Sitting of 30 June 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords],
Connah's Quay Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Manchester Ship Canal (General Powers) Bill [Lords], (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that prior to May, 1923, negotiations were in progress with the Soviet Government for compensation to be paid to Mrs. Stan Harding, Mrs. Davidson, and Mr. J. Martin, and that on 8th May, 1923, compensation in the two former cases was pressed for and secured, he can state why Mr. Martin's case was not similarly pressed at that time; and what steps are being taken to secure compensation for him and other British subjects who suffered personal injury by the Soviet Government from imprisonment and otherwise?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Mr. Martin's case was taken up with the Soviet Government in September, 1922, but owing to the un-
    1118
    satisfactory nature of the reply His Majesty's Government did not consider that any useful purpose would be served by further representations at that time. With reference to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the second half of the reply made to him on the 24th instant in answer to a question on the same subject.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was found possible to obtain compensation from the Soviet Government in the case of Mrs. Stan. Harding and Mrs. Davidson and impossible in the case of Mr. Martin?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My predecessor who was responsible at that time singled out two cases as being, for some reason, of special urgency, or specially easy to obtain settlement. There is not merely the case of Mr. Martin outstanding; there are a good many others.
    Mr. PONSONBY: When the right hon. Gentleman mentions his predecessor, does he not mean Lord Curzon?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I mean my predecessor in September, 1922. I think it was Lord Curzon.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office has abandoned the claims of these British citizens and that they are left to their fate?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend must not understand that.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to Mr. Martin, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his eyes were put out by the authorities in Russia? Has he Mr. Martin's story?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that question. I believe we have full information, but I have not refreshed my memory lately and I cannot answer without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I hope the Government will not abandon the cases of Mr. Martin and others. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action the Government are taking in order to obtain redress?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I see no prospect of taking action

    1119
    at the present time with successful result. Whenever it would be possible to arrange these matters, we shall put forward this case and other cases in which we think compensation is undoubtedly due.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Martin stated in the Lobby that his blindness was due to lack of medical requisites, which were then being stooped by the British?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what passed in the Lobby.

    NOTE TO SOVIET GOVERNMENT. (BULLETIN No. 88.)
    Mr. JACOBasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Embassy has issued, through its Press Bureau, to the Members of the House of Commons a publication, entitled Bulletin No. 88, criticising the Note of protest sent by the British Government to the Soviet Government in Russia; and whether he intends taking any steps to prevent this form of propaganda in future?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. Before Question No. 5 is answered, I desire to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question is out of order, as making an aspersion on a Government with which we are supposed to be on friendly terms. In making that suggestion, I wish to remind you of a supplementary question which I sought to put in regard to propaganda which was being conducted by the French Government. You charactcrised that supplementary question as most improper. Some hon. Members have no particular liking for the Russian Government, while others have no liking for the French Government, and I submit—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not argue the point. I do not see any objectionable insinuation in this question.
    Captain GARRO - JONES: May I remind you that, when I sought to put a question asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could take any steps to prevent French propaganda—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot now raise that point. This is a question about action in this country, and not in another country.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I was not aware that Members of the House of Commons had received copies of this document, but the Soviet Mission furnished me with a copy of this number, as of others, of their weekly Press Bulletin. The passage in the Bulletin to which the hon. Member refers summarises an article in the "Izvestia" of the 15th June. I do not think that any steps Such as are suggested are called for.

    ABYSSINIA (BLUE NILE WORKS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to Treaty Series No. 16, 1926, Cmd. 2680, whether this closes the diplomatic proceedings for the economic partition of Abyssinia; whether the agreement of the Government of the French Republic has been obtained; whether the agreement of the Royal Government of Abyssinia has been obtained; whether arrangements have been made for road building, barrage works, etc., for the Blue Nile on Abyssinian territory; and by whom this work is to be carried out, and who will finance it?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The exchange of Notes with the Italian Government provides that the two Governments undertake to afford each other mutual support in furtherance of their respective interests in Abyssinia and cannot by any latitude in interpretation be held to import economic partition.
    The recent Anglo-Italian Agreement, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, has already been communicated to the French and Abyssinian Governments for their information, but, as it is a bilateral instrument, their acceptance of its subject-matter must be sought in separate correspondence. The French Government are considering the matter and no negotiations will be initiated with the Abyssinian Government until the latter have had time to consider the present Agreement in detail. Until this exchange of views between His Majesty's Government and the Abyssinian Government has taken place, there can of course

    1121
    be no question of making any arrangements for such works as are contemplated in the Anglo-Italian exchange of Notes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it contemplated that these works will be undertaken by a company or by His Majesty's Government direct?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not begun to think how the works shall be Undertaken if the Abyssinian Government agrees to their execution. We have not reached that stage yet.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers dealing with the correspondence between ourselves and the French Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say what I will lay until the correspondence is completed.

    TURKEY (LOAN).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representative of His Majesty's Government has given any promise, in the course of recent negotiations, to endeavour to facilitate a loan to the Turkish Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    CHINA.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give the House any official information received with reference to the recent happenings in China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is rather a wide one, but if I may assume that it has reference to the meeting at Peking between Marshals Chang Tso-lin and Wu Pei-fu, which has recently taken place, I have nothing to add to the information which has appeared in the Press.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. B. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the incidence of venereal disease in the Navy has
    1122
    increased or diminished in the last three years; and whether he can state what is the general view of the naval medical service as to the value of the preventive measures that have been employed?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): For the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 (the latest for which figures are available) the statistics indicate a slow but steady decrease in the incidence of venereal diseases in the Royal Navy. Various preventive measures are employed—moral, physical and medical—and it is generally considered that these have contributed collectively to the reduction.

    OIL, LEAKAGE (HAMOAZE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there has recently been a serious leakage of oil into the waters of the Hamoaze; and whether the Government will take steps to compensate the boat owners concerned for the time, labour and expense incurred in making good the damage done?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

    INVALIDED MEN (PENSIONS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what procedure is followed in the case of those men invalided from His Majesty's Navy who desire to question the decision of the medical officer, which deprives them of pension rights; and whether the medical officer's report, which is the basis of the complaint, is referred to and taken as evidence of the correctness of that Report?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All representations made by the rating prior to the medical survey are carefully considered by the board of survey. These and any further representations made by him or on his behalf subsequent to the invaliding are carefully investigated by the medical authorities at the Admiralty in conjunction with the rating's medical history and with reference to conditions of his service. Any medical report which may be the basis of the complaint is referred to and taken as evidence subject to further investigations or other evidence.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, when he reached his decision not to institute an appeal tribunal for those naval ratings who are invalided by Service doctors and who are dissatisfied with the decisions which deprive them of their pension rights, he had present in his mind that 95 per cent. of those invalided from His Majesty's Navy during the year 1925 were deprived of their careers and pension rights on the ground that their disabilities were not attributable; and whether he will reconsider this decision?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All relevant particulars were taken into account in arriving at the decision not to establish an appeal tribunal for ratings invalided from the Service. I would remind the hon. Member that although it is not within the powers of the Admiralty to compensate ratings for loss of career owing to invaliding for a non-attributable disability, ratings who have rendered a certain minimum period of service are granted pensions even if the disability is not attributable.

