that the miners who, rightly as I think, thoroughly distrust the coalowners and the Government, think that there is a sufficient amount of common sympathy between themselves and the clergy to make them willing to put their point of view before the clergy, and even to make certain concessions to the clergy which they have absolutely refused to give to the Government or to the coalowners or to anybody else. If there is one class of the community which is able to get the confidence of one of the contestants in this dispute, which neither the other contestant, neither the coalowners nor the Government—because I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that they are really the same parties in this dispute—can command, surely that in itself is a valuable asset to a settlement of this dispute.
    We know that the miners have stated to the Bishops and to the leaders of the Free Churches a basis on which a settlement can be reached, which they have declined to discuss with the coalowners or the Government. Does any hon. Member say

    1785
    that that is a useless thing, a thing to be thrown away? I do not know whether the coalowners are willing to meet the clergy and the Bishops or not. Perhaps their consciences are too bad, and they do not want to be seen in consultation with these accusing gentlemen. But suppose that they were willing to interview the Bishops and the clergy, and to discuss this matter with them. Then you would get both sides stating what accommodation they were willing to agree to. We know that the Government will never settle this matter. Nobody trusts the Government. The miners do not trust the Government, and, as I heard the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) speaking this afternoon, I did not think that the coalowners trusted the Government either. But possibly both sides may trust the Bishops, and therefore I think you may find a sufficient basis on which to begin arbitration. Do hon. Members still suggest that this chance is to be thrown away? It is rather curious to find hon. Members who support the Bishops on purely abstract and academic questions objecting whenever people like the Archbishop of Canterbury or another prelate expresses an opinion of a practical nature upon a great social problem. I remember one hon. Member who, during the general strike, because he did not like something which the Archbishop of Canterbury said, referred to that prelate as an irresponsible body. But the time has come when people will have to make up their minds whether they will say that they will take sides with the hon. Member for Mossley, who preached the purely pagan point of view, or whether they are going to let the Church perform its proper function, which it performed during the centuries and in one case of great dock strike, of laying down Christian principles and of showing how they ought to be applied.
    We have also heard an attack on a certain body called the Industrial Christian Fellowship, of the Executive Committtee of which I happen to be a member. That body exists for the purpose of applying Christian principles to industry. That is its sole purpose. It is not a Socialist body. It may be that this application may in certain directions lead to a mitigation of that crude industrialism which some people support. I do not know, but the sole object of the Fellowship,
    1786
    as the Bishop of Lichfield, who is one of the signatories to this Circular, has said, is to apply Christian principles to industry. Can anybody honourably say that to keep all these mines closed, and to prevent these men working except on conditions which must produce a lower standard of life, is a Christian solution of this problem? Surely, it is necessary for moral reasons that people should have a decent standard of life, whether we call it a subsidy or whether we nationalise the industry, or whatever we do. Surely, we can stand by the declaration of the Archbishops in the Lambeth Report that the first charge on every industry should be a living wage. I did not understand the argument of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) when he said that we must keep the costs down. That I understand means lower wages, because he says there is nothing to be saved on administration. I welcome his speech because I think it is speeches like these which produce the result of the Wallsend election, and I hope that hon. Members on the other side will go on making such speeches until they give us a majority in this House.
    Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. and learned Member will remember the line of my argument. It was that a greater output would lessen the cost per unit of the output and that therefore there would be more to divide in the industry. But that did not mean lower wages. On the contrary, I said it would mean higher wages.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no real saving to be got by way of administration, that the coalmasters were thoroughly efficient, and that the Report as a whole was worth very little.
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said there was much less in reconstruction than people supposed, and I gave figures during another Debate. I really cannot repeat myself every time, but I did not say that nothing could be done in the way of greater efficiency or of reconstruction.
    Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman certainly produced the impression on my mind that a substantial saving in the cost of production could only be produced by men working longer hours

    1787
    or accepting lower wages, and that any saving produced by mere reorganisation was certainly scarcely worth discussing.
    Sir R. HORNE: I really think that this persistent misinterpretation and misrepresentation is going much too far. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to remember exactly what I said upon this point. I did not at all suggest that decreases must take place in wages, but what I did say was that the increased output which you could get by increased hours would certainly make your costs less, would enable you to get your markets and to sell at prices at which you could compete with your competitors, and at the same time produce higher wages.
    Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman certainly gave the impression that there was comparatively little to be said for any reduction in costs or any changes in administration.
    Sir R. HORNE: The phrase I used was that there was not enough in it to bridge the enormous gap between costs and the prices, and I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to misrepresent me.
    Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman makes the facts clearer and clearer as he goes on. The enormous gap could not be bridged by mere alterations in administration. Therefore the enormous gap has to be bridged in some other way. There are two other ways, as I understand it—partly by increasing hours, and partly by reducing wages.
    Sir R. HORNE: By increasing output.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I really think that the matter is now made abundantly clear. Wherever the burden of bridging this gap has to fall, it has to fall on the workman and not on the coalowner. We know the attitude the coalowners have taken up by their notices at the collieries, and it is idle to suggest that they look for any other solution of this difficulty except that of lowering the standard of life of the workers, because they are lowered just as much if their hours are increased as if their wages are decreased. That is the way you are going to bridge the gap, and against that proposal the Bishops are working. The Bishops have been brought in because they feel that a settlement by starvation
    1788
    or privation would be an immoral or unchristian way of dealing with the situation. They have come in not for praise, but because their consciences feel that there ought to be some other settlement. It is not for nothing that all these contributions have been made to the miners' funds by other trade unions or that there is a growing feeling against the Government day by day.
    From a political point of view there is nothing our party would like better than to see this stoppage go on. None the less we wish to see it concluded, because we think the conditions are immoral, the hardships unbearable and the injury to industry very severe. Not a day passes without the Government by abstaining from bringing about a settlement is allowing starvation and want to continue causing thousands of their supporters to transfer their allegiance to the Labour party. Therefore, from the merely political point of view we have everything to gain by the stoppage continuing, but there is a moral point of view. The bishops and the leaders of the Free Churches are trying to see whether even now the authorities cannot come to some understanding and find a settlement. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, the Church is going to intervene more and more in these matters than it has done in the past. The intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the general strike and the intervention of the bishops in this strike are the beginning of the reversion to a saner and more logical position in which the Church will interest itself in social problems. We think that mere commercial morality and individualism is powerless to deal with this satuation, and when this dispute is over there will be other disputes for commerce has ceased to have any moral basis and it is to prevent the country being ruined that the bishops are stepping in to recall people to a proper sense of their moral obligations.
    Major KINDERSLEY: If anything was needed to justify my intervention in this dispute it is that while the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken and myself are loyal members of the Church of England we totally and entirely disagree in regard to this question. Before I come to the Bishop's recom-

    1789
    mendations I should like to allude to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That speech reminded me very much of those people who try to prove a particular doctrine, generally a heresy, by quoting certain passages from Scripture just to support what they wish to prove quite regardless of the context, picking out passages here and there. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done, because he has picked out passages here and there from the speeches of the Prime Minister and pieced them together quite regardless of the context, and in that way he has tried to prove that the Prime Minister must be in favour of the recommendations of the Bishops. That is hardly a fair method of controversy, and the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the situation to-day is very different from what it was three months ago when this dispute started. We have been told by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that the Bishops are so shocked with the present dispute, as we all must be shocked, that they want to see what he calls a moral settlement, and here I will quote a passage from their own statement:
    "In view of the injury to the spiritual, not less than the economic, life of the community which must be caused by a continuance of the present dispute, and of the general anxiety that it may be terminated at the earliest possible moment on terms compatible with social justice and honourable to all concerned."
    What is the proposal? It really amounts to this, that there is to be another Commission set up consisting of the Commissioners who issued the last Report, that the parties are to appear before them, that, in default of agreement, the Chairman is to act as arbitrator, and that meanwhile for a period of four months, a subsidy is to be paid which will enable the same wages to be paid throughout the industry as on 30th April. That is said to be a settlement in accordance with the principles of social justice. That is not my idea of social justice when you are asking men who are already working longer hours and getting worse wages than the miners to pay this subsidy, when they have already paid over £20,000,000, in order that the miners may receive the wages which they were receiving on the 30th of
    1790
    April last. That is not social justice but injustice, and it shows how blind people become when they take sides on a matter of this kind without properly considering the implications of all they suggest.
    Further on, having put it first of all on this high moral ground they allow to creep in the economic demon which they so much desire to cast out, and they say that on economic grounds it is more economical to pay the subsidy they ask because it is costing the country considerably more to continue the stoppage. I want to know are they proceeding merely on moral grounds or on merely economic grounds, because they cannot proceed on both. It is quite another thing to appeal to economic principles, and I think they might have a certain amount of respect for those people who do not think they can ride two horses at the same time. On this whole question of the intervention of the churches in these matters, they have already intervened twice during the present national crisis. Of course the whole of this question is one of subsidy, and if the Government had continued the subsidy there would have been no coal strike and no general strike, but the Government and a majority of this House decided that the subsidy should not be continued.
    As a result of that the general strike came about and then came the first intervention of the Church through the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he made suggestions which practically meant that this House should yield to force what it had refused to yield to reason. I consider that that is a most dangerous course for the Church as a body to take, and in doing that the Church is interfering in political matters which are not their sphere. This House, in coming to that decision, was acting within its proper sphere, and what was suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury was that this House should surrender its proper functions. As a matter of fact the Archbishop of Canterbury is not concerned in the particular group who are putting forward the present proposals, which is known as the Industrial Christian Fellowship.
    Sir H. SLESSER: It is true the Industrial Christian Fellowship are interested but it is quite incorrect to say that they are solely responsible for this intervention.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I think it will be admitted that that body inspired it and played a considerable part in it. I find that on 4th January last they issued a manifesto signed, amongst others, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell), Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Ben Tillett, and Mr. A. J. Cook, and this manifesto ended as follows:
    "In attaching our names to this manifesto we proclaim our belief in the Gospel of Christ as the final truth concerning the relations of men one with another."
    I am sorry the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is not here, because he issues a paper in which he preaches class hatred of the most bitter kind.
    Dr. SALTER: That is deliberately untrue; you know it, and ought to withdraw it.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I shall not withdraw it. I do not think I do the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean any injustice when I say that I believe he is a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. PURCELL: I am not.
    8.0 P.M.
    Major KINDERSLEY: Then I withdraw my statement. At any rate, his sympathies rather lean towards what we call the extreme left. I think that one may look with a certain amount of suspicion upon an organisation which issues a manifesto signed by, amongst others, the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. Anyway, they would appear to take one particular side in politics, for the names have a distinctly Socialist tinge, to put it no higher. Therefore, I think the Bishops made a very great mistake in allying themselves with what appears to me to be little more than a political organisation, and it is not to be wondered at that the views they have put forward happen to coincide so entirely with the views of the party opposite in this matter. As I said before, I deprecate the Church as a body, or even so-called representative churchmen, coming into this dispute, because I am perfectly certain that they will land themselves eventually, if they have not
    1792
    already done so, in very great difficulties. At the end of their statement published in the "Times" I find these words:
    "It is our considered judgment that the substance of the proposals set out above, although not approved by the Government, holds the field. The standing conference, on whose behalf they were submitted, will continue in existence and will leave no stone unturned to secure the resumption of negotiations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace."
    It is rather a serious thing, when the Government, acting, as I have said, within their proper sphere, have decided that a certain course of action, namely, to give a subsidy to the coal industry, is inadvisable, and have decided not to follow that course, that the Church whose function is not that of deciding these matters, should come forward and say it considers that the Government are wrong. This may raise in the future a very serious constitutional issue. The Church must remember that it has many members who are of varying shades of political belief, and who hold various economic views, and it has no right to commit its members on matters of this kind, which, as I maintain, are entirely outside its sphere. In doing so, it is doing harm to itself, and am perfectly certain that it is not furthering the cause which it and we have at heart.
    Major OWEN: I do not propose to say anything with regard to the main subject of the Debate to-day, but I rise to draw attention to a matter which affects my constituency in particular, and I am glad to observe that the Secretary for Mines is in his place. Last week, two fatal accidents occurred in the course of the making of a tunnel between two lakes in Carnarvonshire, where a high explosive, namely, gelignite, was used. One of the charges failed to explode, and attempts were made afterwards to explode it, but, unfortunately, two lives were lost. The coroner's verdict was that it was an accident. I am not for a moment suggesting that it was not an accident, but it is the third of its kind that has occurred in that very place this year, and I appeal to the Secretary for Mines, if there are Regulations already in existence with regard to the use of this explosive and explosives of a similar character, to see that those Regulations are strictly enforced, and, if they do not exist, to take steps to introduce such Regulations, so that the lives of those

    1793
    engaged in this kind of work may be safeguarded. I am particularly anxious that this should be done because accidents of a similar character are occurring too frequently in the quarries in my county, and it seems to me that there must be, either lack of Regulations with regard to this matter, or insufficient inspection to see that the Regulations are properly carried out. All that I want from the right hon. Gentleman is an assurance that he will see that such accidents occur less frequently, and that the Regulations, if they exist, are strictly enforced, and that, if they do not exist, they are introduced and put into operation immediately.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Like, probably, millions of people in this country, I hail looked forward to hearing something in the speech of the Prime Minister that would be of advantage to the mining industry, and would have appeased the anxiety of millions who are anxious to see a settlement of the present dispute; but I must confess that, of all the speeches I have heard from the Prime Minister during the past year or two, the one to which we have listened to-day was, perhaps, the emptiest. If one were to attempt to sum up the Prime Minister's speech in one brief sentence, I think one might say that, if the Prime Minister had simply told the House that he intended to do nothing at all, the rest of his speech could have been dispensed with, for that really is exactly what it amounted to. The responsibility of the Prime Minister cannot be minimized, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say from the Government Bench, and I think it is fair to assume that, whether we take Hammersmith, or Wallsend, or many of the municipal expressions that have been given recently, we are bound to conclude that the nation is by no means satisfied with the attitude of the Government for several weeks past. Some three weeks ago I sought a reply from the Prime Minister to one or two specific questions. I wanted to know how long it had been since the Prime Minister called a conference between the mineowners and the mineworkers' representatives, and I wanted to know if the Prime Minister would tell the House when the mineowners had really accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In neither case,
    1794
    nowever, could we secure a definite and specific answer from the right hon. Gentleman. He knew, of course, that from the moment when the general strike was withdrawn the only thing that he did by way of endeavour to provide a solution of this problem was merely to send a memorandum to the Coalowners' Association, and a similar memorandum to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. That, I believe, was on the 14th May, since which date the Prime Minister—who, after all, stands at the head of the State, and should be safeguarding the interests of its 45 or 46 million people—has done practically nothing towards endeavouring to find a solution of this great problem, and I think my observation at Question Time to-day was strictly in order when I suggested that the Government appeared to have completely abdicated their function as a Government, and I do not think it was an unfair suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman that it was high time he and his Government contemplated resignation, so that a Government could take their place which would govern in the interests of the whole nation.
    This dispute has been current for almost 13 weeks. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, with the Secretary for Mines as a very good ally, have lectured the House, and the miners through the House, upon not having accepted the Royal Commission's recommendations, but in no single instance that I can recall has the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour or the Secretary for Mines made any statement with regard to the coalowners having accepted fully and frankly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I recall the meetings between the Prime Minister, the Miners' Federation officials and the mineowners' officials on the 24th March, where, during two meetings, the miners' representatives sought to secure from the Government a detailed statement of their reorganisation proposals. The coalowners' representatives sat almost dumb through the whole of those two meetings, and, even had we not had the example of the indifference of the coalowners from 1919 to 1926 to guide us, we should have been obliged to be suspicious of the attitude of the coalowners during those meetings, for we were satisfied that, so far as they were concerned, they never intended to

    1795
    accept fully and frankly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Therefore, it seems to me to be totally out of place for the Prime Minister to repeat, as he has done to-day, what the mine-workers have not done, while all the time omitting to state what he knows the coalowners never intended to do from the outset.
    Just to review the position of the coalowners will, perhaps, not be out of place, although I recognise that it is merely repeating what has been said on the Floor of the House several times previously. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said this afternoon that the coalowners had always accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am sorry the hon. Member is not in his place at the moment. So far as we know, the first definite statement—apart from the vague reply that the coalowners made some time during April—the first tangible set of terms that the coalowners sent to the miners' representatives through the Prime Minister was on the 30th April. They not only did not accept the Royal Commission's recommendations, but they laid down two proposals, namely, an eight-hour day and a reduction in wages of 13⅓ per cent. all round, before they were prepared to open the pits. The next thing they did was on the 21st May, when, in reply to the Memorandum I referred to a moment ago from the Prime Minister, they varied their terms very slightly. They said on that occasion that their terms for the reopening of the pits were an eight-hour day and a reduction in wages which may mean 10 per cent. or less. So that there again they were not willing to accept the recommendations of the Commission.
    That is the point from which the mine workers have to draw their conclusions. From that moment henceforth the Government have done absolutely nothing in drawing the two sides to the dispute together. One thing they have done however which compels every one on these benches and the 1,200,000 mine workers outside to believe that the Government have been the allies of the coalowners. The coalowners sought an Eight Hours Act from the commencement. They refused to do anything reasonable during the whole of the period, and fiNaily the Government came to their aid by passing
    1796
    the Eight Hours Act. That, we claim, was not only putting off a possible settlement, but was handing over to the coalowners such bargaining power as could not be obtained in any other direction, and knowing the power of resistance of the miners, knowing that their day to day practical knowledge in the pits has taught them that the eight hours day is unnecessary, they can only conclude that this action on the part of the Government was to help the coalowners to starve the mineworkers into submission or into accepting their terms. We felt at all events that, whether our suspicions were correct or not, when the Bishops' proposals were forthcoming they provided an opportunity for the Government to retrace their steps and at least take some action which would bring hope to the hearts of the millions of women and children who are dependent on the industry.
    The Prime Minister, however, has informed us that he intends to do absolutely nothing. He says: "If the coalowners' and the mine workers' representatives feel disposed to come together and secure a settlement, they can do so, but if they do not, we are going to do nothing, even though industrial paralysis becomes so acute that the whole machinery will have stopped." That seems to me not to be carrying out the duties for which any Government is elected. Here you have something over 100,000 shareholders in the pits. They say to over 1,000,000 workpeople: "You can come to work on our terms. Unless you are prepared to accept our terms, the pits will remain closed. What does it matter to us if the nation is deprived of its coal?" We all know that without coal our industrial machinery is bound to slow down. That does not concern the coalowners very much. We know that the profits they have made in the past will enable them, even though the pits were closed for the next 12 months, not to lose a single meal and not to see their children marching to school short of boots. They will continue to live just as well as they did prior to the stoppage, and it matters not to them whether the pits are working or not. It does matter to the nation, and it ought to matter to the Government, as to whether the pits are going to provide the coal that the other dependent industries need.

    1797
    But they seem to have made up their mind that the coalowner is going to be permitted for as long as he likes to keep the mines closed, and the weapon they have placed in the hands of the coalowners, the Eight Hours Act, is going to be used to starve the mine workers into submission. I do not think there is a ghost of a chance for a considerable time yet of the mine workers going back on an eight-hours day. The Prime Minister tells us the financial position of the nation is such that he cannot contemplate any further subsidy. He suggests that a subsidy is wrong in principle, and even though he felt disposed to provide some financial assistance, the situation at the moment is such that he cannot contemplate it. It is rather peculiar that the principle is bad so far as the coalmines are concerned but when it is a question affecting land and the landed interests, when it is a question of providing a subsidy, for instance, for the production of sugar beet, it is right. Is a subsidy wrong in principle for housing? If it is, we have been wrong now for a considerable number of years. Housing enthusiasts feel that certain individuals may have taken a bigger share of the subsidy than they ought to have been permitted to take, but the fact has emerged that more houses have been built during the past few years than at any previous period. We are not going to argue that a subsidy can be right in principle for an industry in perpetuity, but last year the Government granted a subsidy of an unlimited sum, without laying down any conditions whatever. They said to the coalowners in effect, "Tell us how much you have lost, and we will meet the bill. We are not going to examine your books and we are not going to insist that the coal should be sold at an economic price. We are simply going to meet the deficit when the deficit has been created." So at the end of the period the Government had to find £23,000,000.
    They also found that the subsidy had been used in such a manner as to create a worse set of conditions than those that obtained before. Threepence a ton over the whole six months ending July, 1925, had been lost. After they had received £23,000,000 for the next nine months they had so regulated their prices in selling coal, both for export
    1798
    and to their friends at home, that instead of losing 3d. on every ton they produced, they were actually losing 1s. 11d. That was the real cause of the position we found ourselves in at the end of April, merely because the Government had granted this unlimited sum of money, without conditions, to the coalminers. But whether that was right or wrong, we feel that the method was entirely wrong, while the intention may have been right. But the present situation is totally different. The miners are not to blame for the present position. The Government, in their action during the last nine months, and the coalowners, in the method they used to dispose of the subsidy, are wholly and solely responsible for the economic position of the industry at the conclusion of the subsidy period. Therefore, the miners ought not to be the first to be asked to make sacrifices either in wages or hours because of the mishandling of the position by the coalowners hitherto. If, as has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade, approximately £150,000,000 has been lost during the first 12 weeks of this dispute — approximately £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a week—it is not too much for us to ask the Government to come to the assistance of the industry for a short period, laying down definite specific conditions as to how the money shall be used and for what purpose, so that at the end of that period there may be a possibility of a permanent settlement being reached.
    On these lines, I think the proposal of the Bishops might very well have been treated with greater respect than has been shown towards them by the Government. We know that the prices for exported coal went down by no less than 3s. a ton, and it did not bring that extra volume of trade that hon. Members constantly tell us will come as the result of reducing prices. They reduced the price of coal to the steel manufacturers by 2s. 10d. a ton. Here we find that the coal industry, the people who produce the raw material, are the only people said to be working on uneconomic lines. The miners are divorced from any sort of control or any voice as to how the coal is to be sold or at what price. In those circumstances they ought not to be charged with occupying an uneconomic position in industry. It is as much the

    1799
    Government responsibility because of their lack of attention and care during the last nine months as it is the responsibility of the coalowners, that we find ourselves in our present position.
    It would be infinitely better finance and better business all round if the Government would provide the small sum which would be required for a period of four months to set the industry on its feet, to reorganise the selling agencies, to sell the coal at a price which would meet all the demands of the producers and others, and at the end of that period, not only would we not have whittled away £20,000,000, but we should have prevented a loss of £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a week. We should have got 1,000,000 miners back, producing valuable commodities, and other industries as a result would be able to come back into production. The few million pounds that would be required would be infinitesimal compared with the tremendous losses which the nation is now suffering. The Prime Minister said in reply to a question to-day, and this indicates the Government's indifference to the whole business, that if we had not reached a settlement by the time the House adjourned on 5th August, we shall be called back each month until a settlement is reached. Each month the House is to be called back until a settlement is reached. If a sum of £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 stands between a settlement, and if the Prime Minister and the Government fail to produce that sum of money, they are not fit to occupy their high office and they ought to make way for some body of people who can view these industrial problems with greater impartiality and with greater business sense. That would be better for the nation as a whole.
    I regret the very cold, icy response which the proposals of the Bishops have received, and I also regret some of the statements that have been made with regard to the nosy-parkers who have been dealing with business that is said to be entirely outside their province. Many of these people who have been interesting themselves in this dispute, are called upon daily to make visits in their various parishes and dioceses, and they see the poverty and the suffering resulting from the stoppage and are better able than many politicians, who think they
    1800
    know something about industry, to bring to bear a clear, impartial mind on the problem and its difficulties. I hope that this discussion will compel the Prime Minister to give more consideration than appears to have been given to these proposals, and that the nation by an irresistible force will drive him into doing the thing that he ought to do, to bring the two parties together to find a solution of this problem. From the financial point of view, I hope it will be noted that £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 a week may be lost through a continuation of the stoppage, compared with the few million pounds that would be required to give us a new start for what one hopes would be a new era in the mining industry.
    If we are driven to go back by sheer starvation either to eight hours or to large reductions of wages, the Secretary for Mines, from his close association with miners, will know that the miners will not go back in a very happy mood. Ill-will will be engendered, the suspicion that the Government have been on the side of the coalowners from beginning to end will be instilled into the minds and hearts of the miners and their families; there will be a desire for revenge, and they will take the first opportunity that presents itelf to make an attack, when they will hope to win, probably with an impartial Government in office, what they have lost while the present partial Government has been in office. From that point of view, in order to prevent ill-will and suspicion, and in order to prevent the repetition of what we are enduring now, I appeal to the Government to give more consideration to the proposals of the bishops, to be more conciliatory than they have been, to recognise that there are two sides to this dispute, and that whatever advances have been made, the men's representatives have made them, and that the coalowners have made no advances. Eight hours from the first has been their policy, and it is their policy now. They have never deviated from that. They have never intended to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is because of the support which has been given to them by the Government, from the first, that they have held firmly to this object. It is because they are assisted by the Government that they are resisting any sympathetic approach that may be made either by the bishops or the

    1801
    officials of the Miners' Federation. I hope the Government may be driven to treating these proposals with much more sympathy and tolerance than has been the case up to the present time.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I am afraid that in the few remarks that I shall make I shall not receive sympathy, perhaps, from my own Party, and perhaps not even sympathy from hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House. The City of Edinburgh is not a coal mining district, in one sense, but we have great coal mines in the vicinity, and as I happen to live within a few miles of the constituency of the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), I have made it my duty every week-end for the last ten weeks to get into touch, not with blue books—we have all read them—not with bishops or what they say—we have had too much of the bishops in this Debate—but with the miners and to find out what the miners think and what the miners want. I do not presume to speak with any authority, but I have been in the great mining centres of the County of Fife and I have tried to get at the truth. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing that I have found is the wonderfully good feeling. Perhaps I had better put it the other way, and say that I have been struck by the lack of ill-will against the owners. As far as I have come into close contact with the men, I have never known a body of men so fair, so just, so anxious to do the right thing, if the right thing can be found at this moment, as the miners of the great county of Fife and the Lothians. They would do almost anything to have a just settlement. The wives of the miners and all the miners I have spoken to are of the same opinion. The miners do not want any less wages and, if possible, they do not want any longer hours, while the owners want coal at a less cost. Can it be done? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), more nearly than any other speaker, approached the heart of the question, but he did not make any practical suggestion as to how the on costs could be reduced. I put that question to hundreds of miners in West Fife and the Lothians, and they gave me a simple answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) has had this question under his observa-
    1802
    tion for many years, and whether the miners are right or wrong, I think it is right that the voice of the moderate miner should be heard in this House at this moment. And I presume to give it as I heard it from the miners themselves.
    They recognise, no one more fairly and squarely, that there are good and bad parts of a pit, and that the miner who is lucky enough to work in a good part has to subsidise the miner who works in the bad part. There has to be gives and-take. What they say is this, that when the price per ton is settled—it has to be altered from time to time—they should have a chance of getting as much coal as they can if they like to put extraordinary energy into their work. I put it to the miners whether they could get more coal if a set wage per ton was given and they were not always brought back to one dead level wage per day, and they said, Yes. It is not a question of ca' canny. They do a fair day's work, but every man, if he has an incentive to get a few shillings more from day to day, will almost work air life blood out to get it for his wife and family. It is not a question of ca' tanny. I asked a miner friend to put it in black and white so that if necessary I could read his own words to the Committee. This is what he says:
    "This will happen—an increase of output—if the men are left with a rate that allows of an extra shilling being earned, even though it may entail a sacrifice in energy and strength—and cause them to go home readier for rest than recreation, but when the point is reached where the miner, after exercising all his skill and strength to get that extra shilling, finds the effort hopeless, and the result is a bad wage, or one below the standard, then the incentive, the anxiety, the will to get all he can out of a day's work disappears, with the result we know."
    He sums up the question in these words:
    "This tame day's wage is a drawback where 'hustle' is wanted. The little gamble or speculation, being part of most men's nature, unappealed to, renders a shift or day's work a tedious thing, does not encourage a man to give of his best. What is true of piece work getting coal is true of piece work transporting it; so much per ton will fetch more from face to pit bank if it warrants a good wage to the man than if they were paid day's wages, and often less men will do the work."
    The proposition to put before the men is this—it is a proposition which is carried out in all trades as far as I know.

    1803
    The greater the output the more you can pay the men in wages, and the suggestion of which these men have approved, and which I put before them is this: they would not object to the owners saying to them, "We cannot afford to give you so much for the first 20 tons per week as we can for the second 20 tons, and we cannot give you so much for the second 20 tons as we can for the third 20 tons. You may get 40 tons per week at the present, but we can only give you a certain wage. We will give you 6d. more per ton if you will get another 20 tons, and make it 60 tons per week." Then down would come the on-costs. I put it to a working miner. He told me that he got 28 tons one week. He was paid 2s. 11d. He got 35 tons another week, and it was brought down to 2s. 6d. I asked him how much he could have produced in that week, and he said, "I think I could have got between 55 and 60 tons." If the owners would submit a proposition of this kind to the miners: We will give you a higher price for the last 20 tons you can produce in a week, they would produce the amount of coal wanted in this country, not in eight hours, but in seven hours, and perhaps in less. That is what I have found while talking to the miners in Fife and the Lothians.
    What has happened is this. Owing to all the amalgamations which have taken place the owners, who ought to have been in daily touch with the miners, are out of touch with them, and the miners themselves have tied themselves into a knot by saying not a penny off the wages and not a minute on the hours. There the matter begins and ends. The coalowners are out of touch with the miners, and the miners have tied themselves into a knot. What is wanted is this. If the coalowners, who have done great things in developing the coalfields, had the pluck to go straight to the miners at this moment and say, "Now what is the matter; we are in a hole. The whole industry is in a hole. What are you going to do?" If I were a coalowner, I would take my bag and settle at the public house at Kelty or Cowdenbeath until I got to the bottom of the question. I would not make speeches. The position is most extraordinary. For two or three generations the coalowners have paid millions of pounds in wages to the men.
    1804
    They have built institutes, given bowling greens and built houses. I admit that it has all been in the way of business. I am not trying to make any party capital out of the question. It is to me most extraordinary that the coalowners, having done this, have not the slightest influence at this moment in the coalfields which they have developed.
    What is the matter? The coalowners are respected, and greatly respected; there is no illwill. But there is the fact. The women and the men are undoubtedly anxious to get back to work, but the deadlock is continuing and no one seems to be getting any nearer a solution. There are no two men more respected in Scotland than the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown) and the right hon. Member for West Fife. With men of that character, and with men among the coalowners who are respected throughout Scotland, why cannot the two sides get together and look one another in the face? It is a tragedy. It is not pride on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife. He is the last man, I should think, to have a bit of pride in him. Why does he not walk up to some of the big owners and say: "Look here! Someone has to settle this question. I do not want to go behind the back of Mr. Smith or Mr. Cook, who were properly elected, but cannot four or five of us get together and do something?" If they cannot do it, cannot some of the ordinary miners, who have not yet taken a part in politics—unfortunately there is politics in this business—make practical suggestions?
    There is a great chance for the Government at this moment, and I say that to the Secretary for Mines. There is great good will and good feeling, even after all that has taken place in the coalfields of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of it and get a move on and do something, he will earn the gratitude of all concerned. Let him get hold of the right hon. Member for West Fife. If that right hon. Gentleman does not get a move on himself, he will have to lose his job. I do not want to introduce any personal matters into the Debate, but I would say that I made remarks similar to these at a public meeting, and immediately I got letters from all over the coalfield asking me to go and address meetings, one of them from Lochgelly. Fancy an old Tory among the "Bolshies"

    1805
    of Lochgelly! That shows the good feeling that exists. It exists at this moment. Why should we not try to encourage that good feeling? Do not let any coldness exist on the Conservative Benches. Let us be as warm in sympathy with the miners as possible. By that I mean, let us be deeply anxious to do the right thing at the present time. Let us take advantage of this great opportunity. If we do not take advantage of it greater crises than that through which we are now passing will occur. I appeal to the Secretary for Mines to seize the opportunity and to render one of the greatest services that a Minister can render to the country at the moment.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I intervene not so much to introduce any opinions of my own as to elicit from the Secretary for Mines something that will clear up the doubts that are in the minds of most members of this Committee. I want to know where we really are. We are representatives here, and we have to report to our constituencies. Those of us who have mining constituents have to report to them. I want to be in a position, without any misapprehension, when I next meet my mining constituents, to tell them what the actual position is and to what they can look forward. The object of my intervention is to invite the Minister to make a clear and direct statement and to give a precise definition as to where we really are and to what the miners can look forward. Last year the Prime Minister tried, and I believe tried very earnestly, to get the mineowners and miners together. He urged that it was a matter for them to settle for themselves. Whoever was to blame, he failed in his effort. Having failed, he appointed a Royal Commission and granted a colossal subsidy. The Commission has sat and has reported, and now we are neither to have the Report put into operation nor are we to have any subsidy. Notwithstanding that, as far as I understood the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, he goes back to his original proposition and considers it still to be the duty of the mineowners and the miners to meet and agree. If that was impossible last year, how has it been made possible this year, in view of the passing of the Eight Hours Bill? The chances in that direction, instead of being increased,
    1806
    have been greatly decreased, and the position to-day is worse instead of better.
    I should feel that there was an absolute impasse, but for that which, I am sorry to notice, has been derided in many quarters of this House—the intervention of the Bishops and the ministers. I for one hailed that intervention with very great gratitude. I think it was high time that something of the kind was done. It has been fully explained why they have intervened. Now there is a chance given again to the Government to get this matter put on a peaceable basis. I respectfully suggest that in the very interesting speech to which we have just listened we have had perhaps the strongest advocacy that the Government should listen to the Bishops' proposals. It is the one last chance at the present time, apparently, to get the mineowners and the miners together. The Bishops make practical proposals. If those practical proposals are carried out, negotiations will be entered into, all the suggestions of the hon. Member who has just spoken will be taken into consideration, and there will be a chance of getting the mines placed on a better basis. As far as I can learn, while at this juncture it is vital to the welfare of the nation to get this terrible struggle settled, all that stands in the way are a few million pounds, while at the same time we are wasting millions every week to a very much larger extent.
    I put it directly to the Secretary of Mines: Do the Government absolutely turn down this last suggestion for securing, through the intervention of the Bishops and ministers, negotiations between the mineowners and the miners to arrive at some direct settlement; and if they turn it down, what do they propose in its place? Are we to understand that they will simply leave the question as it is, during the holidays and during the months that are before us, and that this issue is to be fought out to a finish between the owners and the miners? I meet these poor miners; I have to answer to them as their representative, and there is no man representing miners in Parliament whose heart has not been saddened by what he has seen and heard recently. I want to be able to bring peace to them. I was speaking to them last week, and I was desolate in trying to address them because I knew not what to say. I do

    1807
    not want to stir up strife; I want to produce peace, but in order to produce peace it is necessary to indicate some practical means to that end. When I meet them again, am I to tell them that the suggestion from the Bishops and ministers has been reasonably and considerately received and that there is some hope; or am I to tell them that it has been turned down absolutely, that there is no other practical proposal to take its place, and that all we have to look for is a fight to a finish? In that case, their hearts will be sad, and my heart will be sad, and what the future will be none of us can tell. This offer gives a chance of peace. Unless that offer is accepted I see no chance of peace. I put it to the Secretary for Mines: What is it to be, peace or war? We have a right to know, and I ask him to tell us.
    9.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have listened to this Debate with great interest and considerable disappointment. Scarcely a speech has been made which has carried us any further, and it is especially disappointing that Members of the party opposite should continue to adopt an attitude which is certainly not calculated to bring this dispute to an early close. [HON. MEMBERS: "In what way?"] I will explain. It seems to me it is not fair to suggest that the Government are partial. That statement does not advance matters, and everything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition seemed calculated only to make matters worse. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Prime Minister of making no effort to bring the dispute to an end, whereas the Prime Minister has striven from the beginning to bring the dispute to an end and has done so impartially, acting as trustee of the nation and not as the representative of either miners or mineowners. With what the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) said I have the greatest sympathy. I know there are hundreds of miners in my own constituency who are as anxious as the miners of Fife to get back to work, and many of them realise what must be the end of this dispute if it is carried to extremes. It is rather amazing, and is a reflection upon our common sense, that we here should be fighting over these questions of hours and wages when the miners in other
    1808
    parts of the world are working longer hours in order to capture our trade. A continuance of this dispute will do nobody any good. It cannot have any effect in the part of the world from which I come except to close the pits, in some cases for ever, and so long as hon. Members opposite look upon this question from a political and not from an economic point of view we shall get no further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot!"] Hon. Members opposite say that this is rot and sheer nonsense and so forth. These are expressions to which I am accustomed and they do not affect me in the least. I know this an economic question, and an economic question only, and the Government's difficulty is to make that fact apparent to the miners' leaders. The leaders of the Miners' Federation have failed miserably—
    Mr. BATEY: What about the Prime Minister?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They have gone over to Europe and have tried to make the miners of Europe play the game which they wished them to play, and they have failed.
    Mr. BARKER: What about Russia? We have had a bit from there?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not know if the hon. Member desires to live on Russian help, but, if this is the case, it does not seem to have given the miners of Great Britain much credit in the eyes of the miners of France, Germany and Belgium, If hon. Gentleman opposite would only look upon this matter from a sane point of view they would realise that this strike or lockout, or whatever you term it—in my part of the country we call it a stoppage—must end sooner or later. How are we going to bring it to a speedy end? There is a good deal to be said for the suggestions put forward by the Bishops, but those, suggestions do not bring us much nearer a settlement. Indeed from what the Prime Minister said, it seems to me that they have not carried us any further at all. There is nothing to prove that, supposing the Government were to grant a subvention for the next four months, there would be a settlement at the end of that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] If hon. Members opposite can assure the

    1809
    Government that they can bring about a settlement at the end of four months—a permanent settlement or at least a settlement for a certain number of years—as a result of the adoption of these suggestions, then it is a matter which might be considered.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: That is in the terms.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Can you get the leaders of the Miners' Federation to say that absolutely?
    Mr. BARKER: They have said it.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, they have not said it. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) used the expression "may guarantee a settlement." What you have to do is to guarantee that you will carry into effect the Bishops' suggestions; what you have to say on behalf of the Miners' Federation is that their leaders will accept and guarantee a settlement at the end of these four months—that is, if the Government see their way to accept this proposal.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Do they not accept the principle of arbitration on the balance of unsolved questions at the end of four months?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If what the hon. Member suggests is correct, and if the miners' leaders absolutely agree to accept arbitration as a final solution of the problems that remain unsolved, at the end of four months, then it seems to me that something definite is offered, and I am glad persoNaily to have elicited this for my own information. But nevertheless, it is perfectly fair to say that speakers on the opposite side have never definitely said so. I have carefully listened to their speeches, and the hon. Member for Don Valley, who represents the point of view of the Miners' Federation, said they might guarantee a settlement.
    Mr. SUTTON: Have not four officials, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, signed a memorandum to that effect?
    Mr. BATEY: Will the hon and gallant Member let me read it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I am prepared to believe that those proposals have been made; if so, it is a great step forward. If you can definitely say that, we know where we are, but I specially want to emphasise that no real settlement can be brought about if there is this perpetual atmosphere of suspicion. Suspicion is the curse of the whole of this mining problem. I have met it ever since I went into the mining area; I know that that is the real trouble which makes the whole coal question so difficult to solve. It is this atmosphere of suspicion, always the miners suspecting the owners, and always the owners wondering how they can best make money out of the mines. Let me put it like that. I am sure that if you can carry out the propositions put forward by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh you will get a man to work his best, and he should get paid for his best; if an owner do not cut prices for piecework, his men will do their best, and the industry will prosper. I am certain that in this way only shall we get to the end of our troubles. It is futile for anyone who speaks on this subject to shut his eyes to the fact that, unless we can very soon get our pits going again, the trade and industry of this country must inevitably go from bad to worse. It seems to me that it is time for those who lead the miners to remember that there are other industries that are suffering, and that workers in other industries came to their assistance in this struggle. The time has come when the miners' leaders must be prepared to come forward and really show that they mean to bring the struggle to an end.
    Mr. WALSH: They have done so.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If you really are willing to resume negotiations on some such terms as those suggested by the Bishops, it seems to me that those proposals are worthy of consideration.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: From the moment that the Prime Minister of this country violated both the spirit and the letter of the Coal Commission's Report in handing over to the owners the bargaining weapon of the eight-hours day, public opinion in this country has steadily hardened and set itself against the Government. It has been reflected in all the important organs of public opinion, it has been reflected in the recent

    1811
    Wallsend by-election, and it has been reflected in this very unusual action of the Churches—I do not know how far we should require to go back in history to find a previous example—of the whole of the Churches of this country coming out and making a declaration upon a fundamental matter concerning the economic life of this country. Therefore, from every point of view, there is not a Member in this House, to whatever party he belongs, who does not know, and who did not realise again, as he remembered the things which the Prime Minister did not say as he listened to the very spiritual and moral attitude of the Prime Minister in delivering his speech this afternoon, that the present policy of the Government, in merely handing over weapons to the owners and deliberately neglecting the essential reconstruction of the industry, stands condemned before the whole of this nation in every essential. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are being asked to leave this matter in the hands of the owners and the men. We are being asked, in other words, to go back to the old methods of the 19th century to settle this problem. We are abandoning, in that very act of the Prime Minister, all the essential advice that this nation has had with regard to the mining industry since 1919, because there has never been any responsible advice given to the nation, since the days of the Sankey Commission, which did not say, in the very first place—not in the last place, nor even in the second place—that the only way in which to begin, from the point of view of the mining industry, was to introduce the principle of public co-operation into the industry, and that the only way to begin was to take Government initiative as the primary condition affecting any kind of either temporary or Permanent settlement of the problem.
    It has been said, over and over again, that we must go back to the methods of private enterprise to settle this problem. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has been referring in his last three speeches, I think, to the example of America, and he has suggested that we should go back to the American conditions, leave the State out of account, and let the owners and the men fight the problem out for themselves. I suggest that, even if you take the
    1812
    American example, which, from the mining point of view, does offer the best example of high wages, you will find that we cannot hope, in the American method, to find a solution of our difficulties. Mr. Hoover has spent a great many years as one of the leading advisers of the American nation in regard to industrial problems, and, in analysing the situation over there, he has made it abundantly clear that the real problem in American mines is essentially the wastes that come from badly organised pits. In an analysis of the whole problem there, he has put 75 per cent. of the problem of waste in American industry on the side of bad management. Taking six leading industries in America, the building industry, the boot and shoe trade, the metal trade, the printing industry, the men's clothing trade, and the textile industry, he has found in every case that the wastes due to management average from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. out of 100 per cent., and the wastes due to bad methods on the part of the men represent 9 per cent., 10 per cent., 11 per cent., 12 per cent., or 13 per cent.
    When Mr. Hoover came to apply his objective method of analysis to the American mining industry, he pointed out to the American nation, as well as to this nation; that that industry was the worst organised of the whole of the American industries. Those who have been to America, and particularly to the bituminous coalfields, know very well that, while they have got a very high degree of efficiency in respect of cutters and other machines during the last 10 years, and while the men there have got high wage rates, their average week is not more than 2½, days; they know that last year the men in the coalfields were idle for more than a third of the working days; and they know that for the last 30 years, in the bituminous mines of America, the men have never worked more than two-thirds of a working day. Therefore, the whole analysis which comes from the American side makes it quite clear that, even by having an 8-hours day, including the winding time, and high rates of wages, they are not able to solve the problem of an efficient organisation of the mining industry.
    It is admitted that they have got 200,000 men too many in that industry,