    PACIFIC (BRITISH DOCKS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what docks there are in the Pacific on British Territory large enough to accommodate the cruisers now being built for the Royal Navy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The following docks in the Pacific on British Territory will accommodate the cruisers now being built for the Royal Navy:
    Sydney.—Sutherland Dock (Cockatoo Island), Mort's New Graving Dock, Woolwich.
    Esquimalt.—New Dominion Government Dry Dock (practically complete).
    Hong Kong.—Taikoo Dockyard Company's Dry Dock, Hong Kong and Whampoa Company's No. 1 Dock.
    Singapore.—King's Dock.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what docks exist on British territory in the Pacific capable of accommodating the largest units of the Royal Navy; and what docks of such size are being prepared in the Pacific other than at Singapore?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The following dock existing on British territory in the Pacific is capable of accommodating the largest units of the Royal Navy: Esquimalt—new Dominion Government dry dock, which is practically complete. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is understood that the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Company, Hong Kong, are proceeding with the initial stages of their proposed 1,200 feet dry dock.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered with the Australian Government an enlargement of the dock accommodation at Sydney in order to take the largest ships?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say that I have recently, and I cannot without notice tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman when the last communication took place.
    Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of selling the land and docks at Hong Kong and devote the proceeds towards the building of the Singapore dock?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

    WELFARE COMMITTEES (MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that up to this year members of the Royal Naval Welfare Committee have been granted the usual allowances when absent on Welfare Committee business away from their own port, but that this year members are denied this allowance and are lodged in barracks where privacy is impossible and conference difficult; and if he will look into the matter?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Under the Regulations lodging and provision allowance are payable if the ratings cannot be accommodated and victualled in His Majesty's ships or establishments, and no departure from this rule is considered necessary. Ample facilities exist in the barracks for informal discussion among the delegates.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Welfare Committee is a very valuable asset to the Admiralty and a great stand-by for the lower deck?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, certainly.

    GENERAL STRIKE (LOSS IN WAGES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to give the House an approximate figure of the amount lost in wages throughout Great Britain during the period of the general strike?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The amount lost in wages during the period of the general strike was, as nearly as I am able to estimate at present, between £14,000,000 and £16,000,000.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the approximate figure of what is being lost day by day through the present dispute?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I cannot. I must have notice of a question like that.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it not the fact that any trade unionist who has lost wages as a result of the general strike has a cause of action against his trade union leaders?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a Grade 3 temporary clerk, recently dismissed from the Claims and Record Office, Kew, on the ground that he was carrying on a bookmaking business in the office, admitted that he had been engaged in this unofficial occupation during official hours for a period of two to three years; that the permanent supervising and controlling officers, under whom the alleged bookmaker had served during the last five years, failed to detect the carrying on of this illegitimate business; and that a Grade 1 temporary clerk is now being reduced to Grade 3 rank, with a consequential loss in pay of 23s. a week, because he failed to detect and report the bookmaker, although he had been employed in the same section for not more than four months; and what action is he prepared to take to secure fair treatment of this Grade 1 temporary clerk, who has a good record of service with the Department?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certain temporary clerks have been summarily dismissed from the Kew Office on account of their association with betting transactions within that office. Suitable disciplinary action was taken in all cases where the Department had sufficient evidence of complicity or of neglect of official duty in this connection. In the case of the clerk referred to by the hon. Member, I am satisfied that it would not have been proper to retain him in a supervisory post, and that in all the circumstances the position has been fairly met by his continuance in post as a Grade 3 clerk.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not the case that this has been going on for the last four years, and is it not a fact that the clerk who has been dismissed had only been there for three months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is quite an incorrect idea of what has happened. There had been a certain amount of suspicion that betting had been going on inside the office for some little time, but naturally it was concealed from the authorities as far as possible. When suspicion was aroused, every effort was made to find it out, and when it was found out every officer who was culpable, as far as we know, was suitably dealt with. In the present case the clerk in question was in a supervisory capacity, and seated next to one of the people who were found out to be bookmakers, and therefore, having been seated next to him and a supervisor over him, the Department thought he was one of those who should be dealt with. The bookmakers were dismissed and the supervisor degraded.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Are these men to be reinstated when betting is made legal?

    STAMP CANCELLING, KEW.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the writing assistants employed at Kew very much dislike having to work machines for cancelling stamps during the cancelling periods, whereas the temporary women clerks are anxious to obtain this work; and whether, under these circumstances, during the forthcoming cancelling period, he will consider the employment of the existing temporary women staff on this work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The work is such as can properly be allotted to women writing assistants, and the employment upon it of officers of this grade or of women temporary clerks is regulated by the general requirements of the work of the office.

    OFFICE OF WORKS NIGHT-WATCHMEN (SUPERANNUATION).
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that a number of night-watchmen employed by his Department, who have been employed continuously since 1911, have been informed that their service prior to 1918 will not be allowed to count for increment purposes, although they signed agreements when first employed which would entitle them to such gratuity as might be awarded under the Superannuation Act, 1887, but the Department cannot find any record of these men prior to 1918, although admitting that they were employed as night-watchmen from 1911; and whether, to ensure that the service rendered by these men shall be counted for gratuity purposes under the Superannuation Act, he will inquire into this matter and say what steps he proposes to take to remedy this complaint?
    Captain HACKING(for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): Prior to the 3rd February, 1918, the night watchmen to whom the question refers were in the service of the Corps of Commissionaires, and their wages were paid by that organisation, who claimed a refund from the Board, with certain establishment charges in addition, at regular intervals. No agreements were signed by the men until the aforementioned date, when they were taken into the direct employ of the Department, and thus for the first time became eligible for consideration for gratuities under the Superannuation Acts. In these circumstances, the First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to take any further steps in the matter.
    Mr. OLIVER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men all signed an agreement, and that this particular office acknowledged that they did sign an agreement?
    Captain HACKING: No. They did not sign an agreement until 1918, when they were taken into direct employment. Since that date they have received all the gratuities to which they are entitled under the Superannuation Act.

    UNEMPLOYED DOCKWORKERS, BOROUGH.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of signatures per week required by casual dockworkers registered at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange, together with the number of times of signing-on required by other classifications?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Dockworkers registered at the Borough Exchange prove unemployment by means of attendance cards presented twice daily except on Saturday at special port workers' offices. Other casual workers attend at the Exchange once daily. Owing to exceptional pressure of work at the Exchange the number of attendance of male claimants in other classifications has been reduced, as a temporary measure, from Monday, 28th June, from three to two per week. Women attend on three days per week.