    1813
    and it is admitted that they have got several hundred first-class mines which cannot work because they are able to turn out far too much coal, under an unregulated system of private enterprise, so that an American Commission, reporting in 1923, laid it down as a principle that the mining industry was of the nature of a public industry, and until some element of public control was introduced, there was no likelihood of any permanent or satisfactory solution of the mining problem. I venture to suggest, therefore, that any serious analysis of the American conditions must lead to the conclusion that the introduction of the principle of public regulation, and the introduction of the principle of a lesser working day than is being carried out at the present time, at least in the non-union districts of America, where they are working from 8½ to 11 hours a day, are indispensable to any satisfactory approach to the American system of mining at the present time. Therefore, I want to come back to the original point of view, with which the Labour movement has been busy throughout the whole of this dispute. It is no use saying that this is not a political matter, not an affair of the State. It has been fundamentally and essentially an affair of the State ever since 1919. I have no reasonable ground of complaint against the Prime Minister if he merely says that the nationalisation of the mines is a Socialistic proposal, and, therefore, cannot be touched.
    But we do feel that we have the gravest grounds of complaint that where you have an eminent Judge in 1919 examining a number of witnesses, and declaring his final judgment, that until you do away with the unregulated system of conducting the mining industry, you cannot begin to touch satisfactorily the problem of either producing or selling the coal, and saying that private enterprise is a wrong against the nation; when he has said in 1919, and again in 1925 and 1926, that this nation cannot hope to take the first step to deal with this problem,, either in terms of wages, in terms of hours or in terms of the widest interest of the community, without working out this primary principle of public co-operation in the mining industry, then, in those circumstances, in the light of all we have gone through in 13 weeks, in the light of the efforts
    1814
    of Sir Herbert Samuel, in the light of the effort of the Labour movement, and in the light of the organs of public opinion, the churches and chapels of this country through their leading bishops and ministers of religion, to bring back the Prime Minister, not to a Labour policy, not to the interests in which we as a party have engaged for the past 30 years, but to the essential point of view of Sir Herbert Samuel—in these circumstances, we are on perfectly sound ground when we say that the Prime Minister is deliberately acting against the best advice which has been given to this nation ever since 1919. I have been in the last six weeks in my constituency speaking to my own people, one-third of them being miners. They are living in small villages dotted about the hill sides and valleys of York-shire. I had to stand up and talk to these men, and tell them what I thought about the situation. Part of their pride has been that they belong to the leading mining industry in the world, and they, who have fought for 50 or 60 years to raise their conditions inch by inch, are now asked to go below the worst conditions that can be found in Europe. They know that the Germans and the Poles are going to be better off than themselves in respect to hours of labour, and they, who, with their fathers and grandfathers, have laid the foundations of the industrial situation, are now being invited, by the head of the most powerful Conservative Government of modern times, to go back somewhere into the 19th century in respect to conditions.
    I was talking to an old miner at one of my meetings, and he said, "I am 74 years of age, and I have been going into the mine ever since I was nine years old"—that is 65 years. He asked, "What have I got for it all?" and answered "Nowt." He said, "Now I have got to go back again when this trouble is over, and they want me to go down for eight hours a day." I say there is something profoundly and deeply disturbing, not simply for the miners, but for the best men and women in this nation in the open and flagrant manner in which the Prime Minister is acting. I want to raise my protest in the same spirit that the Church of England has done in the past week, on economic and moral grounds, and to ask at the beginning of this 13th

    1815
    week of the struggle, one of two things, either that the Prime Minister will have the economic wisdom and the moral courage to stand by the essential features of the Royal Commission's Report, or hand in his resignation, and let us have a General Election.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Debate to-day, we were told, was to mark one of the stages towards an early solution of the troubles in the coal areas. But I regret to say that, having listened to nearly the whole of it, I do not feel that we are much further forward. That is a matter of very grave concern. The House is on the eve of separating for the August holidays, and we, as Members of Parliament through the House of Commons, will not be able to make any contribution towards the settlement, at any rate, for a month, and it may be longer. We had hoped that this discussion, starting as it did from a new point, would have enabled the Government to make some announcement, or to have shown some alteration in position, or would have told us of a new development in the minds of the mine-owners which would have given us some cause for hope. Up to the present, I regret we have heard nothing that is at all cheerful, and, as we look round the country, we recognise that every economic fact with which we are now faced leads us to the conclusion that this dispute is going to be the most costly through which this country has ever passed. It is not only a matter of the loss in which other industries are involved, but if one may go to the coal trade itself, it means that the longer this dispute continues, the longer we shall be in recovering not only our home but our foreign trade, and much of our foreign trade will, I fear, never be regained.
    There is no doubt that every week which passes now brings the agents of the foreign coal exporters to markets which were peculiarly our own, and once they have been established their firms in the markets, and in many cases involved the concerns supplied with the coal in an alteration of their equipment to suit the foreign fuel, they are making an economic alliance which will be gravely to our detriment when we seek to regain our control of those markets. Then, there is very little doubt that disputes such as these, extending as they do for
    1816
    a considerable time every four or five years, give, I think, a tremendous impetus to the use of other fuel. We are not particularly interested in this country in the production of oil, but we are becoming increasingly large consumers of oil, and, indeed, without that oil fuel in its various forms we should have been in grave difficulties in the last few months. The world is taking to the use of oil with greater and greater rapidity. We are scarcely living in the oil age, but we are, at all events, by interrupting the output of our coal and export of coal, giving an enormous advantage to the rival fuel. Concerns which consume oil are adapting their machinery, furnaces and boilers, or if it is in the form of spirit, their cylinders, and once they have adopted liquid fuel you may be quite sure they are not likely to return rapidly to coal. So that we are actually seeing our foreign markets flitting away from us on two grounds—namely, on commercial grounds and on mechanical grounds.
    We have only to look at the industries in this country to see the very large field affected. The textile trade will have very little fuel by the end of next week. There is very little available now. The iron trade is down to such a low level that there are only 10 furnaces in the whole of Great Britain still in blast. The engineering trade is almost entirely at a standstill. The shipbuilding industry also is hampered by lack of fuel. The export of coal by ships, which has been one of the most important sources of mercantile revenue, and which has given us a hold over the carriage of goods in the world which no other natural advantages could have conferred upon us, is now down to such a low ebb that the tide seem to be flowing uphill. Coals are now coming to Newcastle. The fuel which is being used on the Thames now is not North County fuel or from the Midlands, but very poor coal from abroad. [An HON. MEMBER: "And very dear!"] What I am mainly concerned with is that once these new channels are opened you may be quite sure that they will be further and further developed. It is quite true, as an hon. Member says, that it is very deal coal, and the dearness of that coal places a burden on all the other industries of this country which they are very ill-equipped

    1817
    to bear in these days when profits are very small and markets are only won by small margins.
    It is not only a question of trade measured in terms of money and output, but the men who are employed in these industries are being thrown on to the streets by thousands every week, and there will be more and more of them in the near future. The misery and distress that are to be found in the mining industry are almost excelled in some districts which are dependent on coal for the maintenance of their industries. There is a good deal of sympathy being aroused and very rightly aroused—for those who are suffering in the coal areas, and, thank God, the English heart is so warm that, in these times, whatever may be their point, of view in industrial disputes or politics, there are always a good many people who take care that the women and children do not starve. But it so happens that sympathy is not so easily aroused for the industries which are concerned in the dispute only in a secondary degree. Those of us who move about in the industrial areas can see the loss in health, especially among the younger generation. That is far beyond any means of assessment and we shall not be able to repair the harm done during these few weeks for years to come.
    In these circumstances, and with such a gloomy tale to tell of the state of England at the present time, is it not natural that we should welcome any efforts, no matter from whom they come, to bring about a settlement? I hear things said to-day in regard to the Bishops which naturally make one smile. I have heard hon. Gentlemen, who in the past have been their best supporters, declaring with a good deal of contempt that the Bishops are not equipped for dealing with practical affairs of everyday life and ought not to plunge into the field of economics. I have the pleasure of knowing a good many of the signatories of the famous document in question, and I can only say that if they know very little about the getting of coal and the selling of coal, they, at all events, may be appealed to on their human side, and that is not to be regarded as a condemnation of them, for this is, after all, a human question. To tell the truth, one of the elements which is most difficult to deal with in the coal trade is the deeply
    1818
    embedded ill-will which everyone has to face who has had anything whatever to do with coal disputes in the past. Like other hon. Gentlemen in this House, I have had on occasions to act the part of conciliator, and I know nothing more distressing than to find, when one gets the miners and the owners together, that they distrust the statemens made on the opposite side of the table, that they watch each other as though they were not co-operators in a great industry but practically in an economic war. I do not think that ought to be so, but that is the position. They watch each other so carefully that no document passes across the table but it is scrutinised as though there were tricks in it somewhere. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Mines will bear me out when I say that this element of ill-will appears to be the insurmountable obstacle in everyone of these transactions.
    I believe in the good faith of the Prime Minister, and I believe that on the whole the country places a good deal of trust in it. But, unfortunately, the position has so developed during the lost few weeks that now the Government are regarded as antagonistic to the mining community. That is a most unfortunate position. I have never liked the idea of Governments interfering in industrial disputes. They very seldom do well. From what I have seen of every intervention by Governments, at the end of it you find the seeds of disagreement and ill-will in the future. The truth is that Governments are not well equipped for settling disputes such as this. No matter what steps they adopt, they are bound to be suspected of being on one side or the other. If they take up a line which appears too friendly to the miners, then there are many—not all—owners who will say, "The Government are truckling to the mob." If they take up a line which appears too friendly to the owners, there are a good many gentlemen who say, "Ah, there are you are, your natural allies." It is the same, no matter what Government it is. If right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were in office, there would always be one section of the community who would suspect them of having some political motive in everything they did.
    The truth is that the mixing up of politics and economics is one of the greatest errors. Let me pursue that. I

    1819
    have no intention whatever of shirking the statement I have made. Can the House or can anybody point to one single case under any Government where they have attempted to take a hand in settling a dispute, without agreement within the industry itself, where they have been successful? Agreement within the industry is an absolutely essential condition. I should like to know what the position of the cotton trade would be if it were passing through the same ordeal as the coal trade is at present. Everyone knows the cotton trade will tell you, trade unionists as well as mill owners, that they understand the cotton trade and that no politician ever does. That is their view. You go into the shipbuilding yards, and they have succeeded during the most difficult period in dealing with their problems with an amount of agreement and co-operation which has never been excelled. One of the most remarkable facts is that the shipbuilding trade unions—and there is a very large group of very nearly 30—have entered into complete co-operation in the mental side of the shipbuilding industry, a position absent, I regret to say, from the coal industry, to such a degree that there is no man who sits round the table at these conferences on either side who has not a fuller understanding of the point of view of the employés or, if he be an employé or trade unionist, who has not a fuller understanding of the conditions of the trade of the world, than he would have if they never met, and always regarded themselves as being antagonistic, and at the end of it called in the Government to settle their disputes.
    We come to a situation in which, not the Government, but an entirely outside body of men, with no economic knowledge, knowing nothing about the commercial difficulties of the coal trade, have succeeded in getting the representatives and leaders of the miners to come into conference with them. That is not a thing to be despised or to be jeered at. It is a very remarkable fact, that some of the most prominent of the younger leaders of religion in this country have succeeded in gaining the confidence of the miners to a degree excelling the confidence now reposed in the Government or the mineowners. They have succeeded in gaining that confidence to such an extent that six points, which may not
    1820
    be the actual solution, but which may be the basis of a settlement, have been produced which have led to the leaders of the miners abandoning the slogan. The slogan has gone. They have committed themselves definitely to six points, one of which is an entirely new fact in the mining industry, namely, arbitration. That is a very considerable achievement. In the past the miners have often been prepared for conciliation, but never for arbitration. Arbitration has been fought most bitterly in South Wales. Conciliator after conciliator has sat there Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was one of the best conciliators South Wales ever had. He was succeeded by one or two gentlemen who commanded general confidence, but they always acted as conciliators, not as arbitrators. Now, in this document, the leaders of the Miners' Federation, the officials and the executive, have committed themselves to a new fact, arbitration. I am not going to discuss any of the other five points, but I say definitely that such an important new fact is of great importance to the country, and that the best contribution the Government can make now to a settlement of this dispute is to allow those who have secured from the miners' leaders what they themselves failed to secure to take a further hand and see whether they cannot bring the two sides together.
    At the end of more than one war we have been quite ready to dispense altogether with the formal diplomats. We would settle a war at a wayside inn if we got the chance, and I am prepared to accept a settlement from whatever quarter it comes, whether it be a cathedral or a Wesleyan chapel or a "pub." The cost to the country is so grave, not only in money but in misery, that we ought to take any chance and encourage every activity which will bring the two parties together and enable us to reach a settlement before the autumn is advanced.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I am sure the House will agree, after listening to the very interesting speeches we have heard, that it is disappointing, though it may be disappointing for different reasons, that no greater result should arise from this Debate. Also, I think the House will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr.

    1821
    Runciman) said about the misfortune it is that there should be so much suspicion between the two main parties in the mining industry, and that there should be these constant appeals to Government for help. I can fully corroborate what he said about the blighting effect of that terrible atmosphere of suspicion in the mining industry, how hopeless it seems to try to get the parties together, how hopeless it, seems to ask one side to believe what the other side has said, or even to get them to accept the written and signed word of the other party. That is, indeed, a disappointment, and it has been a great factor in all the discussions; and I believe a great deal of what has occurred has been due to the fact that they have not had the courage to try to tackle their difficulties themselves, but have so constantly gone to the Government for assistance, and that Governments have taken far too free a part in trying to bring about settlements.
    I should be the last person to scoff in any way at any action taken by Bishops. To begin with, I may claim personal friendship with a certain number of those who have taken the action which is the subject of this Debate, and I respect them. The right hon. Gentleman says it makes him smile to hear some of the things which have been said—I am sorry that I have not heard all of the Debate—by Members on this side with reference to these reverend gentlemen. I am bound to say it also makes some of us smile to realise that at this time of his life—in what I may perhaps, without being offensive say, speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) "in the sere and yellow leaf"—he should be found walking hand-in-hand with some of those whom we have had to defend from his repeated attacks in the past. I think some of those right reverend gentlemen will be seriously alarmed at finding themselves so publicly boomed and loudly praised and being conducted hand-in-hand by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on one side and by the Secretary of the Miners' Federation on the other. If ever there was a case of the lion, the old, fighting Welsh lion, lying down with the lamb, I think it is here. In 1921, as the House has been reminded, there were similar interventions, and on
    1822
    that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs described it as
    "an example of interference by a religious organisation in the task of Government which, if followed, would be replete with mischief to both Church and State."
    The position is that economic facts will defeat even the best intentions of the Bishops; and though I am sure the House and the country will welcome their well-meaning efforts to try to settle the dispute, it is possible that by encouraging the miners to think—and this is, I am afraid, partly the reason why their intervention has been so welcome on the other side—that by their efforts they can secure again a subsidy, they have possibly done a great deal to prolong the dispute. It is a very curious thing that we should now have so much said about the desire and the readiness of the miners to enter into arbitration if certain conditions are granted. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) is not now in his place. He said it was unthinkable, monstrous, that the Prime Minister should suggest that his offer that the men should negotiate or arbitrate now should be regarded as an equivalent to the offer contained in the proposal which the Bishops brought to our notice. I would like to know very much why that is. We are told that the miners will be ready to submit to arbitration if for a few months we grant them a subsidy. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) pointed out that it is a very expensive thing to continue this stoppage and that it would be cheaper if we gave a subsidy, but surely it would be much cheaper if they came together to negotiate without a subsidy at all. [Interruption.] I want to press this point. If arbitration or negotiation is really meant, it can start to-morrow; there is nothing to prevent it, and there is no need for this cry that this cannot be done until the country has been bled of many more million pounds. I do not want to use hard words—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rub it in!"]—but I would say that when a gentleman comes and tells you that he will hold you to ransom, that you will be submitted to very heavy expenditure if you do not at once produce money, you certainly do not give him that sum of money, even though it may be more expensive to maintain the more difficult

    1823
    position with which he is threatening you. You do not give him the money, because you know that if you do he will come again. [Interruption.] I would like to read a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on this subject. He was speaking then of the situation at that time, and he was referring I believe to the present Leader of the Opposition. He said:
    "It is a very dangerous thing, and my right hon. Friend himself, because he has got a logical mind, will see what a very perilous thing it is to the nation to say that, because it costs more to defend yourselves, it is better that you should always give way."
    A great deal has been said to-night about the position of Mr. Herbert Smith. Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will show them that I am not fighting the miners but that I am doing nothing but trying to help them. A great deal has been said about the attitude which Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Miners' Federation, took up about accepting the Commissions' Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon told us that Mr. Herbert Smith had accepted the Report on behalf of the Miners' Federation, and that he had heard him doing it. I have a full report of what happened at the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. Before I read it, I would like to ask, first of all, why the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that on that occasion Mr. Herbert Smith made two speeches. Has he forgotten the second speech? If he has not, why did he not tell the Committee about it? The first speech was:
    "The Commission had reported, and it was rather difficult to find out what they meant, for different chapters dealt with the same thing in a different way; but he had agreed, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, to take from page 1 to the end of the Report, to go thoroughly into it and accept the evidence."
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not now seem to be so ready to cheer that [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition then made a speech at that meeting in which he said that Mr. Herbert Smith had made a statement about the attitude of the miners to the Commission's Report that would satisfy anyone who knew anything about negotiations, and that there was
    1824
    no obstacle or impediment, so far as the miners were concerned, to resumption of negotiations on the Report. What was the result of this eloquent speech? Mr. Herbert Smith was so impressed by it that he then proceeded to make a second speech.
    Mr. MacDONALD: It was the second one I did quote.
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am in the recollection of the Committee when I say, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is mistaken in what am speaking about. This was the second speech, in which Mr. Herbert Smith made this explanation:
    "Somebody was under the impression that he had agreed to accept the full Report. What he had intended to imply was that he was prepared to examine the Report from page 1 to the last page, and stand by the result as fiNaily reached."
    [Interruption.] Let right hon. Gentlemen opposite consider what that means. Mr. Herbert Smith was drawing a clear contrast between an impression which somebody had got of what he had said and what he had really meant to say, and there was a great difference between the impression which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon had got and the impression that Mr. Smith himself wished to give. I only want to say that it does seem to me that the leadership of the miners has been on this, as on many previous occasions, quite deplorable. [Interruption.] If you go back to the history of the mining industry, you will find, time and time again, that the miners have had the opportunity of doing a comparatively good deal and have failed by trying to get too much. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never"] In 1919, when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was in office—and here I may say that he is more to blame than anybody else for the suspicion which is holding us up now. I have been told by miners recently,
    "We have known what it is to be sold by a Government before, and we are not going to be had again."
    That referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the Sankey Commission in promising things that he did not carry out. In 1919 the Government offered to carry out the Duckham Scheme contained in the Sankey Commission Report, but it was turned down by

    1825
    the miners because they wanted to go the whole hog of nationalisation, and that would have included the nationalisation of royalties, pit committees, district unification, and so on, but they did not get any of those things because they would not accept the scheme. In 1921 the Government offered a subsidy of £10,000,000, and the miners refused it at that time, and it was only afterwards that they received a reduced sum and accepted £7,000,000 instead of £10,000,000, and so they lost £3,000,000 by trying to get too much. In 1920 the miners were offered pit committees with the consent of the owners, but they refused, and later on the time came when they wanted to accept the offer, but the owners refused. Now they have had an offer of £3,000,000 subsidy, but the time has passed, and they are not getting it. Surely it is time that the miners profited by the mistakes of the past, and realised that it is better to make terms while you can, and not wait until they are not able to get anything.
    The Leader of the Opposition has taken deliberately obstructive action this afternoon, and I never heard a speech which disappointed me more than the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. He has told this House that there is no chance now of our seeing the men negotiating with them. It seems to me like telling them not to negotiate because he could have encouraged them to come forward and not to wait for a subsidy, but he has refused to take that line and he has refused to accept the proposal which was made by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "What proposal?"] The proposal which the Prime Minister has made is to bring these men together in order to negotiate on all the possibilities of hours and wages, but they have again refused that opportunity and by so doing the right hon. Gentleman has made the strike longer and possibly a more bitter one.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £117,030, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 338.

    Division No. 392]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mackinder, W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Gosling, Harry

    March, S.

    Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Barnes, A.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)

    Morris. R. H.

    Barr, J.

    GreeNail, T.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Owen, Major G.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Groves, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Briant, Frank

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

    Bromfield, William

    Halt, F. (York., Normanton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Putts, John S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel

    Harris, Percy A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Riley, Ben

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ritson, J.

    Clowns, S.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Compton, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scurr, John

    Connolly, M.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

    Sexton, James

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shaw, .Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Dalton, Hugh

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jones, T. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smillie, Robert

    Dennison, R.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Snell, Harry

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Lowth, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Sutton, J. E.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Windsor, Walter

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Welsh, J. C.

    Wright, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Westwood, J

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Whiteley, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Viant, S. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Harney.

    NOES.

    Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cooper A. Duff

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Albery, Irving James

    Cope, Major William

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Couper, J. B.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Atkinson, C.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Herbert, Denr. s (Hertford, Watford)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Balniel, Lord

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hilton, Cecil

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Drewe, C.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Berry, Sir George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Bethel, A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eills

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Fielden, E. B.

    lliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Jacob, A. E.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Gates, Percy

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burman, J. B.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Grace, John

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Campbell, E. T.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Cassels, J. D.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Loder, J. de V.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Looker, Herbert William

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A.(Brecon & Rad.)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Christle, J. A.

    Hanbury, C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harland, A.

    Macnaghten, Hon Sir Malcolm

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Cochrane Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    1828

    1829

    Makins, Brigadler-General E.

    Ramsden, E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Reid, Capt. A. S. (Warrington)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Reid, D. D. (Country Down)

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Mason, Lieut.- Col. Glyn K.

    Remer, J. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Meller, R. J.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Merriman, F. B.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Waddington, R.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Roberts E. H. G. (Flint)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Rye, F. G.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wells, S. R.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sandon, Lord

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Neville, R. J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Williams, Com. C. (Davon, Torquay)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Oakley, T.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Skelton, A. N.

    Withers, John James

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Penny, Frederick George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Womersley, W. J.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r.Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wood Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Stanley, Col Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Pilcher, G.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Preston, William

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

    Radford, E. A.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Stanley.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Services Estimates and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Nary, Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

    CLASS I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,425,408, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
    1830
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:

    £

    1.

    Royal Palaces

    71,550

    2.

    Osborne

    11,635

    4.

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    51,110

    5.

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    56,720

    10A.

    Housing Schemes

    5

    10B.

    Mall Approach Improvement

    5

    11.

    Surveys of Great Britain

    89,345

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    21,000

    13.

    Rates on Government Property

    1,068,748

    14.

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    55,290

    £1,425,408"

    CLASS II
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,314,823, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the

    1831
    Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    27,996

    2.

    House of Commons

    234,561

    4.

    Home Office

    243,976

    5.

    Foreign Office

    108,271

    6.

    Colonial Office

    93,468

    7.

    Dominion Office

    30,559

    9.

    Privy Council Office

    6,658

    10.

    Board of Trade

    311,191

    10A.

    Australian Zinc Concentrates

    225,500

    11.

    Department of Overseas Trade

    228,040

    12.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    237,811

    13.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    15.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    759,128

    15A.

    Beet Sugar, Subsidy Great Britain

    2,675,000

    16.

    Forestry Commission

    335,000

    17.

    Ministry of Transport

    71,724

    18.

    Charity Commission

    24,889

    19.

    Government Chemist

    40,785

    20.

    Civil Service Commission

    41,419

    21.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    101,200

    22.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    30,270

    23.

    Government Actuary

    21,477

    £

    24.

    Board of Control, England (including a Supplementary sum of £2,800

    370,617

    25.

    The Mint

    50,000

    26.

    National Debt Office

    11,920

    27.

    Public Record Office

    24,505

    28.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    5

    29.

    Registrar General's Office, England

    56,350

    30.

    State Management Districts

    90

    31.

    Stationery and Printing

    908,344

    32.

    Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    18,992

    33.

    Office of Works and Public Buildings

    378,460

    34.

    Secret Service

    100,000

    35.

    Privy Seal Office

    1,620

    Scotland.

    37.

    Board of Agriculture

    433,111

    38.

    Fishery Board

    43,294

    39.

    General Board of Control

    48,004

    40.

    Registrar General's Office

    10,043

    Ireland.

    41.

    Northern Ireland Services

    10,540

    £8,314,823"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 348; Noes, 151.

    Division No. 393.]

    AYES.

    [10.12. p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Daiziel, Sir Davison

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Burman, J. B.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M S.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Apsley, Lord

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Dixey, A. C.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Astor, Maj. H n. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Atholi, Duchess of

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Edmonson, Major A. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Balniel, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.

    Banks Reginald Mitchell

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Fermoy, Lord

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Christle, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Forrest, W.

    Berry, Sir George

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Bethel, A.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philips

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gates, Percy

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cope, Major William

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Couper, J. B.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Grace, John

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Grainsbro)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Salmon, Major I.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sandon, Lord

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Macintyre, Ian

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

    McLean, Major A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Hanbury, C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Harland, A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Smithers, Waldron

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Meller, R. J.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Herbert, S.(York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Templeton, W. P.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Neville, R. J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Thompson, Rt Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Oakley, T.

    Waddington, R.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Orinsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wells, S. R.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Plelou, D. P.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Preston, William

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Radford, E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Ramsden, E.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Withers, John James

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Wormersely, W. J.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Reld, D. D. (County Down)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Remer, J. R.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Rice Sir Frederick

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Loder, J. de V.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Lougher, L.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Rye, F. G

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

    Stanley.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromley, J.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Briant, Frank

    Cape, Thomas

    Barnes, A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Barr, J.

    Bromfield, William

    Clowes, S.

    1834

    1835

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smillie, Robert

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snell, Harry

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Davison, .I. E. (Smethwick)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Dennison, R.

    Lowth, T.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Dunnico, H.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Gardner, J. P.

    March, S.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Varley, Frank B.

    Gillett, George M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    GreeNail, T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Palling, W.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Westwood, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hardie, George D

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Windsor, Walter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Wright, W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,152,136,be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    132,354

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    17,517

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    242,450

    4.

    Land Registry

    80,632

    5.

    Public Trustee

    5

    6.

    County Courts

    5

    7.

    Police, England and Wales

    3,414,997

    8.

    Prisons, England and Wales

    477,976

    9.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

    130,950

    10.

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    49,838

    Scotland.

    £

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts Courts of Law

    55, 659

    12.

    Scottish Land Court

    6,110

    13.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    50,665

    14.

    Police

    445,000

    15.

    Prisons

    92,107

    16.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    47,457

    Ireland.

    17.

    Supreme Court of judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    32,435

    18.

    Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

    875,979

    £6,152,136"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 351; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 394.]

    AYES.

    [10.25 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Apsley, Lord

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Albery, Irving James

    Applin, Colonel, R. V. K.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Atkinson, C.

    Drewe, C.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jacob, A. E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bennett, A. J.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Berry, Sir George

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. O.

    Bethel, A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Forrest, W.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Looker, Herbert William

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Lougher, L.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Gates, Percy

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gibbs, Col. At. Hon. George Abraham

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grace, John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    McLean, Major A.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Guest, Capt. Rt.Hon F.E.(Bristrol,N.)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steer-

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hall, Capt. W, D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Meller, R. J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hanbury, C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Harland, A.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Christie, J. A.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Clayton, G. C.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Neville, R. J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir G. K.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt, Hon. Sir S. J. G

    Nield, Rt Hon. Sir Herbert

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Oakley, T.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Cooper, J. B.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Owen, Major G.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Hudson Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Plelou, D. P.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pilcher, G.

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovl')

    Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Preston, William

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Radford. E. A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Ramsden, E.

    1838

    1839

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Smithers, Waldron

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wells, S. R.

    Remer, J. R.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westm'eland)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Williams, C. P (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Rye, F. G.

    Styles, Captain H Walter

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Withers, John James

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Templeton, W. P.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sandon, Lord

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Savery, S. S.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon, Sir W. Mitchell-

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Waddington, R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Major Hennessy and Major Sir Harry Barnston.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Groves. T.

    Sexton, James

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Grundy, T. W.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbery)

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barr, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Heyday, Arthur

    Smillie, Robert

    Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brlant, Frank

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sullivan, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Clowes, S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    March, S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Morris, R. H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Westwood, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Duncan, C.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Windsor, Walter

    Gosling, Harry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wright, W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Riley, Ben

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Ritson, J.

    GreeNail, T.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Charles Edwards.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Scurr, John

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,557,782, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    2.

    British Museum

    183,420

    3.

    National Gallery

    13,713

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    5,386

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    8,048

    6.

    London Museum

    2,968

    7.

    Imperial War Museum

    8,685

    8.

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    105,468

    9.

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    242,877

    10.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    981,700

    Scotland.

    12.

    National Galleries

    5,512

    13.

    National Library

    5

    £1,557,782"

    CLASS V.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,286,822, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    552,525

    2.

    Colonial Services

    254,699

    3.

    Dominion Services

    30,593

    4.

    Oversea Settlement

    625,000

    5.

    Middle Eastern Services

    2,284,000

    6.

    League of Nations

    40,000

    7.

    West Indian Islands Cable, Grant-in-Aid

    5

    8.

    Empire Marketing

    500,000

    £4,286,822"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 347; Noes, 150.

    CLASS VII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £17,904,074, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    Ministry of Health

    10,617,048

    3.

    Ministry of Labour

    7,170,135

    4.

    National Insurance, Audit Department

    110,900

    5

    Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    5,991

    £17,904,074"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 148.

    Division No. 395.]

    AYES.

    [10.38 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Agg-Gazdner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Apsley, Lord

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfriid W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Chapman, Sir S

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Beckett, Sir Gerivase (Leeds, N.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Fermoy, Lord

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Christie, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Berry, Sir George

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Forrest, W.

    Bethel, A.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gates, Percy

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Cope, Major William

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Brass, Captain W.

    Couper, J. B.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Gilyn, Major R. G. C.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Goff, Sir Park

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Grace, John

    Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Lougher, L.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Grotrian, H. Brent)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sandon, Lord

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Savery, S. S.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

    Macintyre, Ian

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Hanbury, C.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Harland, A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Hartington, Marques of

    Makins. Brigadier-General E.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Meller, R. J.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Murchison, C. K.

    Svkes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Templeton, W. P.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Neville, R. J.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Oakley, T.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Waddington, R.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Penny, Frederick George

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Percy Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Watts, Dr. T.

    lliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wells, S. R.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Plelou, D. P.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can'l)

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Preston, William

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Radford, E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Ramsden, E.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Withers, John James

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Reld, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Womersley, W J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Remer, J. R.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Litter, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Looker, Herbert William

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Rye, F. G.

    Bowyer.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Bromley, J

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Barnes, A.

    Briant, Frank

    Cape, Thomas

    Barr, J.

    Broad, F. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    1844

    1845

    Clowes, S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smillie, Robert

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snell, Harry

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Duncan, C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dunnico, H.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    March, S.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Varley, Frank B.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    GreeNail, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Westwood, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Whiteley, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rilson, J.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Bondman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hardle, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Wright, W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 396.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Albery, Irving James

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's

    Apsley, Lord

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Drewe, C.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Atkinson, C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Elveden, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Berry, Sir George

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Bethel, A.

    Forrest, W.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Loder, J. de V.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lougher, L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Gates, Percy

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macintyre, Ian

    Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grace, John

    McLean, Major A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Burman, J. B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hall, vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Marriott, Sill. J. A. R.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Meller, R. J.

    Cassels. J. D.

    Hanbury, C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Harland, A.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Hanley)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Christie, J. A.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Neville, R. J.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Herbert. S.(York, N.R., Scar. & wh'by)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Oakley, T.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Couper, J. B.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Pielou, D. P.

    1848

    1849

    Pilcher, G.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Skelton, A. N.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Preston, William

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Radford, E. A.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wells, S. R.

    Ramsden, E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Remer, J. R.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Withers, John James

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Wormersely, W. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Rye, F. G.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Templeton, W. P.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. S.)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Savery, S. S.

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Bowyer.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westh'y)

    Waddington, R.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A.

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barr, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Shetland)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Harney, E. A.

    Sexton, James

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Briant, Frank

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smillie, Robert

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Clowes, S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snell, Harry

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Compton, Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lee, F.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R (Aberavon)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Mackinder, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gardner, J. P.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Owen, Major G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenail, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, C. P (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    1850

    1851

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Windsor, Walter

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Wright, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

    CLASS VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £64,071,749, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    800,042

    2.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    179,060

    3.

    Old Age Pensions

    18,840,000

    4.

    Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    3,000,000

    5.

    Ministry of Pensions

    39,504,900

    6.

    Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    262,216

    7.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    2,716

    8.

    Royal Commissions, etc.

    19,385

    9.

    National Savings Committee

    54,579

    10.

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    708,114

    11.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    48,025

    12.

    Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

    175,000

    13.

    Development Fund

    150,000

    14.

    Government Hospitality Fund

    28,000

    £

    15.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    24,712

    16.

    British Empire Exhibition Guarantee

    275,000

    £64,071,749"

    EXPORT CREDITS.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for guarantees in respect of Exports of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom."
    Question put, and agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in Great Britain for assistance in carrying out approved Schemes of useful work to relieve Unemployment."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 341; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 397.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Gates, Percy

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Albery, Irving James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Goff, Sir Park

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Grace, John

  Apsley, Lord

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Atkinson, C.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cockerill, Brig-General Sir G. K.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Cooper, J. B.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hanbury, C.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Berry, Sir George

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Harland, A.

  Bethel, A.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Betterton, Henry B

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hemprt'd)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Drewe, C.

  Hennessy, Major .J. R. G.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'1'd., Hexham)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Burman, J. B.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Forrest, W.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

  Neville, R. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Jacob, A. E.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Oakley, T.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Penny, Frederick George

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Seater, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Pielou, D. P.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Pilcher, G.

  Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Preston, William

  Tinne, J. A.

  Lougher, L,

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Radford, E. A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Ramsden, E.

  Waddington, R.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Remer, J. R.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Remnant, Sir James

  Wells, S. R.

  McLean, Major A

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Rye, F. G.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Salmon, Major I.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Withers, John James

  Meller, R. J.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Merriman, F. B

  Sandon, Lord

  Womersley, W. J.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Savery, S. S.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wragg, Herbert

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Murchison, C. K.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Smithers, Waldron

  Major Cope.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Compton, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Connolly, M.

  Groves, T.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Cove, W. G.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Barnes, A.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

  Barr, J.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Betey, Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hardie, George D.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Harney, E. A.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Briant, Frank

  Dennison, R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Broad, F, A.

  Duncan, C.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Bromfield, William

  Dunnico, H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Bromley, J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Cape, Thomas

  Gillett, George M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Clowes, S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Clues, W. S.

  Greenail, T.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  1854

  1855

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Varley, Frank B.

  Kennedy, T.

  Scurr, John

  Viant, S. P.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sexton, James

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Lee, F.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Lindley, F. W.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lunn, William

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Mackinder, W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Westwood, J.

  March, S.

  Smillie, Robert

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Morris, R. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Whiteley, W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Owen, Major G.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Palin, John Henry

  Stamford, T. W.

  Williams T. (York, Don Valley)

  Paling, W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Windsor, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wright, W.

  Potts, John S.

  Taylor, R. A

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Riley, Ben

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Ritson, J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Charles Edwards.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Townend, A. E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,611,100 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,075,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Relief arising out of Unemployment."

  GRANTS IN RESPECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,
  1927, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in England and Wales, in respect of Capital Works approved as Unemployment Schemes."

  SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 332; Noes, 144.

  Division No. 398.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Christie, J. A.

  Albery, Irving James

  Brass, Captain W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Clayton, G. C.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Apsley, Lord

  Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Brown, Col, D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Balniel, Lord

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Cope, Major William

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Bullock Captain M.

  Couper, J. B.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Burman, J. B.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Cassels, J. D

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Bennett, A. J.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Berry, Sir George

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bethel, A.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Davies, Maj. Gen. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Drewe, C

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Elveden, Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rye, F. G.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Locker. Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Forrest, W.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Savery, S. S.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lord, Walter Greaves

  Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lougher, L.

  Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Skelton, A. N.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Gates, Percy

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Macintyre, Ian

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Stanley, Cot. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Grace, John

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Harking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Meller, R. J.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Hanbury, C.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

  Tinne, J. A.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Harrington, Marquess of

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Harvey, G. (Larnbeth, Kennington)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C

  Waddington, R.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Neville, R. J.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Wells, S. R.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Herbert, S.(York,N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Oakley, T.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hope, Capt A. O.J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Windsor Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Withers, John James

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Pitcher, G.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Hume-William sir W Ellis

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Preston, William

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)

  Ramsden, E.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Inskip Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Jackson Lieut.-Col, Rt. Hon. F. S.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Jacob. A. E.

  Remer, J. R.

  Captain Bowyer.

  1858

  1859

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Groves, T.

  Scurr, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, T. W.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barnes, A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hardie, George D.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Smillie, Robert

  Bern, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhilby)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Heyday, Arthur

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, G. H

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Bromfield, William

  Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sullivan, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kennedy, T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Varley, Frank B.

  Connolly, M.

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Wellhead. Richard C.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lunn, William

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  March, S.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dennisen, R.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Duncan, C.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Donnico, H.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Gillett, George M.

  Purcell. A. A.

  Windsor, Walter

  Gosling, Harry

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Greenail. T.

  Ritson, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Charles Edwards.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.
    RAILWAY (WAR) AGREEMENTS LEQUIDATION.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927. to meet Expenditure arising, from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Section 16."
    PRIZE CLAIMS.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for claims in respect of Ships or Cargoes condemned as Naval Prize or detained and certain Salaries for advisory Duties."
    COAL MINING INDUSTRY SUBVENTION.
    "That a sum, nor, exceeding £250,005 (including a Supplementary sum of £250,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Subvention in Aid of Wages in the Coal Mining Industry."

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–27.
    "That a sum not exceeding £7,284,652, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

    1861

    £

    1.

    Customs and Excise

    3,120,000

    2.

    Inland Revenue

    4,164,652

    £7,284,652"

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £36,583,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

    £

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    452,900

    4.

    Fleet Air Arm

    681,000

    5.

    Educational Services

    326,800

    6.

    Scientific Services

    435,300

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    445,500

    8.

    Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel

    7,487,200

    £

    Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Materiel

    5,480,200

    Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work

    7,427,200

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    3,436,400

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    971,400

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    1,220,000

    13.

    Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers

    2,859,600

    14.

    Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men

    4,510,400

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Allowances, and Gratuities

    849,600

    £36,583,500

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 131.

    Division No. 399.]

    AYES.

    [11.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cassels, J. D.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fanshawe Commander G. D.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir, Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Forrest, W.

    Apsley, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Christie, J. A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gates, Percy

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Glyn Major R. G. C.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gower. Sir Robert

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Grave, John

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Grattar-Doyle, Sir N.

    Bethel, A.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Couper, J. B.

    Grotton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Dalkelth, Earl of

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Daizlel, Sir Davison

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Hanbury, C.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Davidson, Major-General Sir .J. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harland, A.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Davies, Mai, Gee. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Drewe, C.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H .C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Bullock. Captain M.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Burman, J. B.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Erskine, Lord (somersetweston-s.-M.)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Merriman, F. B.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Skelton, A.N.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Smith- Carington, Neville W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Herne-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Neville, R. J.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Stott, Leiut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Hutchinson, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'b'ls)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    lliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Oakley, T.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, F. S.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Jacob, A. E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Fredrick H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Templeton, W. P.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pielou, D. P.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Pitcher, G.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Waddington, R.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Lister, Cunlifie-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Preston, William

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Lloyd, Cyril. E. (Dudley)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Radford, E. A.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Ramsden, E.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wells, S. R.

    Locker, Herbert William

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    White, Leiut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Lougher, L.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    William, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Remer, J. R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Remnant, Sir James

    William, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Luce, Mat-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Rice, Sir Fredrick

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W,)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Windsor- Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Robert, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Macintyre. Ian

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    McLean, Major A

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Withers, John James

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rye, F. G.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Salmon, Major I.

    Womersley, W. J.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sanderson, Sir Robert A.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Sandon, Lord

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Savery, S. S.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Shaw, R. G. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Meller, R. J.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Cope.

    NOES.

    Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Clowes, S.

    Gillett, George M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gosling, Harry

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Compton, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Connolly, M.

    Greenail, T.

    Barr, J.

    Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Batey, Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Bewerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Groves, T.

    Briant, Frank

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Bromfield, William

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Bromley, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Duncan, C.

    Hardie, George D

    Buchanan, G.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Cape, Thomas

    Gardner, J. P.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    1864

    1865

    Hirst, G. H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Riley, Ben

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ritson, J.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Jones, M organ (Caerphilly)

    Salter. Dr. Alfred

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Scurr, John

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sexton, James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Kennedy. T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Westwood, J.

    Lee, F.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Whiteley, W.

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Mackinder, W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    March S.

    Smith, H. B, Lees- (Keighley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Morris, R. H.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow}

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wright, W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Sullivan, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Palin, John Henry

    Taylor, R. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Paling, W.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £21,159,100, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:

    £

    2.

    Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

    5,392,000

    3.

    Medical Services

    986,000

    4.

    Educational Establishments

    932,000

    5.

    Quartering and Movements

    1,669.000

    £

    6.

    Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts

    5,912,000

    7.

    Clothing

    1,109,000

    8.

    General Stores

    891,000

    9.

    Warlike Mid Engineer Technical Stores

    2,345,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    1,044,000

    12.

    War Office

    879,000

    Ordnance Factories

    100

    21,159,100"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 321; Noes, 133.

    Division No. 400.]

    AYES

    [11.40 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Albery, Irving James

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cope, Major William

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Cowper, J. B.

    Apsley, Lord

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bullock, Captain, M.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balniel, Lord

    Burman, J. B.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Dalzlel, Sir Davison

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Davidson J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Berry, Sir George

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Bethel, A.

    Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Betterton, Henry B

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Drewe, C.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Charter's, Brigadier-General J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Chlicott, Sir Warden

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Christie, J. A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Fierden, E. B.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Rye, F. G.

    Forrest, W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Loden, J. de V.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lougher, L.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sandon, Lord

    Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Galbraith, .J. F. W.