    EIGHT-HOUR DAY CONVENTION.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Belgian Chamber of Representatives has recently passed an Act to ratify the eight-hour day without reservation; and whether he will state the Government's policy in regard to ratification of this Convention by Great Britain?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that the Bill in question passed the Chamber of Representatives on 4th June, but I am not aware that it has yet passed the Senate. On the second part of the question I regret that the attention of the Government has been and still is so far preoccupied by the industrial situation that I am not yet able to add anything to the statement made on the 30th April by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour during the Debate on the Hours of Employment Bill.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Government take the earliest possible opportunity of disproving the allegation that they intend to make a general attack on the hours of the working people of this country?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have denied that categorically in public, and in this House.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible for the Government to ratify this Convention if they pass a Bill allowing eight hours' work at the coal face?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That question will have to be dealt with at another time.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour whether the British Government representative at the recent Conference of the International Labour Office voted in favour of the recognition of the nominee of the Italian Fascist syndicates as the Italian workers' representative; and, if so, whether his vote was given on his own initiative or in accordance with previous instructions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The British Government delegates to the eighth and ninth Sessions of the International Labour Conference voted for the admission of the credentials of the Italian workers' delegate. In so doing they followed the course adopted by their predecessors at the seventh Session in 1925.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the workers of Italy have actually chosen this representative or was he chosen by the Government without the approval of the workers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question concerning the internal affairs of another Government.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    SHORT-SERVICE OFFICERS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken
    1130
    to fill the vacancies for short-service officers in the general branch of the Royal Air Force?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Vacancies for short-service officers in the general duties branch of the Royal Air Force are periodically announced in the Press, and candidates are selected by a board sitting at the Air Ministry. The flow of applicants is generally satisfactory.

    BRISTOL CHERUB AEROPLANE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is able to make any statement on the result of the tests and experiments carried out with the 30 horsepower Bristol Cherub aeroplane designed by Captain G. T. R. Hill?
    Sir S. HOARE: The objects of this aircraft are to obtain increased stability and control down to and beyond what is known as the stalling speed. The Air Ministry considered the results of the tests sufficiently promising to justify the purchase of the existing machine and the ordering of a further improved machine of the type.

    PUERPERAL SEPTICÆMIA (KINGSTON NURSING HOME).
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Health whether the report of the expert sent down by the Ministry of Health to investigate the circumstances of several deaths from puerperal septicæmia at Kingston has been submitted to him; and what steps are being taken to inform the public as to the result of such investigation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for Central Southwark.
    Mr. PENNY: In view of the extreme gravity of the case, will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the doctor, and his qualifications, who made the inquiry, and say whether any previous investigation has been made regarding the administration of this institution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  WEST HAM GUARDIANS.

    RELIEF SCALES.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the relief scales in operation in the Greenwich and West Ham Unions which he requested should be lowered before giving sanction for future loans, and the scales in each instance suggested by him, which were accepted in the first instance by the Greenwich Union and afterwards rejected, and which up to the present are rejected by the West Ham Board?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the relief scales which were in operation in these Unions before the last applications for loans were dealt with by my right hon. Friend. In neither case was a scale of relief suggested by him, but in both cases the Boards of Guardians were asked to submit proposals of their own which would lead to a substantial reduction of expenditure.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the Ministry did suggest certain reductions to the Board?

    SCALES OF RELIEF prior to recent loan applications.

    —

    West Ham Union.

    Greenwich Union.

    Man and wife

    19s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    25s. plus rent up to 7s. and I cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Man and wife and 1 child

    24s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    31s. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt, in summer.

    Man and wife and 2 children

    29s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    36s. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Man and wife and 3 children

    34s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    41s. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Man and wife and 4 children

    39s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    45s. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Man and wife and 5 children

    44s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    49s. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Man and wife and 6 children

    49s. plus rent and 2s. 6d. for coal in winter only.

    50s, 6d. plus rent up to 7s. and 1 cwt. coal in winter, ½ cwt. in summer.

    Maximum income per household.

    55s. including rent

    50s. 6d. plus rent up to 7s a week and coal.

    50 per cent. of the wages of an earning member of the household between £1 and £2, and 75 per cent of the wages above £2 are regarded as available for the support of the household.

    Two-thirds of the total income of the household, apart from relief, above £1 were regarded as available for the support of the household.

    DIETARY (MARGARINE).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether he consulted his medical advisers before recommending
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I have stated that the Minister suggested no scale. What he did suggest was that they should submit proposals which, when submitted, would show a substantial reduction in expenditure.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not true that, although the guardians did suggest a scale, when that scale was put into operation they found it was inhuman, and they rescinded their previous decision?
    Sir K. WOOD: No. The scale which has been recently adopted is still in operation.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Health considers 25s. a week for a man and wife an excessive scale of relief?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for argument.
    Mr. MARCH: Is it the view of the Ministry that the longer people are on the list the less they want to live on?
    Following is the statement:
    the West Ham Board of Guardians to substitute margarine for butter in the dietaries prescribed for patients in the institution at Whipps Cross; and will he

    1133
    lay upon the Table of the House any statement he has received from such advisers wherein it is stated that the dietetic value of margarine is equal to that of butter?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not recommended the West Ham Board of Guardians to make the substitution suggested. The dietary of this institution is supervised by the medical officer of the institution. With regard to the dietetic value of margarine I may refer the hon. Member to the special Report on "Diet in relation to normal nutrition" issued by my Department in 1921, of which I will send him a copy.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of the War the medical officer of his Department advised all boards of guardians to change over from margarine to butter for their children and sick people?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that. The hon. Gentleman had better carefully study this Report.

    WEST HAM UNION.

    1. Particulars with regard to totals of loans raised for the purposes of relief during the last six years—

    £

    Total amount of loans raised

    2,400,000

    Amount of principal repaid

    425,000

    Amount of interest paid

    195,483

    Total amount of loans outstanding

    1,975,000

    In addition the guardians have authority to overdraw to the extent of

    £300,000 until 31st August, 1926.

    £100,000 until 30th June, 1926.

    2. Numbers relieved.—The returns furnished to the Minister do not show separately, single men and married men, or the dependants of men as distinguished from dependants of women. The following Table shows the average number of persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupapation and their dependants in receipt of domiciliary Poor Law relief:—

    Month.

    Men.

    Women.

    Children.

    Total.

    May, 1924

    13,172

    14,022

    22,124

    49,318

    May, 1925

    11,362

    11,368

    18,813

    41,543

    May, 1926

    24,519

    22,856

    40,305

    87,680

    The figures for June are not yet available.

    3. Average weekly cost per head of domiciliary relief in money and kind for April, 1926, to latest date for which comparative figures are available are—

    West Ham Union

    8s.

    5¼d.

    England and Wales

    6s.

    0¼d.

    METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to issue a statement showing the
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the hon. Member himself to study the Reports of his own advisers?

    LOANS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health the total amount of loans raised and interest and repayments paid by the West Ham Board of Guardians for the purposes of relief during the past six years; the amounts of the loans at present outstanding; the number of able-bodied single men and the number of able-bodied married men and their dependants in receipt of relief on 19th June, 1926; the same figure for the same date in 1924 and 1925; and what is the average cost per person for outdoor relief in England and Wales, and the cost per person in West Ham?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information available.
    Following is the statement:
    amount of money paid by each of the 28 Metropolitan borough councils to the Poor Law Fund, and the amount paid out to each local authority, if any, from the Poor Law Fund?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is assumed that the hon. Member refers to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. A statement of the payments into and out of the Fund is regularly circulated, and I am sending him a copy of the last statement issued, namely, that for the half year ended 30th September, 1925.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the amount of subsidy that the Government give to this Poor Law Fund every year?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware that the Government give any subsidy.