    Luce, Maj.- Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Savery, S. S.

    Ganzonl, Sir John.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Gates, Percy

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Maclntyre, Ian

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Major A.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Skelton, A. N.

    Grace, John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

    Grant, Sir .J. A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Smithers, Waldron

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Maklns, Brigadier-General E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Meller, R. J.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Hammersley. S. S.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Hanbury, C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Styles, Captain H. Waiter

    Harland, A.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Headlam, Lieut, Colonel C. M.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

    Neville, R. J.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Henderson, Lieut,-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Waddington, R.

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Nuttail, Ellis

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Oakley, T.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Pennefather. Sir John

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Penny. Frederick George

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W,

    Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslle

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Perring, Sir William George

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Pilcher, G.

    Wilson, M. J. (York. N. R., Richm'd)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Pllditch, Sir Philip

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Preston, William

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Radford, E. A.

    Withers, John James

    Ilifle, Sir Edward M.

    Ramsden, E.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wornersley, W. J.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Jacob. A. E.

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Jephcott. A. R.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Remer, .J. R.

    Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Major Hennessy and Major Sir Harry Barnston.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Barr. J.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Batey, Joseph

    Brlant, Frank

    Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Broad, F. A.

    1868

    1869

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromley, I.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smllie, Robert

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Clowes, S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spencer, George A.(Broxtowe)

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Connolly, M.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Davied, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dennison R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunnico, H.

    Morris, R. H.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Glbbins, Joseph

    Palin, John Henry

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gillett George M.

    Paling, W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

    Westwood. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenail, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, C, P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvii)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Windsor, Walter

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wright, W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scurr, John

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    AIR FORCE ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for expenditure in respect of the Air Force Services, namely:—

    £

    5.

    Medical Services

    209,000

    6.

    Educational Services

    432,000

    7.

    Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

    406,000

    8.

    Civil Aviation

    462,000

    £

    9.

    Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

    135,000

    10.

    Air Ministry

    761,000

    11.

    Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

    245,000

    £2,650,000"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 122.

    Division No. 401.]

    AYES.

    [11.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bennett, A. J

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Bethel, A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Albery, Irving James

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Burman, J. B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Layton)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Allen, J Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Butler. Sir Geoffrey

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Boothhy, R. J. G.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Apsley, Lord

    Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cazalet, Captains Victor A.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Broun-Llndsay, Major H.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'Ed., Hexham)

    Christie, J. A.

    Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perring, Sir William George

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Peto, Basil E (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hopkins, .J. W. W.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Pilcher, G.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

    Preston, William

    Couper, J. B.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ramsden, E.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Remer, J. R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Daiziel, Sir Davison

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F,(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Davison, Sir W. H, (Kensington, S.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rye, F. G.

    Drewe, C.

    Kindersley Major Guy M.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanderman, A. Stewart

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sandon, Lord

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Savery, S. S.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lougher, L.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Forrest, W.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Skelton, A. N.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Smithers, Waldron

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McLean, Major A.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Gates, Percy

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Grace, John

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Merriman, F. B.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Tinne, .J. A.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Waddington, R.

    Hanbury, C.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Harland, A.

    Murchison. C. K.

    Warrander, Sir Victor

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Neville, R. J.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wells, S. R.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Henderson, Capt. R R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Oakley, T.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    1872

    1873

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Withers, John James

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Womersley, W. J.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Major Cope and Lord Stanley.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barr, J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sitch, Charles H

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smillie, Robert

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Hudson, .J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Sullivan, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Clowes, S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Townend, A. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    March, S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Davison, .J. E. (Smethwick)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dennison, R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Duncan, C.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Palin, John Henry

    Whiteley, W.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Paling, W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenail, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Riley, Ben

    Wright, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ritson, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Grundy, T. W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Scurr, John

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    Allen Parkinson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

    AIR EXPENDITURE 1924–25.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
    "Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1925, that the aggregate expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for these Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net
    1874
    surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £261,178 12s. 4d., namely:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    1,157,353

    8

    5

    Total Deficits

    896,174

    16

    1

    Net Surplus

    £261,178

    12

    4

    And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other grants for Air Services."

    SCHEDULE.

    No of. Vote

    Air Services, 1924–Votes.

    Deficits.

    Surpluses of estimated over actual gross
    Expenditure.

    Excess of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

    Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Pay, etc., of the Air Force

    143,485

    8

    0

    —

    —

    2

    Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.

    —

    150,334

    14

    11

    239,328

    6

    3

    3

    Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services)

    389,829

    18

    3

    —

    —

    4

    Works, Buildings, and Lands

    —

    145,703

    8

    9

    549,178

    2

    10

    5

    Medical Services

    —

    38,809

    16

    11

    36,847

    13

    8

    6

    Education Services

    —

    5,131

    9

    11

    25,058

    3

    5

    7

    Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

    —

    373

    17

    9

    71,198

    8

    4

    8

    Civil Aviation

    —

    —

    152,044

    19

    2

    9

    Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.

    —

    18,206

    8

    8

    42,675

    15

    9

    10

    Air Ministry

    —

    —

    8,283

    16

    5

    11

    Half-Pay, Pensions, other Non-Effective Services.

    —

    403

    13

    2

    32,738

    2

    7

    —

    Amount written off as Irrecoverable.

    3,895

    19

    9

    —

    —

    537,211

    6

    0

    358,963

    10

    1

    1,157,353

    8

    5

    Total Deficits £896,174

    16

    1

    Total Deficits £896,174

    16

    1

    Total Surpluses £1,157,353

    8

    5

    Net Surpluses £261,178

    12

    4

    Net Surpluses £261,178

    12

    4

    Net Surpluses £261,178

    12

    4

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Sir Samuel Hoare.]
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNI wish to ask for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. This Motion authorises the expenditure by the Air Ministry of money on one head which was allotted for another head. Under Item 3 (Technical and War-like Stores), which includes aeroplane expenditure, there is £389,000 in excess of the Estimate, and I would like the Secretary of Stale for Air to explain what the reason is for this excess of expenditure. The reason why I ask this question is that at the present time we are carrying out an expansion programme, which was outlined by the present Secretary of State for Air in June, and which aims at giving us 82 squadrons. At each stage we have been told that this is necessary because a great air force is being built up within striking distance of our shores, namely, France—
    The CHAIRMAN: A discussion on general policy is not in order on this Motion.
    Captain BENN: I do not want to open up a general discussion, but I think
    1876
    I am entitled to ask why the programme estimated for has not been reached, and why the right hon. Gentleman has authorised the expenditure of£400,000 on additional machines. There was a report made to the French Chamber in June which showed that the so-called French expansion programme had not by any means been realised. I do not want to go into details, but this is a matter of great interest. In the report to which I have already referred I observe that 79 per cent, of the engines were 1918 engines—
    The CHAIRMAN: The only question to be considered now is why these miscalculations were made, and why these items have to be set off against one another.
    Captain BENN: If the Committee votes a certain amount to be spent for a certain purpose and the Air Ministry take advantage that and spend it for another purpose my point is that they can be questioned as to what they are spending it upon. If this is not the proper occasion for questioning such expenditure, I do not know any other. This is obviously a matter that requires further explanation. If we are building

    1877
    for a one-power standard and it is revealed to us that the one Power we have taken for our standard is not really building to that standard, it is obvious that we are entitled to ask the Minister why he has in that particular year sanctioned an expenditure in excess of that sanctioned by the House of Commons.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): This Vote deals with 1924–25 and therefore the question as to what has been happening in another country is not relevant to this debate.
    Captain BENN: This deals with the period from 1920 to 1925 and what I have referred to appeared in the "Times" on the 25th June.
    Sir S. HOARE: No. I have not over-looked the report at all. It has only come to the attention either of the Chamber of another country or this House in the last few weeks. Obviously therefore, in the period 1924–5, to which this Vote applies, it could not have been in the mind of anyone. 1924–5 was the year immediately following the announcement of the Home Defence Programme and it was with the general assent of all parties in the House that we progressed as far as we could with that programme, and pressed on with orders for new aircraft and new engines. It is always very difficult to get aircraft and engines delivered. As a matter of fact, we were more successful than we expected and our deliveries were better than we thought they would be at the beginning of the year. That is the sole explanation of the fact that in this Vote we overspent the amount by a considerable sum. It was due to our desire to press on with the Home Defence Programme and the fact that we were more successful in getting deliveries from the aircraft and engine industry than we expected at the beginning of the year.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite met the points my hon. and gallant Friend raised. What baffles me in this document is how it is that, while it was found necessary to spend so much more money on the fighting part of the right hon. Gentleman's charge, he found it possible to spend so much less on the civil part. It seems to me a rather strange coinci-
    1878
    dence, if it was due merely to the accident of procuring more deliveries of warlike machines, that at the same time there was less expenditure on civil aviation and the Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services. That is a point I do not quite understand. [Interruption.] It is the duty of hon. Members opposite to agree to anything proposed from that Front Bench. Our duty is to criticise and find out if there is any irregularity in the matter. Can we have some explanation of why less was spent on civil aviation? I have always advocated greater expenditure on civil aviation, and I want to know why it is that this expenditure was not proceeded with. Further, there is a specific item that I should like to know about, because we generally find when these little sums of £3,000 or £4,000 are dealt with that there is something very interesting behind them. There is an "amount written off as irrecoverable." That ought not to pass without comment or some sort of explanation. It may not seem a large amount when we are dealing with millions, but there may be something behind it.
    Sir S. HOARE: As to civil aviation, I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the surplus of £152,000. That is almost entirely due to the fact that the money was voted for the improving of the Croydon Aerodrome. It was found that we could not proceed with the improvement of the Aerodrome without a Bill, and we had to introduce a Bill. That delayed the Croydon programme by several months, and it explains almost the whole of that sum. With reference to the Meteorological and other Miscellaneous Items, large claims for compensation at home and abroad were repudiated or considerably reduced. Those reasons explain the surplus almost entirely. With regard to the small sum of £3,900 written off as irrecoverable, there is always a sum of that kind in the Service Votes. We do not estimate for any irrecoverable sum, and some irrecoverable sums must mature in the course of the year. I think, with an expenditure running to over £20,000,000, that is a very small sum for irrecoverables and other claims to be inserted in the Estimates.
    Captain BENN: Here was the year 1924–5 in which the right hon. Gentleman

    1879
    himself moved a Motion urging more Air expenditure because of the expenditure in other countries. Now, as the facts are known, I am surprised to hear that they came to his notice for the first time in the "Times." I should have thought that his Department would know of them. Now we know that while he was moving for a larger expenditure because of this menace, the menace did not exist.
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot enter into a discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a question of that kind, but I must contradict the whole basis of his argument. The Air Force programme is as fully justified to-day as it was then.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the sum of £248,279,395 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Churchill.]
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  INTERNATIONAL AIR CONVENTION (GERMANY).
  INTERNATIONAL AIR CONVENTION (GERMANY).
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (COMMISSION OF CONTROL).
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (COMMISSION OF CONTROL).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  VITAL STATISTICS.
  VITAL STATISTICS.
INDIA.
  ARMY (WAZIRISTAN CONCESSIONS).
  ARMY (WAZIRISTAN CONCESSIONS).
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  IBN SAUD (TREATIES).
  IBN SAUD (TREATIES).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  MALTA
  MALTA
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  EDUCATION (BUILDING SUBJECTS).
  EDUCATION (BUILDING SUBJECTS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ANTI-GAS MEASURES (TRAINING.)
  ANTI-GAS MEASURES (TRAINING.)
  RECRUITS (AVERAGE AGE).
  RECRUITS (AVERAGE AGE).
  ROYAL HOSPITAL SCHOOL, GREENWICH.
  ROYAL HOSPITAL SCHOOL, GREENWICH.
  BIRMINGHAM POST OFFICE.
  BIRMINGHAM POST OFFICE.
AGRICULTURE.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  WAGES (REGULATION) ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  WAGES (REGULATION) ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, LANARKSHIRE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, LANARKSHIRE.
  BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  FLOUR, MILLS (WEEKLY HOLIDAY).
  FLOUR, MILLS (WEEKLY HOLIDAY).
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (CONVICTION).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (CONVICTION).
  CUSTOMS DELAY, HULL.
  CUSTOMS DELAY, HULL.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, with regard to this Bill it seems to me, on consideration, that it would be more desirable that it should go before a Select Committee, and therefore, with the consent of the House, I will not move to go into Committee now, but I will put down a Motion that the Bill be considered by a Select Committee.
Order discharged.

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 60.]
Clause 5, page 4, line 22, after ("offence") insert ("and that the offence was not caused or facilitated by any act or neglect on the part of the owner or of any person engaged or employed by the owner or master").
Clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out ("workmen") and insert ("persons employed")
Clause 7, page 5, Line 28, leave out ("workmen") and insert ("persons employed")
Clause 7, page 5, Line 40, leave out ("workmen") and insert ("persons employed").
Third Schedule, page 15, line 30, at end insert:
("(8) Providing for the enforcement of the regulations in any district by the local authority having power in that district to grant licences to keep petroleum spirit")
Third Schedule, page 15, line 32, after ("section") insert ("shall be recovered in manner directed by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and").
LORD DESBOROUGH: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Music and dancing licences.
(14) Any sums received on account of fees under this section shall be carried to the credit of the county fund or borough fund, as the case may be.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to add the following proviso: "Provided that, where any sums are so received by the council of an urban district acting in the exercise of powers delegated to the council under this Act, those sums shall be carried to the district fund." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved merely in order to make the work-
166
ing of the Act more simple, and to remove an ambiguity which, perhaps, existed in the original Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD O'HAGAN: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord certainly seems a necessary one in order to deal with a point that is not dealt with in any other clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Session and Chapter.

Enactment replaced.

Extent of repeal

25 Geo. II., c. 36.

The Disorderly Houses Act, 1751.

Sections two and three.

39 Viet., c. 21.

The Public Entertainments Act, 1875.

The whole Act.

LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert in the Second Schedule:—

"10 & 11 Geo. 5.c. clv.

The Erith Improvement Act, 1920.

Section eighty one."

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make the position of Erith quite clear. Erith obtained an Act in 1920 to do away with the old Disorderly Houses Act of 1751. The point shortly is that the district of Erith have an Act which was passed in 1920, but in the opinion of the Home Secretary it would be very much better if Erith, in common with other localities which are scheduled under the Bill, came under the general provisions of this Bill. I therefore move the Amendment which stands on the Paper. It is also felt that the County Council of Kent could, if necessary, delegate these powers as they have done before in certain cases to this particular locality. The Home Secretary is very strongly of opinion that it would be a mistake to leave this particular section of Erith's Act in force and thus leave Erith outside the general scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end, insert:

'10 & 11 Geo. 5.c. clv.

The Erith Improvement Act, 1920.

Section eighty-one."

—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD O'HAGAN: In regard to the Amendment now proposed it has come to my knowledge that there is a certain amount of feeling at Erith on this matter. They are desirous of remaining under the Act they have already obtained. At the same time I agree with what the noble Lord has said as to the desirability of this Bill applying, as it is intended to apply, to all places concerned. There seems to be no difficulty about the County Council of Kent delegating their powers, as they have hitherto done, to the local authority in regard to these matters, and I think that would be the best plan. I am prepared therefore to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Second Reading of this Bill gives an occasion for a discussion of the financial situation of the country in all its aspects and for the consideration of cognate subjects. I do not propose to say much this afternoon about the question of expenditure or of retrenchment, although a great deal could be said. I had an opportunity upon the Second Reading of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to call attention to the lamentable failure of the Government in the matter of retrenchment. It was very easy to prove how much they were
168
at fault. I simply had to remind your Lordships of the projected saving of £10,000,000 a year of which we heard so much last summer, not a penny piece of which has materialised. As a matter of fact, the Government have not retrenched at all. On the contrary, the Estimates for this year show an increase of about £9,000,000 over the Estimates of last year. In those circumstances I shall say again what I have said before—and this is simply stating the fact—that, having regard to the increases of expenditure which it has made, this Government is the most extravagant Government since the War. I called attention to some of these matters upon the Second Reading of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but there was no real reply from the Government Bench. We were then told that perhaps another occasion would be more suitable. There was not the smallest reason for evading the question then. The noble Earl on my right also dealt with the matter then, but no reply was given to him. Nothing could be more in order than to discuss economy on an Economy Bill and, as a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent nearly two hours in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill in an apologia for the Government's failure to retrench. However, I leave that question there.
First of all I would say one or two words about the specific Duties imposed in this Finance Bill and I come to the Betting Duty. I have had an opportunity, on three separate occasions, I think, of putting my views fully before your Lordships on this matter and therefore I can be very brief. My views remain unchanged. The Tax as imposed by this Bill is in such an illogical and indefensible form that it is highly probable that it will be extended before long. The Tax as imposed in this Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going counter to some very weighty views expressed before the Select Committee which considered this matter. I think that everybody acquainted with the problem recognises that there is the strongest probability that the Tax will be extended before long and that licensed betting offices will be set up all over the country. It is for that reason that we say that the beginning of this taxation

169
on betting is almost certain to lead to an increase in betting, particularly in the smaller towns and the rural areas, where, generally speaking, betting is not so rife as it is in the bigger towns and in the manufacturing centres. I must say a word about a letter which appeared in The Times a few months ago, signed by certain members of your Lordships' House who have been Dominion Governors. That letter, as it seems to me, failed to recognise that in the Dominions the conditions of betting and for taxing betting are very different from the conditions in this country. Therefore the signatories of the letter were not comparing like with like.
I come now to the further instalment of Safeguarding Duties which appears in this Bill; that is, the Duty on wrapping paper. I had an opportunity only a few months ago of discussing this safeguarding policy in all its aspects very fully and I need only take a moment or two upon the matter to-day. I should like to remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Trade has told us that this policy of Safeguarding Duties is for the purpose of helping unemployment. But the Duties have not helped unemployment as a whole and it is impossible for them to do so. You cannot by Tariffs increase the total amount of employment in this country or in any country. You may, perhaps, help an individual trade, you may, perhaps, by this Duty help this wrapping paper trade, you may, perhaps, help the manufacturers of wrapping paper by reducing the imports of wrapping paper, but that result can only be achieved by injuring some other trade which would have exported something to pay for the higher imports of wrapping paper if they had not been reduced.
The Bill extends, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, the period for what are known as the Key Industries' Duties. Here, again, I think, the decision of the Government is open to grave criticism. Your Lordships will be aware that the theory is that there are certain articles necessary for defence which must be produced in this country so that we may not be dependent for foreign supplies in those respects and, therefore, Duties are put on to give protection here at home. We have now had some experience of those Duties. They
170
have been in operation five years and it is perfectly clear that there is no guarantee at all that they are going to do what they are imposed to do and that they are going to ensure a supply of those key articles. Let me take one example—the are lamp carbons. They are protected for the purposes for which I have named. I believe, despite that fact, that there is now only one firm in this country which is producing are lamp carbons and I understand that part of its plant is being closed down. It is clear, therefore, that the Duties are not fulfilling the object for which they were imposed. It is all very well for the Government to claim—though they have not proved it—that these Duties have helped small industries. There is a good deal of dispute as to whether that is really so, but, even if it is, the result is only achieved at the cost of loss to some other industry.
I want to leave these specific Duties and come to a consideration of what I deem to be the general financial policy of the country regarding taxation. The Government have now been in office nearly two years and we can get a pretty clear indication, I think, of what it is at which they are aiming. This year's Budget is largely in the nature of an interim Budget. Nevertheless it is part of a general policy, and the chief feature of that policy is, I think, a desire to reduce direct taxation, or at any rate a desire to reduce the proportion which direct taxation bears to indirect taxation. Thus we have the Silk Duty of last year and we have the Betting Duty of this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is looking out for other indirect taxes of the same kind. He is on the hunt for them if he can find them, and he has already considered several others.
The fact is the Government do not seem to mind levying indirect taxation, but they are greatly concerned about direct taxation and they want to reduce it. Last year the Government, as your Lordships will remember very well, gave away to the Income Taxpayers and to the Super-Taxpayers £42,000,000 per annum and, as a matter of fact, the financial embarrassments of the country subsequently are very largely due to that wholly unjustifiable proceeding. Ostensibly these remissions were made to benefit industry.