    STRAW-PAPER.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of straw-paper made in Great Britain in 1925 and the localities where it was made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): There are, I understand, several factories in different parts of the country, but I regret that official statistics as to the output in 1925 are not available.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this so-called straw-paper, made in Great Britain, is made of straw?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: It is made from the clippings of strawboards, which is made of straw.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Debate the President of the Board of Trade stated specifically that he knew of such manufacture, and if there is no information in the Board of Trade on what did the right hon Gentleman base his statement?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here, and also a sample of British straw-board. I find that my right hon. Friend did speak of paper made from straw, and I think he was misreported. I am perfectly sure that he spoke of paper made from the clipping of straw-board.
    Mr. SHEPPERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to certain action recently taken, placing wrapping
    1136
    paper under the Safeguarding of Industries, there will be an increase in the manufacture of straw-paper, and that the increase will not only benefit—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

    LINEN IMPORTS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. JACOBasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the values of linen yarn and linen manufactured goods of all kinds, other than yarn, imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, respectively?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer is rather long and contains some figures. It will accordingly be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if my hon. Friend has no objection.
    Following is the answer:
    The particulars which follow show the imports of flax yarn and of linen manufactures into the United Kingdom in each of the years 1921 to 1925. For the years 1921 and 1922, and for the first three months of 1923, the figures relate to Great Britain and Ireland, and, for that period, I am unable to furnish particulars of the imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For the last nine months of 1923 and for 1924 and 1925, the figures relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.
    For the years 1924 and 1925 the exports to Great Britain and Northern Ireland recorded in the published statistics of the Irish Free State are added, in order to assist in making comparisons between the earlier and the later years of the period. Similar information for the last nine months of 1923 is not available.

    IMPORTS into the United Kingdom from all Countries.

    Year.

    Flax Yarns.

    Linen Manufactures.

    —

    —

    1921

    535,682

    301,974

    1922

    654,131

    338,469

    1923

    862,517

    692,001

    1924

    1,389,155

    1,050,341

    1925

    968,123

    1,141,266

    EXPORTS to Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State.

    Year

    Linen Yarns.

    Linen Manufactures.

    £

    £

    1924

    80,328

    37,004

    1925

    284,012

    270,084

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    SUBVENTION.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid as subsidy to the coal industry for the nine months ending 30th April, 1926; how much of the amount was taken as profits by the coal owners during that period; and how much was paid to royalty owners?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The total amount of subvention for the nine months is estimated to amount to £23,300,000. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford on 14th June. No payment has been made to royalty owners in respect of subvention.
    Mr. BATEY: Could the Minister not tell us what were the profits to the owners during the nine months, and how much was paid to the royalty owners during the nine months?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, I cannot tell the hon. Member what was paid to the royalty owners. There was nothing to pay. I shall be able soon to give him the figures with regard to the owners, but I have not yet got the complete figures for the nine months.
    Mr. BATEY: If the Minister says there was nothing paid to the royalty owners, where did they get it from if not from the subvention?
    Colonel LANE FOX: They got it from sources other than the subvention.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that during the nine months during which
    1138
    the subsidy was granted to the coal industry, 30,000,000 tons of coal was produced over and above what would have been produced without the subsidy, and that, therefore, the royalty owners got the royalty on that output which they would not have got otherwise?
    Mr. SPENCER: Has the Minister not misapprehended the latter part of the question? It was not how much was paid out of the subvention, but how much was paid to the royalty owners.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that because of the lower price the 30 million tons were in fact sold?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is a doubt as to the latter part of the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down as a separate question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the royalty owners of this country last year drew £6,500,000?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions should be put down.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: When may I have a reply to the question to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred?
    Colonel LANE FOX: As soon as I have the figures. I have not yet got the figures for last month, but as soon as I have them, I will give them to the hon. Member.

    ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and other accidents occurring in mines in this country in each complete year immediately before and after the introduction of the Eight Hours Act and the Seven Hours Act, respectively; and the number of persons engaged in the mining industry during each of such years?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The reply involves a long statistical statement, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    NUMBER OF PERSONS Killed and Injured and Number of Persons Employed at Mines under the Coal Mines Acts, in Great Britain and Ireland, during the years 1904 to 1908, 1910 to 1918 and 1920 to 1925, so far as particulars are available.

    Hours of Work below Ground, and Year.

    Number of Persons

    Number of Persons Employed.

    Killed.

    Seriously Injured.*

    Injured.†

    Number of Persons Employed.

    Nine-hours average.

    1904

    1,055

    —

    Particular were not collected prior to 1980.

    847,553

    1905

    1,159

    —

    Particular were not collected prior to 1980.

    858,373

    1906

    1.142

    —

    Particular were not collected prior to 1980.

    882,345

    1907

    1,245

    —

    Particular were not collected prior to 1980.

    940,618

    1908.

    1,308

    5,860

    141,851

    987,813

    Eight-Hours Act.

    1910

    1,775

    5,737

    159,042

    1,049,407

    1911

    1,265

    5,858

    166,616

    1,067,213

    1912

    1,276

    5,331

    150,652

    1,089,090

    1913

    1,753

    5,675

    177,189

    1,127,890

    1914

    1,219

    5,084

    158,862

    U to July, 1,133,746

    End of Dec., 981,264

    1915

    1,297

    4,751

    Particulars were not collected during the war

    953,642

    1916

    1,313

    4,499

    Particulars were not collected during the war

    998,063

    1917

    1,370

    4,632

    Particulars were not collected during the war

    1,021,340

    1918

    1,401

    4,300

    Particulars were not collected during the war

    1,008,867

    Seven-Hours Act

    1920

    1,103

    4,287

    117,302

    1,248,224

    1921‡

    756

    3,039

    86,352

    1,144,311

    1922║

    1,105

    4,739

    185,497

    1,162,754

    1923║

    1,297

    5,200

    212,256

    1,220,431

    1924║

    1,201

    4,808

    195,423

    1,230,248

    1925║

    1,135

    4,336

    180,000§

    1,119,000§

    * The following classes of accidents which are reported at the time of their occurrence to H.M. Divisional Inspectors of Mines, are included, viz.: (a) Accidents causing fracture of head or limb, or dislocation of limb, or any other serious personal injury; (b) Accidents caused by explosion of gas or dust, or any explosive, or by electricity, or by overwinding, and causing any personal injury whatever. The majority of these accidents involve a period of disablement extending to at least one week and are included in the next column.

    †In 1924 and 1925 accidents which disabled the person injured for more than three days were reportable, the limit in earlier years being seven days.

    ‡In consequence of the national stop, age of work at coal mines, almost all the mines were idle for about three months in 1921.

    § Provisional figure.

    Great Britain only.

    FISH, PORT OF FLEETWOOD.
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 20,000 stone of fish, principally hake, whiting, and bream, brought into the port of Fleetwood, Lancashire, have been consigned to fish-meal works because it was impossible to find buyers at 4d. per stone; and whether, in view of the shortage of food, particularly in the mining villages and towns of Lancashire, the Government will arrange for the distribution to the areas in question of such fish as may be surplus to the requirements of ordinary buyers?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am aware that considerable quantities of fish are occasionally consigned to Fish Meal Works from the Port of Fleetwood. Such consignments take place when the landings for that port are abnormally large and the fish is of an inferior description. I am informed that 10,000 of the 20,000 stone mentioned by the hon. Member had been condemned as unfit for human consumption. With regard to the latter part of the question, I regret that it is not possible to set up an organisation to deal with the distribution of occasional surpluses of fish at "glut" periods.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that the fish would not have been condemned, in all probability, had it been despatched on being landed, and that 20,000 stone of fish would represent about 300,000 square meals for people in need of them in Lancashire, cannot the Government do something to prevent the fishermen's labour from being wasted?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not the fact that if the policy of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Overseas Department, of developing the export trade in fish to Italy and other Continental countries, had been adopted, there would have been no glut, such as has been mentioned?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the occurrence referred to is a common occurrence, and that the disparity in the price paid by the purchaser and the price paid by the consumer is greater than—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is putting a speech into a question.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir FREDERICK RICEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware, in connection with the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among the cattle on a farm at Elmstead, that this is causing concern to the local farmers, who believe that the free importation of Dutch potatoes in skips covered with sacking often re-used may be the cause of the infection; and whether he will take steps to obtain information on this point and as to whether the sacking to the skips should be immediately destroyed in the same way as the straw packing is destroyed from potatoes sent from different parts of the Kingdom to the eastern counties?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Inquiries into the case in question have revealed no connection between imported potatoes and the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. My information is that very rarely do skips and their sacking get on to farms where they would be brought into contact with animals, and I am advised that there is no necessity at present to take action on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend. I am, however, having the position carefully watched.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be safer if we kept out all foreign food from coming into this country, and thus kept up prices for the farmer?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has been able to establish any connection between wrappings of any kind—hay, straw, and such like—coming from the Continent and foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No; we have no evidence whatever, but if the farmers suspect these forms of packing material the remedy is largely in their own hands. They can take steps to prevent such packing material from being brought into contact with cattle.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    ANTI-DAZZLE HEADLIGHTS
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Minister of Transport whether any type of anti-dazzle headlight has yet been submitted to him which fulfils the necessary requirements of safety and efficiency?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am not aware of any headlight which provides a complete solution to the problem of obtaining a full driving light without any dazzle. Many palliatives have been suggested, but their usefulness depends upon the. fitting and adjustment of the particular devices, and in many cases upon the courtesy of the driver, as to the manner in which they are used.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether tests are still being carried out?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, the whole question is constantly under review.
    Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the necessity for the use of dipping headlights?
    Colonel ASHLEY: All these matters are being considered.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that some Government Department is engaged in this research work?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, the Ministry of Transport, under the Act of 1925 has power to conduct research.

    MOTORING ACCIDENTS.
    Sir F. MEYERasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of motor accidents; and whether he is contemplating any action in the matter;
    (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill for the control of motor vehicles introduced by him this Session?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have constantly before me the question of motor accidents, and I would refer him to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, which I gave on the 27th April, to the hon. Member for South-east Southwark (Mr. Naylor). As I have stated before, I hope as soon as Parliamentary time is available to introduce a. Motor Vehicles Bill, which will, among other matters, provide additional powers for dealing with dangerous driving.
    Colonel DAY: Will that Bill also include the speed limit?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his answer definitely means that the Bill will not be proceeded with this Session?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Nothing is certain in this world, but it looks rather unlikely.

    TERRITORIAL TRAINING CAMPS, REDCAR AND RHYL.
    Mr. DEANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the annual training camp of the Sherwood Foresters Brigade, 46th North Midland Division, is to be held at Redcar and, if so, why is the 138th Brigade (Lincoln and Leicester) not allowed to proceed to camp at Rhyl, which was also arranged to take place after 15th July?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The training of the Regular Army this year has been kept within the limits of commands, and the same principle, when it could be made effective, has been applied to the Territorial Army. The 138th Brigade is not proceeding to Rhyl, which is outside the
    1144
    command and at a distance considered to be excessive in view of the restriction on traffic facilities.
    Mr. DEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Written questions should be handed in.

    IRAQ (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the grounds on which Great Britain's claim to £750,000 under the financial agreement for communications and works in Iraq has been surrendered?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The claim, which amounts to a less sum than that stated in the question, has been waived in accordance with the recommendation of the Financial Mission which visited Iraq in the early part of 1925. The Report of the Mission was presented to Parliament last year as Command Paper No. 2438.
    Captain BENN: Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill to enable this House, in accordance with the usual procedure, to agree to this discharge of a debt?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that this large sum is going to be cancelled on the ipse dixit of the Minister, without the House being consulted at all?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not at all. If the hon. and gallant Member will read the report and recommendations of the Mission presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young)—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I have read them.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: —he will see the reasons set forth there, and how this has been a matter of negotiation with the Treasury.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not a question of the reasons, which no doubt are excellent, but of the authority of this House. Is this House to have no authority in the matter?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have already said to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question on the matter my right hon. Friend will no doubt be ready to answer it.
    Sir F. WISE: Are all the recommendations of the Mission being carried out?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot, without refreshing my memory, say offhand as to all these recommendations how many have been carried out, and how many have not been carried out. It would be better if the hon. Member would put down a question later.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the estimated reduction of the expenditure owing to the agreement. between Britain and Turkey over the Iraq boundary?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 21st June, to which my right hon. Friend at present has nothing to add.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer conveyed no information whatever, and when will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give an estimate of the Saving which is to be effected?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend in that answer said the matter was being investigated, that it required very careful actuarial calculation, and that it would be some time before he could give the figures.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the second part of my supplementary question as to when we shall be given this information?
    Mr. 0RMSBY-GORE: When it has been compiled.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite certain that this
    1146
    saving, when it does accrue, accrues to the taxpayers of this country, and not to the Iraq Government?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does his statement of the amount saved include the £750,000 which the Iraq Government have been remitted under this agreement, and also, if we are able to remit that sum to the Government of Iraq, may I ask how that Government can afford to pay the £500,000 or £750,000 to Turkey in consideration of the capitalisation of the oil rights?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The statement is not yet ready, and I do not see how questions on what is contained in it can be taken at this stage.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There may be savings to the British expenditure in connection with the Air Force and British oversea charges, and there may he savings to the local budget of Iraq, but until those figures have been properly ascertained, it is quite impossible to say how much or what proportion of the one or the other.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Since I have failed to get an answer to nine out of every 10 questions, and in most of those cases I have been unable to get an answer because you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled the question out of order—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to call my action in question, he must take the regular course.
    Captain GARRO - JONES: I am not calling your action into question at all, Mr. Speaker. What I desire to ask is, in a case where the Minister was willing and ready to give an answer to my question, which was perfectly in order, why he was not allowed to give that answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sometimes, I have to call Ministers to order.