171
I put forward several reasons last year to show that very little, if any, benefit to industry would result from them. I do not intend to repeat what I said then, although no real reply was made from the Government Bench to the arguments that were advanced. However, to-day, I will content myself in regard to this matter with pointing out that there is nothing in recent experience to support the Government in this policy of reducing direct taxation to help industry. It is not a new policy. We have had reductions of the Income Tax in the last two or three years, and we were told that the specific object was to benefit industry. One shilling was taken off the Income Tax in 1922 and 6d. in 1923 to help industry. Did it help industry? Did trade improve? Not at all. Trade got steadily worse and last year (long before the coal strike) was in some respects one of the most unsatisfactory years for trade which we have had in this country in modern times.
I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to devote a little more consideration to this question of the proportions of Revenue raised by direct and indirect taxation, because here we are really getting at the heart and kernel of the Government's financial policy. I think I can demonstrate that there is not a little misunderstanding about this subject, and it is surely most desirable to get, if we can, at the real perspective of the matter. It is not sufficient to contend that direct taxation has increased owing to the War—has increased more than indirect taxation—and that, therefore, direct taxation must be reduced. There is a great deal more to be said than that. The Budget does not only comprise taxation; it also comprises Expenditure, and, if we look at the Expenditure side of the matter, we shall see that the richer classes as a whole are receiving much more from the national Expenditure than they did before the War. That is due to the very large payments on account of the War Debt, in one way or another amounting now to some £360,000,000, and of that vast sum probably nearly £300,000,000 goes to the richer classes of this country. On the other hand, it is true that the poorer classes are also receiving more from the Expenditure side of the Budget than they did before the War. I want to be perfectly fair and put the matter in its true bearing. I say the poorer classes are getting
172
decidedly more. Old Age Pensions are higher, the cost of education is higher, there is a much bigger charge for housing, there are some new social services, the cost of War Pensions is very great, though a proportion of that cost goes to the wealthier classes in respect of officers' casualties.
Nevertheless, when all items are taken into account, it will readily be seen that the increased share of the national Expenditure which is going to the poorer classes is much smaller than the increased share of the national Expenditure which is going to the richer classes. That is caused by the very large payment for War Debt interest and Sinking Fund, of which I have already spoken. The truth is that when everything is taken into account it will be found that, although the wealthier classes as a whole are paying a decidedly higher proportion of national Revenue than in pre-War days, they are, on the other hand, receiving back as a whole so much larger a proportion from the Expenditure side of the Budget that, looking at the Budget as a whole—and that is, of course, what we ought to do—it is true to say, broadly speaking, that the richer classes are in much the same position in comparison with the poorer classes as they were in pre-War days. As a matter of fact, the position is that the richer classes as a whole are getting back out of the national Expenditure not far short of the total amount which they pay in direct taxation. Therefore I submit—and I do not think this can be denied—that what is called the great burden of direct taxation is largely fictitious.
The Government are basing their case, in my opinion, on false premises. I say again that the present alleged burden of direct taxation is largely fictitious, and even if that were not so, the Government are not able to prove, either by sound economic argument or by the result of experience, that the remissions which they have made of direct taxation and which apparently they intend to make again as soon as they can, have helped or will help industry. Still less can they prove—and as far as I know they have never made the smallest attempt to prove—that the reduction of direct taxation is better for industry than the reduction of indirect taxation. That is a very

173
tempting theme, but I will not pursue it now. I will just sum up this part of my argument by saying that in my opinion the Government are in an untenable position in their present policy, which will not stand the test of close analysis and investigation, and that, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government say their policy is to help industry, the Government are, as a matter of fact, in very many ways inflicting serious injury upon industry by their policy, by adding to the burdens of industry and increasing the cost of production.
Let me look for a moment at the way in which this Government in their short term of office—they have only been in office rather over eighteen months—have added in numerous ways to the burden of industry and the cost of production. I will begin by mentioning one or two of the minor items—not of great importance, but all having a place in the indictment. Some of the Taxes in this Bill constitute a burden. The new Import Duty on commercial motors is one; it will increase the cost of commercial motors. There is also the increased taxation of heavy motors. Again, you are to have—it is only a small item—a higher cost for wrapping paper.
Now I turn to more serious items. The Pensions Bill last year put upon industry a burden which has been estimated at about £10,000,000 per annum. Then the Unemployment Insurance Act of last year has put upon the rates, it is estimated, about 100,000 persons. That increases the rates. In various other ways the trend of the Government policy is to increase the rates. What do we find? Rates, as everybody knows, are a very heavy burden upon manufacturing and industrial areas. They are a direct charge against production. We find rates in certain manufacturing centres going up by 1s. to 2s. in the £. That is partly due, at any rate, to the policy of the Government.
Think of what that means for industrial concerns whose rates are already, in many cases, almost an intolerable burden upon them. Think of what that means to those firms—unhappily, not a few in these days—who are not making any profit at all, but are making losses. What does it mean for them? The Government claim—as I have argued, without
174
justification—that the policy of reducing the Income Tax will help industry. But what about firms making losses? How are they helped? They do not pay Income Tax. The Government are doing nothing for them except adding to their burden by increased cost of production. As those who follow these matters are well aware the industries which at the present time are suffering most, where unemployment is heaviest, where the industrial difficulties are the greatest, are those which are largely dependent upon export markets. What are the Government in their financial policy doing for these industries? Nothing whatever, except, as I say, adding to their cost of production and making it more difficult for them to compete in neutral markets.
And this is not all, because these trades, at any rate as far as they depend on export, have been adversely affected by the Government's precipitate return—as I hold—to the gold standard in April last year. Before I sit down I should like to say a few words about that matter. It was discussed in another place in the debate upon this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about it there, and I think the Second Reading of the Finance Bill here is an appropriate occasion for us to discuss it, more particularly as there will not be another opportunity in your Lordships' House for some considerable time. As I say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter in the debate upon this Bill. I will not discuss it in detail, but I wish emphatically to affirm that the Government's contention that the return to the gold standard has been almost wholly attended by benefit to this country is not true. It is a contention which is disputed by some of the ablest economists of the day.
I read a speech not very long ago made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, dealing with this matter. Let me give you his precise words. He said:
"The reversion to the gold standard has produced consequences which, on the whole, must be pronounced almost entirely admirable."
When I read those words I was amazed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is not a currency expert, and he has implied that he does not really know a very great deal about the matter of the gold standard—I am not blaming

175
him for that—and I think it is clear that the Earl of Birkenhead is also not a currency expert. It is very easy to make assertions that the reversion to the gold standard has produced consequences almost entirely admirable, but surely on subjects like this difficult and technical question we are entitled to have from highly placed members of the Government a little more argument and a little less assertion.
The point with regard to the gold standard and the return to the gold standard which I wish to stress is that the moment for that return was a most unfortunate one, having regard to the adverse effect which the step was bound to have upon our export trade. I have pointed out that it is our export trades which are in the most parlous condition, and it should have been the policy of the Government to try to help those trades, not to depress them still further. Look, for instance, at the coal trade. There is only too much reason to believe that the crisis in the coal trade last summer, which has led to the terrible state of things which now confronts us, was at any rate accelerated by the return to the gold standard, mainly owing to the effect of that step upon the coal export trade.
That is not merely my own opinion. Your Lordships probably will remember that arguments of this nature were used by Sir Josiah Stamp in the Report which he made last July after being appointed a member of a small Committee to inquire into the causes and circumstances which had led to the dispute in the coal trade. I think it is perfectly clear that nobody who reads what Sir Josiah Stamp has said about this matter, nobody who reads his considered statements, would venture to claim him as supporting the statement about the gold standard which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, made. Nor does the Earl of Birkenhead's view find corroboration in the opinion of the Federation of British Industries. I am not, of course, saying that the whole, of the trouble in the coal trade has been due to the return to the gold standard. I am trying to balance the matter, and if it were possible to estimate all the causes which are responsible for the crisis in the coal trade it would be found that the precipitate return—as I hold it—to
176
the gold standard at that time was a factor of great importance.
There has been an article published dealing with this matter within the last few weeks in The Nation by Mr. J. M. Keynes. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that he is easily the foremost economist in this country. What does he say? He points out that the return to the gold standard has been injurious to the coal trade and, in addition to that, he piles up a formidable indictment against the Government, setting forth some of the other harmful consequences which have followed from the gold standard policy of last summer. I might go on, but I am content to say this: that in view of the evidence to the contrary it simply will not do for the Government, or for the noble and learned Earl, to say that the Government's action of last year has been attended by consequences almost entirely admirable.
On the other hand, I am not contending for a moment that no good results have followed from that which was done. Undoubtedly some benefits have accrued. Nobody denied, so far as I know, that there would be some benefits. The Government, in defending their policy, naturally enough stress the good side, and they plead that those of us who opposed the return to the gold standard in April of last year have not been right in all that we then said. Let me look at that point. I have looked from time to time through the speeches made by my colleagues in another place dealing with this matter, and through the speech that I made in your Lordships' House, and it is astonishing, on the whole, to find how right we were in what we said. What did we say? We indicated that certain things might happen as a result of what the Government were going to do. We never said that all of them would happen, but that some of them might happen. Some of them have happened, some of the most serious things which we forecasted have happened, and in one or two vital respects matters have turned out decidedly worse than we suggested.
The Government, however, in seeking to justify this policy, practically plead that they had no alternative—that, as the embargo on the export of gold was coming to an end in December last, they had no alternative

177
but the return to the gold standard. I am not entering into that matter but, as a matter of fact, there were other courses open to the Government. Then the Government seek to shelter themselves behind the report of the Currency Committee, and they also indicate that they acted in accordance with the views of Treasury officials and of the Bank of England. With great respect I submit that this is not sufficient. Treasury officials and the Bank of England are sometimes mistaken. There is, for instance, a large body of expert opinion that holds that the post-War deflation policy pursued by the Bank of England and the Treasury was too rapid and was carried too far. Indeed, I scarcely think that it can be denied that this deflation policy has been one of the chief causes of the vast amount of unemployment which we have in this country and of our very grave trade depression.
Accordingly I say that these opinions, although they come from very eminent personages, are not necessarily infallible and that, as a matter of fact, past history has several times shown that the views of the Bank of England and even of Treasury officials have been wrong. As regards the Bank of England, it naturally and inevitably looks at matters largely from the bankers' and the financial point of view rather than with a wider and all embracing survey, including full consideration from the industrial standpoint. It should be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold the balance between all the various interests in the country, but how can he do so if he relies, as he very often does, largely upon the advice of the Bank of England and of one or two persons in the City? I do suggest that he ought to have other opinions as well—that is the point that I wish to make, in conclusion—when he is about to take a very serious step in policy. For instance, before deciding to return to the gold standard in April last year, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself consult any of the great industrialists or any of the great exporters? Did he consult any of the great export magnates in the North? After all, it is in the North that most of the industries of the country are situated. London is not the industrial centre of the country at all, and it is some of these men in the North who are suffering severely
178
to-day owing to the policy of the Government.
Let me take a final point covering another set of decisions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to take from time to time. In my view he ought not simply to content himself with the advice of Treasury officials and of the City when he is issuing a Loan or projecting a conversion scheme. I wish that I had time to pursue that matter, because I think I could demonstrate to your Lordships that, owing to mistaken advice, tens of millions of pounds over a series of years will be lost to the taxpayers of this country. Some of the Loans issued during the War were put upon the market in a form open to criticism and the conversion scheme of 1921, which marked the beginning of the Conversion Loan, was not only a great failure but was based on terms exceedingly expensive for the taxpayers. Then again, subsequent conversion operations that have been attempted in the last few years have not, broadly speaking, been really successful—one of them far from it—chiefly because they were not framed on the most skilful lines. Surely more regard ought to be paid to the fact that most of the money for Government Loans and so forth comes from persons outside London.
No doubt it will be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to proceed warily and that he cannot take too many people into his confidence. That is true, but I believe that difficulties of that sort can be adjusted and that, on balance, great advantage to the Exchequer and to the country as a whole would result if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have more representative advice before taking momentous decisions. I am not now speaking of minor decisions, but of very important decisions. In fact, I feel that there is a great deal to be said for the creation of a permanent Advisory Council for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a Council representative of views much wider than those of the Bank of England and of the financiers in the City of London. That is the suggestion that I would make. I make it as my own personal opinion, but I believe that it is one which, in the interests of the country, is well worth consideration.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, no one will for a moment suggest that this is not a fitting moment for any of

179
your Lordships to address this House and the public outside this House upon questions of finance. It is perfectly true that your Lordships' House has no control over the finances of the country, but I should certainly be sorry to think that any opinions uttered in this House by high authorities would not carry weight outside its walls, and, though we cannot amend or deal with Money Bills, I think that suggestions coming from any quarter of the House will not merely be considered within these walls but will have due weight with the general public outside. Accordingly I am very far from quarrelling with the action taken by the noble Lord opposite.
He began his speech by referring briefly to national economy, to the taxation of betting, to wrapping paper and to key industries, as they are called, concerning which there has been special legislation. His remarks on those subjects—I think he will agree with me—really did not go further than to refer your Lordships to speeches that he had already made in this House, in which he had dwelt fully and at great length upon the subjects and in which he had given his views to your Lordships. He really did not, so far as I understood him, either repeat or intend to repeat the general scope of his previous arguments. He did not add to them and he did not repeat them, but he referred, as he was quite entitled to do, to the fact that he had already spoken to your Lordships at length upon the subjects, without repeating the arguments which he then laid before this House. In these circumstances I hardly think it necessary for me to say anything at length upon the subject, although there was one remark which he made upon the Betting Tax which I think deserves a moment's comment.
He has criticised that Tax upon larger lines, but, so far as I understood him, this afternoon his complaint was not against the policy of the Government as it is embodied in that Tax, but against the policy of the Government which would result ultimately from the present Bill and what in his opinion, when all the consequences of that Bill were understood, would increase betting in this country. His argument, if I understood it aright, was this Your Bill at present has nothing to do with the illegal aspects, of betting,
180
but you cannot stop there; the present position is an illogical position, and ultimately the result will be that you will have in all the country towns of England offices set up, in which betting will take place in the future where it does not take place at present; that would be a great disaster. He has, I think, many other reasons which he did not tell us to-day, although he has told us in the past, but that additional reason was the only objection which I understood him to give on this occasion to the policy pursued by the Government.
LORD ARNOLD: May I interrupt? Let there be no misunderstanding. I am against the Tax altogether, whatever the Government are doing now, or may do.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: That the noble Lord is against the Tax altogether I am well aware. I do not agree. I have always been a strong advocate of the Tax, for reasons that I will not trouble your Lordships with. The noble Lord who preceded me did not trouble your Lordships by recapitulating his general arguments against the Tax, and I, therefore, will not trouble your Lordships by recapitulating my general arguments in favour of the Tax. I will confine my observations to the single argument of the noble Lord, that if you pass this Bill you enter upon a path which will compel you to modify the law, because you will establish, where they do not at present exist, betting organisations, the existence of which will tend to augment the practice of betting. I think that is a hypothetical criticism and really of very little value. I do not see why the Betting Tax should be altered or developed in the future, but, if proposals for its alteration or development are made in the future, and brought before either House of Parliament, they will no doubt be criticised upon their merits; but until that contingency occurs it seems to me that we need not trouble ourselves with dangers which, as I understood, by the admission of the noble Lord himself, are hypothetical dangers.
My own view is that betting is not a necessity of life; that those who indulge in it regard it as a luxury; that they need not do it unless they like, and that if they do it they may well be asked to contribute to relieve the general financial burdens of the country. It is a paradox too violent to be reasonably sustained by anybody, that you encourage a luxury

181
by taxation. We do not deal in that way with any other luxury, and I do not see why in betting alone it should be supposed that putting a burden upon it will increase the appetite of the community for indulging in the taxable luxury. I do not wish to engage the attention of your Lordships in that debate, because the noble Lord himself did not pretend, or desire the House to understand, that he had given any wide survey of his own objections to a Tax of which we all know he highly disapproves.
The same sort of argument applies to what he said about the measures which are intended to protect commodities which are improperly and unfairly competed with by special circumstances, or to protect those commodities which, in the opinion of those most competent to speak, are of prime necessity in times of war-like emergency. The noble Lord, I think, really carried paradox rather far when he suggested that the support we had given, for example, to the optical industry, or other industries, absolutely necessary to us when war breaks out, had no good effect in saving us from the humiliation and difficulty and cost of attempting to deal, when it is too late or almost too late, with a necessity in time of war which should have been safeguarded in time of peace. I take it that the real motive of the noble Lord's speech was not the subsidiary elements in the Budget, but what he called the general financial policy of the Government, and he laid it down that the Government were working towards a general scheme of finance which would throw the whole weight of taxation, or a much greater proportion of taxation, upon indirect rather than upon direct taxation.
The noble Lord was guilty, I think, of a very common error in the criticisms which he advanced upon this branch of the financial policy. He tacitly, and I am not sure that it was not explicitly and overtly, assumed that indirect taxation is taxation of the poor and direct taxation is taxation of the rich. I think that is a profound fallacy; nor do I believe it is possible to lay it down with regard to a large number of most important Taxes. I do not think it is possible to state with precision the class upon which a particular impost would
182
ultimately throw the greatest burden. I think that that whole method of looking at taxation is full of fallacies. I cannot believe that it leads to a clear vision of the effect of taxation, or the principles which ought to guide taxation, to say: This is a direct Tax, direct Taxes are paid by the rich, add to it or refuse to take it off; this other Tax is an indirect Tax, indirect Taxes fall upon the poor, this Tax therefore falls upon the poor, and this Tax is one which is specially obnoxious to those who desire (as I believe we all desire) to see the general level of living raised in this country. I think that is a very crude method of dealing with finance, and I am not sure that even the noble Lord carried it out consistently.
I thought one of the strange applications of the doctrine was that so much of our taxation goes to deal with our Debts, and our creditors have been so often among the wealthier classes in the country that you may say that the payment of Debt is really a form of boon to the rich. I do not think that that is a form of argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the habit of using when he turns to the public, in moments of necessity, and says: "Please lend your money to the nation for the nation's purposes and Necessities." Then, the lender of the money is regarded as a great benefactor. You send round apostles to all parts of the country to induce people to lend money to the Government. But apparently, when the money has been lent and you look at the method of repaying it, then you say that the payment of Taxes, in order to enable you to pay interest on Debts, is obviously a benefit to the rich, and should be counted as such when you are attempting to carry out what I believe to be an impossible task—namely, that of deciding on whose shoulders ultimately the burden falls.
I wonder whether the noble Lord really reflects upon the full consequences of his doctrine. Supposing you were to raise taxation in the form of Income Tax and Death Duties, so as to leave no margin for the owners of property or for those whom the noble Lord describes as the rich: Does he think that the poor would escape from the results of that mode of taxation? I cannot imagine how your industry would be supported, where you would get the necessary capital, how you

183
would be able to supply the necessary loans for your own internal industries, or for the industry of those countries with whom you trade. We should undoubtedly cease to be a lending country, and I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord would be the last person to suggest that any disaster could be much more serious to our world position than that we should altogether lose the status that we once had, that, namely, of being a great lending and creditor country. That is an infinite advantage not merely to the rich, not merely to those who lend, it is of advantage to the whole commercial position of this country. It affects the cost of living in the country, it affects the prosperity of every class, and the idea that one class, and one class alone, is benefited by the remission of direct taxation, especially when that direct taxation has reached the high point which it has reached in this country, appears to me to be a profound fallacy.
And, if you turn from direct taxation to indirect taxation, can anything in the world be more absurd than to say that a Tax on betting is a tax on the poor? It comes under the fire of the criticism of the noble lord, and it is one of the things which he appears to think is a burden on the poor which really ought to be borne by the rich. But is that a tolerable doctrine? Is it consistent with common sense? Does any human being believe it? Does the noble Lord himself regard that as one of the forms of taxation which throws upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it some part of the burden of meeting the public needs of this country? It is a paradox which, I am sure, he has carried to a degree which is perilous for any balanced view of the method of raising the necessary money, and I hardly think that he will be prepared to sustain it.
The last part of the noble Lord's speech was entirely devoted to the gold standard. I admit that directly you come to currency you find that great authorities differ. I have watched currency controversies for two generations, and I do not believe that at any period have great authorities been found to agree upon that economic problem, and it would be very surprising if this general rule had been found to fail in the one case of the gold standard. The question is fraught with difficulties, and I am quite ready to admit
184
that, in the world as it is made, it is hardly possible to make so great a change as the reversion to the gold standard, fraught, as I think, with so many benefits, without finding on careful examination that the great benefits are to a certain small extent counterbalanced by corresponding evils. That is too frequent an event in the experience of us all to cause any surprise, or to involve any belief that we have necessarily gone on the wrong track.
Indeed, I am surprised that the noble Lord should take this particular moment for advancing his arguments against the gold standard. We look round the world and we cannot help seeing in what perplexing financial difficulties every nation has found itself which has not maintained or, if it has failed to maintain, has not restored as soon as possible the position of its currency. You have only to look round the great commercial communities of the world to see that, difficult as our position may be, it is not so difficult as that of nations who have not undertaken all the heavy responsibilities of a reversion to the gold standard as we have done, who have not paid the inevitable price that had to be paid, who have put off from day to day the inevitable difficulties, which only augmented at compound interest by being deferred. And I should have thought that, making that survey which I suggest to the noble Lord, he would have hesitated to come down to this House and tell us that we have been wrong in the steps that we took.
The noble Lord appears to think that in this case the Government allowed themselves to be unduly swayed by the financial authorities of the Bank of England and of the City of London. I think it quite possible that there may be cases in which the banking and the manufacturing interests are at variance. But I think the noble Lord is entirely wrong in supposing that all knowledge of finance is confined to the City of London, or that the financiers elsewhere in the country do not take the views of financiers in London. The great banking interests which—let me remind the noble Lord, who, indeed, knows it better than I do—are in touch with industry in every part of the country, which have no permanent interests except those which are intimately bound up with the prosperity of