    MALTA TRADE UNION COUNCIL.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if

    1147
    he is aware that one of the two members of the Senate of Malta elected by the Trade Union Council, recognised by Lord Plumer, has been a Minister of the Crown by virtue of such election; that the election of neither was ever challenged before the competent Court of Law; that neither resigned but both passed automatically to the Assembly on election thereto after a dissolution, and that Ministers advised the present Governor to issue a writ for a second election under Lord Plumer's enactments; and will he state the reason for which the Constitution continues to be suspended with reference to the representation of trade unions in Parliament, notwithstanding Clause 36 of the Letters Patent and the opinion of the Imperial Law Officers?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to dispute my hon. Friend's account of the events to which he alludes, but, in his view, they form part of the internal affairs of Malta, the control of which has been entrusted to the people of Malta. He does not understand that anything that could properly be called a suspension of the Constitution has taken place.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of 9th January, conveying the decision of the Imperial Law Officers on this matter, namely the illegal suspension of a provision of the Constitution for two years, was not communicated to this self-governing Parliament until 14th June, and does the Colonial Office approve of thus influencing the balance of power where the Estimates were carried by 300 casting votes.
    HON. MEMBERS:Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be now entering upon matters concerning local government in Malta.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order. Ought not this supplementary question to be put by the hon. Member in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition and of the rival party in the Parliament of Malta, rather than as a Member of this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I tried to convey that in rather different words.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: On a point of personal explanation. I stand here as Member for Lancaster. There are certain matters reserved by the Malta Constitution to the Imperial Parliament, and it is the duty and the right of every Member of this House to ask redress on such matters and to submit questions affecting them. The action or inaction of the Colonial Office and of those who are appointed and paid under the control of the Colonial Office are matters for this House to discuss. My contention is that entirely incorrect answers have been suggested to the Secretary of State from sources responsible to him, and have been conveyed to this House. I, as a member of the Trade Union Council in Malta, and as a Member of this House, have a right on my personal knowledge to make statements upon—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am always glad to hear the hon. Member as Member for Lancaster, but there is another place where he can be heard in the other capacity to which he has referred.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: As the hon. Member for Lancaster seems to be labouring under a sense of injustice in regard to this matter, will the Government not set up a Commission of Inquiry and send out the Home Secretary?

    AIR PAGEANT, HENDON (TRAFFIC REGULATIONS).
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Air what special arrangements have been made for the organisation of traffic to the air pageant at Hendon on Saturday, 3rd July, so as to avert the congestion and consequent delay caused last year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In this matter, the Chief Commissioner of Police has been in constant touch with the staff of the Air Service. General Horwood went up to Hendon on Monday, and he was there again this afternoon. Every possible effort is being made to improve the traffic conditions. It is only fair to say that there were at the end of last week no fewer than four openings in the road

    1149
    between here and Hendon, and I am doing my utmost to get them closed up in time.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Are any alternative routes being made possible?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are one or two small ones, but the main route is the one which I am afraid must be taken. There is only one main route.
    Colonel DAY: Could not arrangements be made to take the motorists there by air?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Could not greater use. be made of the new arterial road instead of bringing them all on the direct road—by the Edgware Road?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no positive objection to anybody going round by the arterial road.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: As congestion last year was caused by cars being parked at the far end, have any fresh arrangements been made in that respect?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Arrangements are being made which, I hope, will certainly be an improvement on those of last year, but my hon. and gallant Friend must remember that there is an enormous influx of cars into Hendon on this one day in the year, and it is quite impossible to provide accommodation such as is then desired for all the year round.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this is the great road that we hear so much about, that is paved with good intentions?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: How many of the right hon. Gentleman's staff are engaged in this work, and if his staff are so engaged, does he not consider they might be much better employed watching the Communist and Labour movement from raiding this House?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have taken particular care to see that that part of the Home Office work is not being neglected.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I think you omitted,
1150
Mr. Speaker, to call a second time the questions of those hon. Members who were not here for the first round.
Mr. SPEAKER: I went through them all.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (PROCLAMATION).
At the end of Questions
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS(standing at the Bar of the House): A Message from the King, signed by his own hand.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Royal Message (all the Members of the Rouse being uncovered) and it was as followeth:
The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 28th day of June, 1926, having constituted, in the opinion of His Majesty, a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 28th day of June, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: I beg formally to move,
"That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message he taken into consideration tomorrow."
Perhaps the, right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will consult with me as to whether to-morrow or Friday will be more suitable.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: We will consult with the right hon. Gentleman, but notice has been given to take it on Friday.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to oppose this Motion made by the Home Secretary. Having in mind the Debate of last evening, I should like to ask whether in an ordinary Debate the King can send messages to this House? I challenge his right.
Mr. SPEAKER: On a previous occasion the hon. Member for Gorbals raised that point. I dealt with it then. He must please accept my ruling that the King's name must not be brought in.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept it quite readily, but might I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that I was quoting the words that have been

1151
used by the Home Secretary. It was in no way to go against your ruling, although I may say it is quite true that I have no respect and nothing but contempt for royalty. In point of fact—[Interruption].
Mr. PENNY: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that hon. Members take the Oath of Allegiance, is the hon. Member for Gorbals in order in bringing such a matter before the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member in this country is, of course, entitled on a proper occasion to discuss the methods of the Government. He is not entitled, however, to do so except on a relevant occasion.
Mr. BUCHANAN: This Motion has been brought forward by the Government and it has been brought forward because the Privy Council, or a section of the Privy Council, consider that this House ought to consider it. The advice of the Government, through His Majesty, is to bring forward this perpetual Motion and suggest that it should be considered to-morrow. It seems to me, in the first place, that the Government, having decided to give two days to the Coal Mines Bill℄the, Committee stage and Third Reading—the bringing forward of this Motion to-morrow is breaking a bargain which has already been made. I want to make that point firstly. My second point with regard to these Regulations is: this House ought not to proceed to consider them at all. There is no reason in the world why we should consider those Regulations.
Mr. SPEAKER: That may be a matter for debate when the Motion for the reply is brought before the House on Friday.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir; but I am dealing with the point that these Regulations or that this Message should be considered to-morrow. I want to urge that they ought not to be considered by us to-morrow, or on Friday, or on Monday. I wish to submit to you that they ought not to be discussed again; that they ought to be delayed, and further delayed. I intended, if I were in order, to submit reasons why delay should take place. You have this particular dispute going on, and if the Government would withdraw their eight-hours Bill and a
1152
general armistice were declared, allowing the men to resume work on the old terms, there would be no use for this. I suggest that this Bill ought to be delayed until that course is taken by the Government. My awn view is that if you force this through on Friday, all you are doing is to add to the struggle, which is already bitter. I know because
Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument put forward by the hon. Member which it will be quite proper to bring forward at the next stage, but which is not proper at this stage. The Proclamation has been issued, and the next stage rests with the House when the Message is being considered. Then, I understand, an Amendment is to be moved from the Front Opposition Bench raising that very point.
Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Surely if this House decides not to take this Message, not to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, then this whole matter will go by the board.
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be so. It would only be discourteous to His Majesty, without being effective in any other way.
Mr. STEPHEN: The Home Secretary has made a definite Motion that this Message from His Majesty should be considered. I take it that is to-morrow?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member does not quite understand. This is merely one of the forms of courtesy used in the House—the usual form. It will not make any difference one way or the other to the course of business.
Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. While accepting your ruling in this matter, surely, this Motion means, in fact, that His Majesty is carrying out the wishes of the Government for the time being through the Privy Council? Does it not mean that, if we thank His Majesty in effect we are strengthening the Government, because if the Government did not advise him he would not do it, and, therefore, would I not be in order in protesting on the ground that it is Government action simply we are fighting and not His Majesty, who is only acting on the advice of the Ministers?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point with which I dealt on the last occasion. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the rights of this House are fully protected. This is not the time to debate that but when an Amendment, if any, be put forward to the Motion.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether this is a Motion on which we can divide?
Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, it can be divided on.
Mr. LANSBURY: If it be such a Motion, why is it not possible to debate it
Mr. SPEAKER: Because this is not the occasion on which to raise the merits of the question. That will be when the House comes to consider the question of a Reply being made.
Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that the effect of this Motion is to allot a certain part of the available time of the House to-morrow to the consideration of this Message, and, if that be the case, are we not entitled to argue whether or not we shall set aside part of to-morrow's time for the purpose of considering the Message?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: May I say that there is no intention whatever of taking this Message to-morrow, and that we have given notice to the House that it will be taken on Friday. It is merely put down for to-morrow as an ordinary Order. For instance, to-day the Finance Bill is down, but there is no intention of taking it to-day.
Mr. BATEY: I do not think that you, Sir, have ruled that it is out of order to debate this question, You have merely suggested that, as a matter of courtesy the Motion ought to be passed.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is out of order to discuss the question which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was trying to raise, because the proper occasion on which to do that will b when a Reply is being made.
Mr. BATEY: What we want to do is to oppose this Proclamation on every occasion, and each time—this is the third occasion—less time is given to it.
Mr. SPEAKER: The proper occasion on which to discuss the merits of the question will be when the Motion for a Reply is made.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not intend to continue any further and I accept your ruling, though I protest against the action of His Majesty in Council, which of course is taken on the advice of the Government.
Mr. TAYLOR: Would it be in order to move an Amendment that it be considered on Wednesday?
Mr. SPEAKER: This is only a formal Motion.
Question put, "That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into consideration To-morrow."
The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 119.

Division No. 304.]

AYES

[4.7 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Boothby, R..J. G.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

Albery, Irving James

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

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

Brass, Captain W.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Christie, J. A.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Briscoe, Richard George

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Astor, Viscountess

Brittain, Sir Harry

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Clayton, G. C.

Balniel, Lord

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Cobb. Sir Cyril

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Buckingham. Sir H.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Cope, Major William

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Burman, J. B.

Courthope, Lieut Col. Sir George L.

Berry, Sir George

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Bethel, A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Betterton, Henry B.

Campbell, E. T.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Blundell, F. N.

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

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

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

Conliffe, Sir Herbert

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Ropner, Major L.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

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

Hurd, Percy A.

Rye, F. G.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Salmon, Major I.

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

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

Jacob, A. E.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

Sandon, Lord

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Drewe, C.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Savery, S. S.

Duckworth, John

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Sheffield, sir Berkeley

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Shepperson, E. W.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Lamb, J. Q.

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Ellis, R. G.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Skelton, A. N.

England, Colonel A.

Locker-Lampson, Com. 0. (Handsw'th)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Erskine Lord (Somerset Weston-s. M.)

Loder,.J. de V.

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

Erskine,, James Malcolm Monteith

Lougher, L.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lumley, L. R.

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Fieiden, E. B.

Maclntyre, lan

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Finburgh, S.

McLean, Major A.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Forrest, W

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sueter, Rear-Admlral Murray Fraser

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Tanker, Major R. Inigo

Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Templeton, W. P.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Gates, Percy

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

Meyer, Sir Frank

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Goff, Sir Park

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Waddington, R.

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

Murchison, C. K.

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

Gretton, Colonel John

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nelson, Sir Frank

Warrender, Sir Victor

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Watts, Dr. T.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Nuttall, Ellis

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Hartington, Marquess of

Oakley, T.

Wiggins, William Martin

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Haslam, Henry C.

Owen, Major G.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Hawke, John Anthony

Penny, Frederick George

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

Perring, Sir William George

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Pliditch, Sir Philip

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Power, Sir John Cecil

Womersley, W. J.

Hills, Major John Wailer

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

Hilton, Cecil

Preston, William

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

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

Price, Major C. W. M.

Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

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

Radford, E. A.

Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Raine, W.

Wragg, Herbert

Holt, Captain H. P.

Ramsden, E.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)

Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Hore Belisha, Leslie

Rice, Sir Frederick

Colonel Gibbs.

NOES.

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

Buchanan, G,

Day, Colonel Harry

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

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Dennison, R.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Cape, Thomas

Dunnico, H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Charleton, H. C.

Gardner, J. P.

Barnes, A.

Clowes, S.

Gibbins, Joseph

Barr, J.

Compton, Joseph

Gillett, George M.

Batey, Joseph

Connolly, M,

Gosling, Harry

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Cove, W. G.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Broad, F. A.

Dalton, Hugh

Greenail, T.

Bromfield, William

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins.)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

1156

1157

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Grundy, T. W.

Murnin, H.

Sullivan, J.

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

Oliver, George Harold

Sutton, J. E.

Hardie, George D.

Palin, John Henry

Taylor, R. A.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Paling, W.

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

Hayday, Arthur

Ponsonby, Arthur

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hayes, John Henry

Potts, John S

Thurtle, E.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Purcell, A. A.

Tinker, John Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Townend, A. E.

Hirst, G. H.

Riley, Bee

Varley, Frank B.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ritson, J.

Viant, S. P.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rose, Frank H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Scrymgeour, E.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Kelly, W. T.

Scurr, John

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Kennedy, T.

Sexton, James

Welsh, J. C.

Kirkwood, D.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Westwood, J.

Lansbury, George

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Whiteley, W.

Lawrence, Susan

Sitch, Charles H.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Lawson, John James

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Lee, F.

Smillie, Robert

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lowth, T.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lunn, William

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Windsor, Walter

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

Snell, Harry

Wright, W.

Mackinder, W.