185
manufactures, which cannot exist without them—those are not advisers confined to Threadneedle Street; they are to be found in every great commercial centre in England, and, let me say as a Scotsman, not less in Scotland. And, though occasionally and in certain cases there may be differences of opinion between those concerned in the main with the manufacturing side of our national industries and those who are concerned with the not less necessary financial side of those same transactions, I doubt whether any body of men less deserve the criticism levelled against them by the noble Lord of taking a narrow view of our national needs and our national difficulties than the great financial authorities who may live in London but are intimately connected with the whole network of our financial resources, our financial difficulties and our financial responsibilities.
I cannot argue on this occasion with the noble Lord about the details of the gold standard. Indeed, it is evident from his speech that he did not think this was a fitting occasion to go into those complicated details and he did not attempt to do so. But when he says, as he said towards the end of his speech, that all our troubles about the coal industry, which have already cost us I will not venture to say how many millions and which are not at an end, are due to the rash and unfortunate moment at which the Government chose to alter their standard from the previous system of inflation to the present system of parity, and when he says that we chose that moment unfortunately, every moment that you choose for doing a very difficult and disagreeable operation is always the wrong one. The evils, or the imaginary evils, are at once appealed to, and everything that goes wrong is put down to the step that has been taken. I can assure the noble Lord that with his objection to the gold standard, it matters not whether we made the return in 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 or 1928, what year you will, he would always have found that the special commercial and financial conditions of the world at that moment showed it to be the worst possible moment for carrying out a change to which he has an inherent and rooted objection and which he would always have looked at in a spirit of hostile criticism, no matter what care and caution
186
had been taken by the Government responsible for the operation.
It surely is an extravagant draft upon your Lordships' credulity to ask you to believe that in the complicated question of the price of coal, in which the occupation of the Ruhr, the work thrown into the French coal mines, the enormously augmented use of oil, the great growth of such industries as the brown coal industry of Germany (I mention only some of the conditions)—in which all those conditions were present, the main cause of our troubles is that singled out by the noble Lord, the currency change, to which he has this rooted and, as I think, most unreasonable objection. I do not know that there is any other point raised by the noble Lord upon which he would like me to touch. I think I have surveyed the main outline of his speech, and I can only conclude by saying that so far as my judgment goes, at a very difficult period, under conditions of unusual difficulty, our finances have been directed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with singular courage, great caution, great invention and, as I think, great success.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

COAL MINING DISPUTE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given Notice to call attention to the recent public expression of willingness on the part of the miners' leaders to recommend the men, under certain conditions, to accept both wage reductions and arbitration; to ask the Government whether, in view of the new situation thereby created, they do not consider that a fresh effort might now usefully be made to reopen negotiations for a settlement on the lines of the Samuel Report; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, three weeks ago to-day, on the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, I ventured to suggest to the Government that before they carried that Bill through its final stage they should offer once more to the miners' leaders the Samuel Report as a basis for a settlement of the dispute. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, speaking on behalf of the Government, replied that as the offer had already been made and had been open for some time the Government did not think there was

187
any use, in face of the negative attitude of the miners' leaders, in again repeating the offer. His words were that he saw at that time no hope of change in the attitude of the miners. I venture to return to the subject to-day because events have happened in the last few days which seem to indicate that after this lapse of time there is, if not already a change, at all events a very great prospect of one. I refer, of course, to the memorandum which was published a few days ago signed by the miners' leaders and authorised by the full executive of the Federation, in which the executive committed themselves to the position that they were prepared to recommend terms to the miners as a basis of settlement which would include not only a reduction in wages but also a reference of the dispute to arbitration if a settlement was not otherwise arrived at.
I know, of course, that those terms were linked up in that memorandum with the further condition of financial assistance. Nevertheless, when we remember the parrot cry of Mr. Cook "Not a penny off and not a minute on," we must agree that there really has been some progress. At all events The Times newspaper, which is a fair judge in these matters, said this on the following day:—
"To what extent, if any, has the cause of peace been advanced by the proposals the miners have made? The first and most obvious fact is that the miners' leaders have at last made proposals of their own and have broken away from the 'never, never' policy which they accepted from Mr. Cook. They have done this without calling a delegate conference. Quite as obviously these terms are not their minimum terms. They are the terms on which the executive would recommend a resumption of work without more ado."
And this comment is added:—
"A settlement may not be immediately at hand, but the miners' leaders no longer refuse to consider an alteration of working conditions. A state of affairs that has been rigid for so long has begun to change."
Everybody knows that all through this dispute the Government have been only too ready to take any opportunity which might offer of action which would lead to a settlement.
Only about ten days ago the Prime Minister, in writing to the Conservative candidate at Wallsend, said:
"When once I get any indication from those who have authority to speak on behalf of the men that they are prepared
188
to consider such temporary sacrifice on the part of the better-paid men, I can assure the electors of Wallsend that the Government will do all it can to obtain full discussion of any reasonable proposals."
That proposal of the miners' leaders being linked with financial assistance which, in fact, amounts to a further subsidy, the Prime Minister felt himself compelled to turn the proposal down. I doubt if there is any member of your Lordships' House who really in his heart can find any quarrel with that position of the Prime Minister. The subsidy was given but, if there is one thing which never can be repeated, obviously it is anything further in the nature of a subsidy. I have not the smallest quarrel with that, but at the same time the Prime Minister has always held out the hope—held out the promise—that some sort of assistance, not a subsidy but some kind of assistance, would be available when a settlement really did take place.
This is the last quotation with which I shall weary your Lordships. Speaking in the House of Commons on June 1—I think it was the occasion when he made it quite clear that the subsidy no longer was possible—he said:
"… it is obvious that whatever settlement is arrived at, sooner or later, and I hope it may be sooner, some assistance may be needed. Here I am going dead against that Report, which hon. members are sometimes so fond of quoting across the floor of the House, when I say that it will probably he necessary to render some assistance and we shall be prepared to do it. But I cannot say, until that moment comes; the form in which that assistance will be given, nor the amount. I only say it is obvious, in spite of what is said in the Report, that is a form of assistance that will be required.
"I have never hesitated, when adopting to the full the recommendations of the Report, to maintain the view on this point alone, while I agree emphatically that it is impossible to continue the existence of the industry by continued subsidy, that a temporary subsidy in some form or another will be needed, whether it be to aid the period while negotiations are proceeding or whether it be to aid certain districts after the negotiations have succeeded. For one of these two purposes, and it may be for bath, I believe some assistance will be necessary"
Where you have, on the one hand, the conditions suggested in which financial assistance is required and, on the other hand, a promise that there would be something in the nature of what the Prime Minister, so recently as June 1, called a temporary subsidy, it would seem

189
at first sight that there was common ground for negotiation, for there is nothing else in the memorandum of the miners' leaders which is incompatible in itself with the Samuel Report.
For that reason, I ventured to put the. Question on the Paper in the hope that we might hear what are the intentions of the Government in this matter. If the Government take the view that not only must these conditions be turned down because the suggestion of a subsidy has been made, but that it is not even possible to negotiate under these conditions, then I venture to say there is another course which the Government ought in these circumstances to pursue and that is themselves now to return more closely to the Samuel Report. At first sight at this moment we are back at the situation which was in existence at the time of the breakdown of negotiations between the Government and the Trade Union Council before the General Strike. The position at that time was that the Government were willing to accept the Report and offered it as a basis of settlement and had also in hand £3,000,000 which they were prepared to give as a final instalment of the subsidy. The men were not willing at that time to accept the Report, because it involved sacrifices in the matter of wages, which, in their own words, they were not prepared to accept in advance of reorganisation. The Government of course, could not agree to the Report as a whole at that time because, having the £3,000,000 to give, they obviously could not give it unless it were in return for an immediate return to work by the men.
The situation now is rather different. That £3,000,000, unfortunately, has disappeared and a good deal more with it. There is only one constant feature in this matter and that is the sacrifices which, sooner or later, have got to be made by the men. That was emphasised by the Commission and, as the Minister of Labour said in the country, I think yesterday, everyone probably knows that and realises it, except the miners' leaders. The whole question, therefore, is how the men can be induced to accept the sacrifices which, sooner or later, are absolutely inevitable. If we can understand what it is that hitherto has prevented them returning to work, I think we are on the way to find out what will induce them to accept those sacrifices.
190
I venture to say there are two things. In the first place, it is their suspicion. The miners, when the dispute began, were very suspicious of the coal owners. They were also very suspicious of Government—I do not think they were particularly suspicious of this Government; in fact, they had reason to be less suspicious of this Government than any other Government. They were suspicious generically of all Governments and their suspicion against Governments in general was crystallised most violently and in a very speedy manner when the Government decided to bring in the Coal Mines Bill. That has nothing to do with the merits of the Coal Mines Bill except for the unfortunate fact that it did represent the policy of the coal owners. For that reason, when the Government introduced the Coal Mines Bill, the suspicion of the miners that they did not mean business about reorganisation was crystallised in a very acute form. It is the first thing that has helped, in spite of the barren leadership of their leaders, to prevent them from going back to work. The second thing, I believe, is that on the whole the miners have had a very large measure of support from public opinion.
In the origin of this dispute I believe public opinion, generally speaking, was largely in favour of the miners and against the mine owners. Public opinion wavered a good deal in face of the leadership of the miners. When the public saw the utterly negative attitude adopted by the miners' leaders public opinion rather turned away, but public opinion again in my view, turned in favour of the miners when the Coal Mines Bill was introduced. On that occasion public opinion was rather crystallised not so much in favour of the men against the owners but in favour of the men and, unfortunately, rather against the Government. I put that forward as an expression of opinion, but I think it finds some support in the result of the Wallsend by-election which took place a few days ago and which I do not think has received quite the attention that it deserves from newspapers that are on the Conservative side. If I am right in thinking that suspicion of the Government and also some support from public opinion have combined to keep the men out, in spite of the fact that they know that sacrifices have sooner or later to

191
be made, if the Government want a settlement by consent, which of course they do, what they have to do is that which will allay the suspicion of the miners and at the same time put them-selves right in public opinion. That thing is to go back in toto to the Samuel Report.
Owing to the disappearance of the £3,000,000 which were available if the Report had been accepted three months ago, I think it is a much easier thing for the Government to do now than it was then. If the Government will announce their adherence to the Samuel Report, and proceed to do their part independently both of owners and miners, I believe that situation will undergo a very rapid transformation. But in order to accomplish this object, the allaying of suspicion, it has got to be a return to the whole Report without any picking and choosing. One thing which would make it quite evident and remove any possible suspicion is the constitution of Sir Herbert Samuel and his colleagues as interpreters of their own Report where doubtful points exist. I feel perfectly convinced that, if the Government were to do that, it would rally at one stroke the whole opinion of the country behind the Government. I do not believe there is anything else which will speedily induce the miners to accept the sacrifices which really are necessary is to get back to an economic basis.
After all, what has the government to lose by taking that course? They already intend to carry out a very large part of the reorganization which was proposed by the Samuel Commission. The appointment the other day of the committee on Co-operative Selling is further evidence of that. The Coal Mines Act can remain perfectly well on the Statute Book and ultimately, I have no doubt, may play a useful part in that agreed settlement which was always the intention of the Commissioners. But there are things in the Report which the Government have dropped, things which the Government do not like, things which we on this side of the House do not like. There are also things which the mine owners do not like. But, as the Prime Minister has told us on more than
192
one occasion, in this horrible tangle that we have got into there is real necessity for sacrifices to be made all round. If you talk about sacrifices I think we must all admit that the heaviest sacrifice is that of the man who finds fewer shillings in his pay envelope at the end of the week I do not believe if the Government can find no other way, that they will refuse to take the lead in bringing about a settlement in this way. It would not be a settlement by example.
What is the alternative? The alternative is to allow the continuance of this war of attrition which has already been going on for three months. It does not look to me as if the passing of the Coal Mines Act is going to do very much to hurry up a return to work. The utmost claim I have seen in any newspaper so far is that 15,000 or 20,000 men are back at work in Warwickshire and in some of the other coalfields. This 20,000, if it be so many, includes a very large proportion who are working an eight-hour day for more wages than they got for a seven hour day. They have been given an increase in wages. That is very satisfactory, but it is not much encouragement to the other people to go back. Again, many of those who have gone back are working only seven hours. The only pit of which I have any personal knowledge is one outside my own lodge gates in Scotland, and I know that the few men who have gone back there have gone back, not on an eight-hour day but a seven-hour day and at the old rate of wages.
If we are to wait for a victory for the coal owners by the operation of that Act it may mean waiting months, two months or three months, and the end of it will be an unwilling and bitter surrender on the part of men who only intend to strike again. What will be the position of the country at the end of that time? The damage which has been wrought to our trade and industry up to the present I believe to be incalculable. I so not think any one can foresee or picture the state to which we shall be reduced if this thing is to go on for months longer. And what will be the position of Government at the end of that time? I think it will be an unenviable one. They will have got their Report, for which the country paid £20,000,000 and more, they

193
will have had their General Strike, they will have had the Coal Strike lasting all these months, and at the end of it they will have the Report, for which so much money was paid, half-used. I do not think they will be in much of a position to go to the country and say: "We did all we could." It is not only because I care for my country but because I care for my Party that I beg the Government to consider well before they reject the suggestion of going back to the Report.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, I do not think there is any member of your Lordships' House who will not have heard the plea of my noble friend with a great deal of sympathy. It certainly is no part of the policy of the Government to desire a fight to a finish. They have never desired it. They have made continuous—and terrific, I was going to say—exertions to avoid any such result. It was, indeed, because they feared the outbreak and the results of this controversy that at the very outset they appointed the Commission and agreed to a subsidy which has cost the country, as my noble friend so truly reminded us, some £23,000,000 or £24,000,000. It was just in order to avoid a fight, and therefore still more to avoid a fight to a finish, that the Government took that course. When the Report was made they immediately commended it to both sides in the dispute. Within a fortnight—within ten days, I think—of its appearance they announced that they accepted it. They did everything they could to induce the parties to negotiate on the basis of that Report. The Government have no desire for a fight to a finish. They desire, as much as my noble friend or any of the right rev. Prelates who have recently come forward in order to lend their assistance in the settlement of this dispute, a lasting settlement, a settlement based not on the victory of one side or the other but on a permanent agreement, not a subjugation but a peaceful settlement.
My noble friend spoke, and spoke truly, of the grave evils caused by suspicion in this matter. I quite admit the existence of suspicion. Suspicion is the great enemy of peace, both internally and externally. I am not sure that I agree with the diagnosis which my noble friend gave of the origin of that dispute, but
194
of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that the best way of allaying suspicion is to say exactly and definitely what you mean, to allow as far as you can no misunderstanding, not to be content with vague and general propositions, vague aspirations after peace and good will, but rather to state exactly what can and cannot be done in order to solve this very serious economic and industrial crisis.
The proposals to which my noble friend referred and which have appeared in the public Press, were divided really into two parts. There was the proposal for a subsidy for four months. I was very glad to hear my noble friend set that aside absolutely. It is essential, if we are to have a settlement of this dispute, to recognise that a subsidy is altogether out of the question. I am not now referring to the small assistance to which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister referred as a possible element in an agreement which might otherwise be arrived at. That is a different matter altogether. I mean a subsidy such as is proposed in the settlement now suggested—namely, that the Government should undertake to make good the loss incurred by maintaining wages at the pre-dispute standard for a period not exceeding four months.
That is a proposal which the Government cannot consider. We believe—I need not elaborate the argument, as my noble friend is in agreement with me—that it would be unfair to the taxpayer, that the precedent would be disastrous and that it would be impossible to refuse subsidies to any other industry that got into difficulty. We believe also that it would be quite useless, because the only effect of it would be that there would be no settlement until the end of four months, and in the last week of that four months would come the first attempt at any real negotiations. We are, therefore, convinced that we must adhere to the decision on this point which was very deliberately and after great consideration arrived at by the Government, after taking all the advice that is at the service of the Government—a decision which, I may remind your Lordships, is in consonance with the deliberate advice given to us by the Samuel Commission.
I see that in some quarters it is suggested that, though a subsidy may be out of the question, a loan might be granted.

195
That is one of the proposals which, I venture to say, is just of the character which seems to me most dangerous. It is quite vague and indeterminate; it is impossible to tell from the language used what exactly is meant, and it is just the kind of thing which, put forward in that way, excites hopes which, I think, further consideration would show that it is impossible to gratify. What can be meant by such a proposal for a loan? If it means a private transaction, that is a matter which we need not consider. It is not a matter in which the Government would be asked to help. But the Government are to be asked to help in some way, and, indeed, it is very difficult to see how any proposal for a loan can be made without Government assistance; and Government assistance means, sooner or later, the pledging of Government credit. It is, in fact, so far as I can see, nothing but a suggestion that, instead of a subsidy to be advanced out of the public revenue, there should be a loan advanced out of the public capital. I think that this is precisely as objectionable as the proposal for a subsidy, with the additional disadvantage that it appears to me to be exceedingly bad finance. Accordingly that part of the proposals—I do not propose to spend any more time upon it—which suggests the grant of a subsidy or a loan or assistance of that kind from public funds or with public credit must be disregarded, in the view of the Government, altogether
There is another proposal, quite distinct, so far as I can see, from the proposal for a subsidy, and that is the proposal that negotiations should be begun and that, if it is found that they do not lead to a speedy settlement, arbitration should be agreed upon by both sides. So far as that proposal is concerned, the Government are warmly in favour of it. They would desire that negotiations should be begun between the two parties instantly, immediately and without restriction, and they have great difficulty in seeing why such negotiations should not be begun, on any view of the case, immediately. The original objection that was made to negotiations was that the miners' leaders said that they did not desire to negotiate on any question of wages or conditions of labour until they were given some guarantee that the reorganisation measures recommended by the Commission
196
would be carried out. That guarantee has now been completely given. I shall have the honour, I believe, in a day or two to present to your Lordships the Mining Industry Bill, when the details of that measure can be fully discussed, but I think it is essential, especially after the Questions of my noble friend on the subject, to point out to your Lordships how far the Government have gone in carrying out, by the Bill and by other executive measures that they have taken or are taking, the recommendations of the Report. I will not trouble your Lordships with a detailed catalogue of those recommendations, but I will refer to some of the more important—I think possibly all the more important—of them.
Take the question of selling agencies. Undoubtedly that was a very important suggestion of the Commission. The Commission recommended that the collieries would be well advised to establish co-operative selling agencies. The Government have taken the only step that they could take in that matter by appointing a Commission, which everybody admits is as strong a Commission as could be got together for the purpose, in order to advise as to what would be the best way of establishing such selling agencies. The Commission recommended that legislation should be passed to facilitate desirable amalgamations and to give power to impose compulsory amalgamation after a period of three years. In the Bill that will be presented to your Lordships the Government have included provisions facilitating desirable amalgamations, of course, under proper safeguards, and they have indicated that the matter must be reconsidered at the end of two years so that, if the amalgamations considered necessary and desirable have not been carried out, Parliament can again consider the matter. I will come to the question of royalties in a moment.
Then there was a suggestion as to profit-sharing. There again, the Government, after considering the matter, have taken the view that it would be far better that profit-sharing proposals should be freely carried out by those concerned, believing, as is indeed the case, that they are much more likely to succeed if they are carried out with good will on both sides. The Mining Industry Bill, therefore, is confined in that respect

197
to removing any obstacle that may exist in the way of profit-sharing. Then there were certain proposals as to contributions to the welfare fund and the establishment of pit-head baths. These have been carried into effect in the Mining Industry Bill. There was a suggestion that pit committees should be established. The Government have included that suggestion in the Mining Industry Bill in this form: they have taken power to make regulations for the establishment of pit committees after giving the industry the opportunity of establishing them by good will in the first instance.
I will not weary your Lordships by going over questions concerning railway wagons, questions of the recruitment of mine workers, of the way of dealing with displaced miners, with housing in mining districts, and with the qualifications of mine managers. All these matters have been dealt with, either executively or legislatively, as the Commission suggested. Then there is the proposal of a National Wages Board. The Commission confined themselves to saying that it would be an advantage if the two parties agreed in having a National Wages Board. That is an opinion with which the Government entirely concur, and they will be ready to do everything they can to assist that suggestion.
Finally, there is the question of research, and on that matter the Government have already taken steps to carry out the suggestions of the Commission. They are in the course of forming a Fuel and Power Council, and they are developing the work that the Government already had in hand in their Research Department in the utilisation of coal, and have arranged already to spend more than twice the sum of money they spent four years ago. The Mining Industry Bill gives to the Research Department powers which will facilitate the scientific study of coal, and the Government are prepared to give assistance to private initiative, so that if the owners will set up adequate and genuine research work the Government will bear their part. I think I have run through, as briefly as I can, the main recommendations of the Commission and I have endeavoured to show that in every case the Government have taken what steps seem to them best to carry into effect, genuinely and with a sole
198
desire to carry those recommendations most efficiently into effect, the suggestions of the Samuel Commission.
There are two points on which they have not done so. The first is the question of allowing municipalities to sell coal. As to that the explanation, I think, is simple and complete. If the selling agencies that are to be established prove to be successful in the object for which they are to be established—namely, to sell to the greatest advantage coal at the pit-head—it follows that the question of whether it would, or would not, be desirable to allow municipalities to sell, will have to be considered in the light of that change. The Committee will be entitled to go into the whole question of these selling agencies, and undoubtedly their Report and suggestions will have a very important bearing on that question. The Government, without rejecting the suggestion of municipal selling, think it desirable to wait anti see the result of the Selling Agencies Committee.
There remains the question of royalties. I do not pretend that I am a great admirer of that suggestion of the Commission. My noble friend is well aware that the Government were prepared, with whatever misgivings, to put that provision into force, if the parties would have agreed last April. Since that time, unfortunately, the financial situation of the country has changed, and in consequence of this coal dispute has changed very much for the worse, and the Government do feel that it would not be consistent with their duty to add to the burdens of the country another £100,000,000—which it is estimated would be the cost of the Samuel Commission's Report in that respect—in order to produce, as far as they can see, no advantage whatever for the object with which the proposal was made. It is not pretended that it would lighten the burdens of the industry, because the royalties of course would be kept alive, but what is suggested is that if the royalties were in the hands of the Government, they could put pressure on the various coal owners to work their coal in the manner best fitted to produce the greatest results. The Government think that that second result can be better produced at much less cost by the provisions in Part II of the Mining Industry Bill, which give additional

199
facilities for working. Therefore they do not think there is any advantage in proceeding with that particular recommendation, and they have decided that it must at any rate stand over for better times.
I think that any impartial person who considers what the Government have done in this connection will agree that they have carried out their part as far as the reorganisation of the industry is concerned. It is quite possible that they have not carried it out in exactly the way that Mr. Cook, or other of the miners' leaders, would like, but it must be remembered that in this matter the Government have a responsibility of their own, Which they cannot share with Mr. Cook or anybody else. They have got to do these things in the way in which they think best, not only for the miners and the mines but for the whole country, and approaching the problem in that spirit, and in that sense, they have done what they have done, and proposed what they have proposed. At the beginning of this controversy they extended an invitation to the miners to come and discuss the whole Report, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, and explain exactly what they thought ought to be done. The miners rejected that proposal altogether and declined to co-operate in any way. In those circumstances the Government took the only course they could take—namely, the course of carrying out according to their own lines and the advice given to them the suggestions contained in the Report.
One thing I would venture to add to my noble friend and others. There seems to be an impression that the Government can settle this dispute and can impose on the parties some settlement such as they would approve. That is an entire delusion. They cannot do that. Noble Lords opposite, and their friends, know as well as we do that the Government cannot do it. All they can do is to facilitate the settlement, but the settlement itself must be arrived at by agreement between the parties. There is no other way in which it can be arrived at. That is the only possible solution. The Government are prepared to do everything they can to facilitate such agreement, but it would be merely doing exactly what I have ventured to deprecate if I held out hope that the
200
Government have any means of bringing, or power to bring, the dispute to an end by the exercise of the executive or administrative power of the Government.
I do not underrate the advances to which my noble friend has referred as having taken place in the recent suggestion. I quite agree that it is a great thing to have the miners recognising, if they do recognise, that negotiations and ultimately arbitration are the only ways in which this dispute can be settled. That has been the opinion of the Government all along. They have always urged negotiation and have always advised, and indeed urged, arbitration after negotiation. For my part I find it, and have always found it, exceedingly difficult to understand how the Labour Party, which is so loud in its advocacy of arbitration as a means of settling international disputes, should yet apparently be so reluctant to adopt arbitration as a means of settling industrial strife. The Government are warmly in favour of arbitration. We have always accepted the basis of the Report, and we urge very strongly on both sides, and particularly the miners, that they should without delay enter even now upon the path of negotiation and arbitration.
May I say very earnestly that the time is passing. In the old phrase, the sands are running out. We cannot even now do all we thought we could do at the outset of this dispute. There is the question of the royalties to which I have referred. There is the question of the assistance, of the £3,000,000, which then seemed to us possible, but which now we cannot undertake that we shall be able to advance. We hope indeed, in the words of the Prime Minister, to do something, to do anything that is reasonably necessary to assist a settlement if it cannot be arrived at otherwise. But we can no longer pledge ourselves to the full £3,000,000. These are the results of delay; these are results which have already occurred, not because the Government desired those results, but because that is the inevitable consequence of delay and of the expense, waste and loss that are occurring every day in consequence of this dispute. If we do not arrive shortly at a settlement it is only too probable that the, future will diminish what we can now do.

201
I venture to appeal to the noble Lords opposite and to the right rev. Prelates to do everything they can to bring those with whom they have an influence to negotiate, to enter upon arbitration—not to submit to the other side, but to make a fair and an honourable agreement to put an end to this controversy. The longer the settlement is delayed the weaker the position of one of the parties must necessarily become. The Government desire and desire earnestly, a just settlement, a lasting settlement—not one that will leave rankling feelings of injustice behind them, but one that will make for a better feeling in the industry; and it is because they desire that settlement, because they desire a just and lasting settlement, that they also desire that the settlement should be speedy.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, looked at superficially, the speech of the noble Viscount would seem to be a very conciliatory one, and his tone was admirable. But early in that speech he said something of which I must remind him. He said that if you wished to awake suspicion in the people with whom you are dealing give yourself up to generalities. If he will forgive my saying so I have listened to few speeches more full of what I call generalities. There are several points in which I do not find myself differing from the noble Viscount. To repeat a subsidy would, I think, be a very rash thing indeed, and a very rash thing for this reason, that there appears to be a prevalent notion that the carrying out of the Samuel Report is a business which can be concluded within some definite compass of time, say, four months. Nothing of the sort is possible. The carrying, Out of the Report is a very long business, and the further it progresses the more things will turn up which have to be done, and which are not even included within the terms of the Report. That is no reason for not setting about the carrying out of the terms of the Report, but it is a very good one for not tying yourself up to grant assistance which is to continue during the progress of that operation.
Then there was another thing in which I did not dissent from the noble Viscount. He said it would be rash to embark on the very large expenditure—he put it at £100,000,000, and I do not think that is an exaggeration—required
202
in order to buy up the estates of those who own the coal and draw royalties. I agree to this extent, that it is certainly not the miners who would get the benefit of those royalties when transferred to the Exchequer, but those royalties will have to go in payment of the money advanced for their purchase. It is not obvious that there would be much advantage, either to the public or anybody else, if those royalties were owned by the Treasury. For my part, if I have to negotiate a mining lease I would much rather negotiate it with almost anybody but the Treasury. The difficulties that would be put in the way would be so great, the precedents consulted would be so numerous, that one would be worse off than if one were dealing with the average landowner. The real reform is one which the Government have taken, but I am not sure that they have taken it yet in sufficient volume, and that is to develop the provisions of the Act of 1923, which was passed for the very purpose of enabling these difficulties to be got over which had previously been pointed out. We shall see when we get before us the Bill—on Thursday, I think—how far matters have proceeded in that direction.
But, even conceding all that, one comes at once to difficulties which were, indeed, suggested in the speech of the noble Lord who put this Question, but which have not been dealt with. Suspicion—yes, suspicion has been awakened. First of all, need we have had this great dispute at all? I can only say that, difficult as it may seem to be to have prevented it, I am far from satisfied that it was impossible. If some very first-rate, energetic and very tactful negotiator had come on the field earlier, what would he have found? Two very obstinate sets of people—the miners as obstinate as they could be, and the coal owners equally entrenched. Very well, his business would have been to have got between them, to have found some common language which they could speak and introduce by degrees and very delicately an atmosphere in which negotiations could have taken place. That was not done. I am not going to debate that all over again, because we debated it very fully in this House at the time, but I shall not change my opinion that the Government did not show themselves people of genius at that

203
stage of the transaction. I do not put it any higher than that: I only accuse them of not having shown themselves possessed of genius in dealing with the industrial dispute—and I have known Governments which would have shown something like genius in dealing with them before now.
That was the first point. The second case in which suspicion was aroused was the introduction of the Coal Mines Bill the other day. You have given the miners the impression that you have put it into the hands of the coal owners to impose an eight-and-a-half-hour day in any mine that they please, or any set of mines. That is a most disastrous thing to have done in my opinion, and the first thing you have to do is to get that impression out of the miners' heads, if you want them to go peacefully and quickly back into the pits. How is it to be done? We cannot have another Coal Mines Bill for months, and I doubt if we are likely to have it even then. But what you can do is to begin to negotiate with a little more genius than you showed the last time. You have to get alongside the coal owners, and to tell them that you never intended them to put an eight-and-a-half, or even an eight-hour, day in force everywhere. Some pits require it, other pits do not. Some districts may go on two shifts. In fact, there are two alternatives which in the Coal Commission's Report were put forward to the ordinary lengthening of the day in the pits—the introduction of double shifts where double shifts did not exist, and the redistribution of the hours in the week. There are those ways, and there are other ways, in which you can constitute a basis for negotiating with the coal owners.
Like the noble Viscount himself, I attach much more importance to negotiation than I do to anything else at this moment. The noble Viscount said the Government would be willing to recommend arbitration. Take care about arbitration. There is nothing about which the British workman is more sensitive than compulsory arbitration.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I never suggested compulsory arbitration.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Oh, not compulsory? If the noble Viscount meant friendly conciliation—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: All I said was that if the parties were prepared for arbitration the Government would do everything they could to assist.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Then the noble Viscount need not give himself much trouble. I have never known any set of workmen who wanted compulsory arbitration. But if the noble Viscount can say "tactful negotiation," and negotiation upon a really rational basis—not on the footing of giving subsidies, and not on the footing of supposing that you can carry out any reform such as the Report of the Commission in a short time, but of setting to work and carrying people with you, then I think it may well come not to arbitration but to conciliation in the end, in which the two parties who have been got to see things from the same point of view will naturally bring their minds together.
I cannot help thinking that there is probably a good deal going on just now of which we do not know, and with which the Government have nothing directly to do, but which is lending itself in that direction. I do not refer to the advent and interposition of the Bishops the other day. It was not the business of the Bishops to formulate business proposals. These things are probably better done by people engaged in the industry and on the spot. There are such people, and to my knowledge some of them have been stirring lately. If they can bring these very obstinate leaders of the miners and these very obstinate leaders of the coal owners to something like a common point of view, then we may get further. But I say most emphatically that it is the business of the Government to concentrate in the first place on every form of promoting that kind of conciliation that they can devise.
It is a very big and serious business, and it may require a good deal of courage. It may be necessary to say to the parties that if they cannot come to an agreement, they must not look to any assistance from the Government in getting their way. That does not mean that the Government can wash their hands of the dispute. It may mean that the Government will have to take their own course, and not any longer ask this party or that what is most convenient.

205
At the present moment there is a great deal in the Report which has not yet been touched by any propositions in the Bill so far as we have seen it in another place. On Thursday, or whatever is the day on which the noble Viscount proposes to make his statement, we shall know better how far the Government have been prepared to go. But I wish to say, and it is the only thing I shall say further, that we shall look to him to supplement the provisions of the Bill with a description of the spirit in which the Government are at work in trying to put its provisions into effect, and the steps they are taking to induce the parties to come together with a common purpose.
No doubt this has been a very exceptional dispute. Two very obstinate sets of people are entrenched and you have to break down their entrenchments. I am not one of those, and I have said this publicly and not merely in this House, who think that you can exclude the question of hours altogether. I think hours must come in as well as wages. If they do not come in you will sacrifice one of them and I do not want to sacrifice wages to any very great extent. At the same time that requires a very great deal of the most delicate negotiation. I think something may come of it if it is properly and energetically put in force. I am far from thinking that this strike, or lock-out, or dead-lock, whatever you may call it, is going to be very easy to bring to an end or that the end will come very suddenly. It will have to come gradually, and it will come the quicker if the right course is taken and the right spirit adopted in relation to the parties concerned.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I must admit that I have rarely listened to a more depressing debate than the one which is now in progress. By common consent we are in the presence of a grave national danger. The coal mines are shut throughout the length and breadth of the country. The reopening of the mines in Warwickshire is a mere matter for newspaper headings and does not really touch the general paralysis that has fallen over the whole industry. A million and a quarter miners are out of work, and the stagnation of their trade is bringing ruin on many other important industries of this country. It is not using too
206
strong a metaphor to say that the country is slowly bleeding to death from internal Hæmorrhage, and we have not heard a single suggestion this afternoon as to how the bleeding can be staunched.
The noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down complained of the generalities of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. In their place he gave us a large number that appeared to me even more fluid and indeterminate than the generalities of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. The noble and learned Viscount says that you have to negotiate. Everybody has known that ever since the struggle began. You had to negotiate in July of last year, and I really believe that from that time until now the Government have been sincerely anxious to do everything that was in the power of the Government to promote negotiations and to encourage them to a successful issue. I do not say this because I praise what the Government have done. I think they have made many and profound blunders in connection with this matter. But to suggest now that they have failed because they have not been willing to negotiate appears to me to ignore, the patent facts of the last few months. When the noble and learned Viscount complains that they have not a genius, no Government ever had a genius, and if they had one I do not think he would retain office for fourteen days. You cannot expect phenomenal people with those qualities suddenly to arise in these crises, and I certainly do not blame the Government for not possessing the qualities the absence of which the noble and learned Viscount deplores.
Apart from that, what had he to suggest? Nothing at all. The noble Lord who introduced this subject certainly had a suggestion. He suggested that the proposal put forward in the recent memorandum is capable of exploration. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, seems to think it is not, and he expressed the hope, which everyone genuinely shares, that by some means or another a permanent and peaceful settlement can be accomplished. I would like to ask him to consider for a moment what that means. As matters stand, unless the Government help in some way there is only one way by which that settlement can be accomplished. You may lessen

207
wages or increase hours. But is there anybody who imagines that either by one or other of those processes a lasting settlement will be secured under which the miners will think they have been fairly treated? They will be convinced that they have been beaten by what they regard as the organised power of Capital and of Society in this country.
As I said before, it must be remembered that the miners live in a very narrow land and that they are men with intensely patriotic feelings, but their patriotism has a strangely narrow, concentrated and personal quality. They are not prepared to consider the effect of their action upon other trades at all and they certainly regard themselves as out against Society in this matter. If you settle this dispute by the means I have just mentioned, and by nothing else, you will not have settled the dispute at all. There is only one way in which it can be settled. It is by a scheme which you can get the miners to work with good will in the belief that it will lead ultimately to their own advantage and will restore them to the position from which they have been temporarily displaced. If you can do that, then the settlement is possible, but at the moment no such scheme has been proposed and the scheme put forward in the memorandum, which I read with interest, does not even afford the foundation of such a scheme.
I did venture, when the Coal Mines Bill was before this House, to put forward a humble suggestion of my own. That it has received no attention at all is probably due to the fact that it is not worth any, but it is along some such lines as the scheme I suggested that I feel sure this matter has got to be developed. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, possibly was not here then. The suggestion, roughly, was this: That you should help the poorer pits to maintain their position for a time with a provision that, bit by bit, that help should be withdrawn and, meanwhile, every effort should be made and every encouragement given to drafting the labour to the better and the richer areas that are now awaiting development. I repeat it now, not because I am proud of it but in order that the noble Viscount may be in possession of the idea. It is something of that kind that you have to do, I am quite satisfied. The Government
208
will not get out of this without giving some help and I feel sure they had better recognise that, and the sooner it is done, the sooner such a scheme is put on foot, the better. A perpetual subsidy or an indefinite subsidy is hopeless, but financial assistance to a scheme which the mineowners and the miners can work together is a good thing and it would be money well spent.
The noble Viscount said, and said truly, that the Government had attempted to carry out part of this Report. My complaint about it is that they did not begin at once and instantly. If they were going to adopt the Report they should not have allowed a week to pass by without saying: "We are going to accept this and we are going to give it legislative effect." But, indeed, the delay has resulted in this, that one part of it has got to be at any rate postponed, if not abandoned. I do not feel very strongly about that abandonment, for this reason. I have never looked with very great favour upon the proposal. Royalties, undoubtedly, do stand in a strange position and it is very much easier for those who do not possess them to find fault with them than for those who do and it is easy to understand the objection against them.
The idea, of course, that people, if they own land, own it to the very molten centre of the earth and up to the top of the universe, is one of those strange legends of the law which have become an integral part of our Constitution, which is extraordinarily difficult to comprehend. If it were true it would follow that every individual in the course of the spinning and rotating of the earth owned the whole universe because he owns every bit that is above his piece of land right up to the highest heights of the heaven and he goes on owning that throughout the twenty-four hours of the day and the 365 days of the year. The truth is that that doctrine began when it was thought that the earth was at rest and it has been carried on down to the present time. The reason why it was believed and held that the mines were possessed by private people was that no human being thought that coal had any value. The only thing that was reserved to the Crown was, of course, gold that does not exist because it was believed that that did have a

209
value. Our law grew out of these most amazing and absurd provisions.
But in the end, you cannot escape from it, the royalties of mines have become established as legal property. They have been bought and sold under the protection of the law, and I am the very last person who would say for a moment that they can be dealt with otherwise than any other form of ownership. We know what you have to do if you are to acquire them by the State. You have to get the value of every man's ownership of these minerals, both those that are being won and those that are problematical. Remember that if a man owns a two-acre farm over a place to which coal is adjacent he is entitled to come in and have his prospective rights to the minerals valued, and the cost, the labour and the delay that would be involved in such a process would, to my mind, be out of all proportion to any benefit that could be gained. The noble Viscount himself, with great frankness, admitted that nationalisation is so complete a failure that when it, had got into the hands of the State it would be very much more difficult dealing with the State than if you had to deal with a private owner—a very remarkable doctrine to be enunciated from those Benches. But it was frank and it was true. It would be much better to deal with private people under the present Trade Facilities Act than it would be to deal with the State.
It would mean that all you would do would be this; and you would do this. You would to some extent appease the strong feeling which most undoubtedly resides among the miners that there is something very wrong in every ton of coal that they hew from the coal face being subject to a payment in favour of a private person. To that extent, if that advantage outweighed the other, I think it would be a good thing to do. Apart from that it is mere waste of time and money and I regret that the Report included it. For the rest, to rely, as I said before, merely on the provisions of the Report as providing an escape from the present difficulties is, I am certain, to rely on something which will not support the burden you put upon it. This amalgamation and unification of industry and scientific research are not going, within a measurable distance of time, to relieve the strain and difficulties in which this industry finds itself. Something further
210
has got to be done. I would earnestly entreat the Government not to be too severe and not to be too—I was going to say conservative, in considering the help that they will give for the purpose of putting once more upon its feet an industry on the success and prosperity of which the whole trade of this country depends.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down began his observations by saying that up to the moment when he rose this had been the most depressing debate he had ever heard in your Lordships' House. I do not know whether he thinks he has raised our spirits. I can assure him he has not. I listened with great interest to this debate and I agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that it is by no means of an exhilarating character, but I did hope that we should have some suggestions as well as many criticisms. We have had criticisms of a rather vague kind in abundance. We have been told that every sort of mistake has been made, that our intentions no doubt were good, but that the Government, who have been carrying out these intentions, have unfortunately not risen to the height of their opportunities.
I will not comment upon the only remedy proposed by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, because his only remedy was that the Government should either find genius among their own members or look around them and bring in genius from outside. I cannot speak for any of my colleagues, but I am perfectly conscious that I do not possess genius and that I can make no contribution of that kind to the counsels of the Government or to any of those who may be brought in to assist the Government. Genius, alas, is not a marketable commodity. It is not sold under any process of marketing which can be devised either by this House or any other House. The noble and learned Lord was quite right, I think, in commenting upon the barrenness of the suggestions made by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, but I do not know that he had anything much more to offer us. He suggested a very complicated arrangement on which all the men should go back to work, as I undrestood

211
him. I do not know on what terms they were to go back, but that, I suppose, was to be settled on the hypothesis that the terms were such that they would not enable a great many mines in this country to be—
LORD BUCKMASTER: Not a great many. The noble Earl will forgive me if I intervene for a moment to explain the scheme. There are a certain number of mines to-day that cannot possibly carry on if they have to pay wages which, by common consent, would be regarded as decent wages for the men engaged in the work. I believe those mines are pretty well all known. A schedule of them could be obtained very easily. If you shut them down you throw out of work at once a very large number of men and there would be no chance of their ever getting work again. If, instead of that, you help these mines to pay the agreed wages that run throughout the whole coalfield for a limited period, and provide that the subsidy should be withdrawn from a certain number of mines year by year, you would thus ease the difficulty that you would sooner or later be faced with of men thrown out of work in vast masses that you could not digest.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought that was what I was saying.
LORD BUCKMASTER: You said a "great many." It was not a great many.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I see, it is on the number that the noble Lord differs from me. I do not know the numbers—I am afraid they are more than it is pleasing to think of—but at all events his idea was that a certain number of mines would not be able to pay existing wages at the existing hours. Is his idea that he would take every mine that could not pay at existing hours and existing rate of wages and give them a subsidy until they had replaced their men?
LORD BUCKMASTER: No.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought that was the idea. Evidently I am not the man of genius required to deal with the situation. I listened with attention and respect, as I always do, to the noble and learned Lord and I thought, broadly
212
speaking, his idea was that mines which did not pay should be kept going until they were able to transfer their work-people to other and more favoured coal areas. If that was not his point I will not pursue it. Surely he must see that to set about carrying into effect so elaborate a scheme, without any certainty that it was going to succeed, without any reasonable prospect that the miners who had refused to make a single suggestion from the very beginning of this unhappy controversy would take it up and help to carry out its complicated details and in the meanwhile return to work on an unspecified system of hours, is not a very helpful prospect even for men of genius to deal with.
I think it was quite right that your Lordships should debate this subject, and that those of us who desired to speak upon it should have an opportunity of giving their views, but I am bound to say that a more barren discussion I have seldom heard. The sentiment that I feel most acutely of all those that have been raised in the course of the four speeches to which we have listened is that sentiment given expression to by the noble Lord who, speaking of his predecessors in debate, said they had greatly lowered his spirits. My own spirits are depressed on this subject. I have to add that they have not been raised by the speech of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I shall not press my Motion after what has fallen from the noble Viscount, but I should like to express profound dissent from what was said by the noble and learned Lord opposite that by their action the miners are out against society. I do think that is a most profound mistake. I think the noble and learned Lord is confusing one or two of the wilder men with the general body of miners, who are just as sensible a body of men, as fax as I know, as any other body of men. He said he wanted some scheme which the miners will work with good will. That is the very object I had in pressing the Government to go back to the Report as a whole. I believe the Samuel Report, as a whole, carried out in a broad way, is just such a scheme as the miners will work with good will, and that when it is instituted it will induce them to accept the sacrifices which are absolutely necessary. If once you remove

213
doubts about the subsidy and get the Report into operation with all that it means, I believe the miners will accept sacrifices.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committte (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND MINISTERS' AND SCOTTISH UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS' WIDOWS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Church of Scotland Ministers and Scottish University Professors Widows Fund (Amendment), and to move that it be now read a first time.
Mover, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kilmarnock Corporation, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; to be printed; and pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of Wharncliffe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EALING EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MARGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 21st instant discharged, and Bill committed forthwith.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.