Snowdon, Rt. Hon. Philip

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

MacLaren, Andrew

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

March, S.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)

Stamford, T. W.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Montague, Frederick

Stephen, Campbell

Charles Edwards.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister say in respect of what business he proposes to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am moving to suspend the Rule as a precautionary measure, but it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit late. We do not propose to take any other business than the Coal Mines Bill. From the state of the Order Paper in regard to Amendments, it seems possible that such progress might be made to-day that the suspension of the Rule might enable the Third Reading to be taken. There is nothing unusual in putting down a Motion of this kind, and it is not proposed, as I say, to ask the House to sit late.
Mr. MacDONALD: Do we quite clearly understand that the Third Reading is not to be taken to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: Third Reading follows the Committee stage.
Mr. MacDONALD: But I would like to be clear on the point. Is the Third Reading going to be taken to-day, after the announcement made that it would be taken to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: No. I was informed that what my right hon. Friend told, I think it was the Party Whips opposite, was that Wednesday and Thurs-
1158
day would be devoted to the Committee stage and Third Reading. I do not think anything was said as to what time would be taken on either the one stage or the other.
Mr. MacDONALD: Am I not within the recollection of the Patronage Secretary in saying that the arrangement made was that the Committee stage and the Report stage, if there were such a stage, should be taken to-day, and that tomorrow should be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, after considering the state of the Bill when it had passed through Committee?
The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend's recollection is that what was said was that Wednesday and Thursday should be given for the remaining stages of the Bill.
Mr. MacDONALD: We will leave it for the moment.
Captain BENN: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, a point which I have previously submitted, namely, that this form of Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is in fact out of order? It arises out of the conversation which has just taken place. What the Standing Order says is "proceedings on any specified business." It might be submitted, and I do submit, that "specified business" means items that are detailed, but what actually happens is that the Government Whips put down a Motion

1159
that Government business should be exempted, which, I submit, is not "specified business," and that Motion has to be supplemented on every occasion by a conversation across the Table of the House. I submit that, for the convenience of the House and for the information of private Members, the Rule should be observed with the term "specified business," meaning business specified by name.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised that point once before, and I have not felt able to rule that the Motion is out of order. If the form is to be changed, there should be communications through the usual channels. I cannot rule that the Motion as it stands is out of order.
Captain BENN: I accept all you say, but, with great respect, I submit that, in fact, the use of this form does involve on every occasion supplementary information being given across the Floor of the House.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): I have now obtained a copy
of the Business read out to the House on Thursday last—"Wednesday and Thursday: The remaining stages of the Coal Mines Bill."
Mr. MacDONALD: While that is so, was it not agreed that one day would be for the Committee, and the other day for the Third Reading, on account of the importance of the Debate on the Third Reading?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: That was not so. The usual practice of the House is that when the Committee stage of a Bill is taken on the Floor of the House, if there be no Report, the House immediately considers the Third Reading.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Third Reading to be taken to-day?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, front the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 133.

Division No. 305.]

AYES.

[4.12 p. m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Albery, Irving James

Bullock, Captain M.

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

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Burman, J. B.

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

Campbell, E. T.

Drewe, C.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Duckworth, John

Astor, Viscountess

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Balniel, Lord

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Ellis, R. G.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Birm.,W.)

England, Colonel A.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Christie, J. A.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Everard, W. Lindsay

Berry, Sir George

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Bethel, A.

Clayton, G. C.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Betterton, Henry B.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Fermoy, Lord

Blundell, F. N.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Fielden, E. B.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Finburgh, S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Ford, Sir P. J.

Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

Cooper, A. Duff

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Cope, Major William

Forrest, W.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Brass, Captain W.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Briggs, J. Harold

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Ganzoni, Sir John

Briscoe, Richard George

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Gates, Percy

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Goff, Sir Park

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

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macmillan, Captain H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Shepperson, E. W.

Gretton, Colonel John

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

Grotrian, H. Brent

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Skelton, A. N.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

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

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hawke, John Anthony

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Murchison, C. K.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Strickland, Sir Gerald

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

Nelson, Sir Frank

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hills, Major John Waller

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Hilton, Cecil

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Templeton, W. P.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

Oakley, T.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Holland, Sir Arthur

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

Holt, Captain H, P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Penny, Frederick George

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Waddington, R.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Perring, Sir William George

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

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Pliditch, Sir Philip

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hurd, Percy A.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hutchison, G. A. C.(Mldl'n & Peebles)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Preston, William

Watts, Dr. T.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen l)

Price, Major C. W. M.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Jacob, A. E.

Radford, E. A.

Wiggins, William Martin

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

Raine, W.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

Ramsden, E.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rice, Sir Frederick

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lamb, J. Q.

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Ropner, Major L.

Wolmer, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G (Wood Green)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Womersley, W. J.

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

Rye, F. G.

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

Loder, J. de V.

Salmon, Major I.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Lougher, L.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wragg, Herbert

Lumley, L. R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

Sandon, Lord

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Macintyre, I.

Savery, S. S.

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

McLean, Major A.

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

Major Hennessy.

NOES.

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

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Day, Colonel Harry

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Attlee, Clement Richard

Dennison, R.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Dunnico, H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Barnes, A.

Fenby, T. D.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Barr, J.

Gardner, J. P.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Batey, Joseph

Gibbins, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Gillett, George M.

Kennedy, T.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Gosling, Harry

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lansbury, George

Briant, Frank

Greenall, T.

Lawrence, Susan

Broad, F. A.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Lawson, John James

Bromfield, William

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lee. F.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lowth, T.

Buchanan, G.

Groves, T

Lunn, William

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Grundy, T. W.

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

Cape, Thomas

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

Mackinder, W.

Charleton, H. C.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

MacLaren, Andrew

Clowes, S.

Hardie, George D.

March, S.

Compton, Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Connolly, M.

Hayday, Arthur

Montague, Frederick

Cove, W. G.

Hayes, John Henry

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Murnin, H.

Dalton, Hugh

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Oliver, George Harold

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hirst, G. H.

Owen, Major G.

1162

1163

Palin, John Henry

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Paling, W.

Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Snell, Harry

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

Potts, John S.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Purcell, A. A.

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Welsh, J. C.

Riley, Ben

Stamford, T. W.

Westwood, J.

Ritson, J.

Stephen, Campbell

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Whiteley, W.

Rose, Frank H.

Sullivan, J.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sutton, J. E.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Taylor, R. A.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Scurr, John

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Windsor, Walter

Sexton, James

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

Wright, W.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Thurtle, E.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Tinker, John Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sitch, Charles H.

Townend, A. E.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Varley, Frank B.

Charles Edwards.

Smillie, Robert

Vlant, S. P.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to make a personal statement, with your permission Mr. Speaker, to the House. It arises from the publication by the Government of what they have styled "Communist Papers," and I beg to correct certain words used by the Government which are not a part of any of the documents, even as claimed by them, which not only convey a false impression, but which reflect upon myself personally. I take it for granted that the publication of the documents was intended to supply proof of the assertions or the charges made in this House against certain parties or persons, or to supply proof or evidence in support of any inferences or insinuations made throughout the various discussions on the Communist position. Document No. 26, which is printed on page 58, is described, not by the contents of the document itself, but by the Government in their own wording to be a "Statement of Expenditure by the Communist Party of Great Britain on the General Election, 1924." The publication of that document under that description would naturally go to prove any previous assertions made by the Government or their supporters. One of these assertions, as well as a part of the contents of this document, refers to myself. On the 1st December, during the Debate on the Communist prosecution, while I was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intervened, and asked me the following question:
"May I ask the hon. Member, as he has rather got away from my argument, would he think it desirable that a Member of this House should receive £300 for election pur-
1164
poses, and for the money to come from Russia?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, lst December, 1925; col. 2113, Vol. 188.]
I took that question to be a purely hypothetical question, based merely on the question of principle involved, and that the sum of £300 was taken at random, and I answered it accordingly. I adhere to every word I then said in my answer, but I now perceive that in Document No. 26—I do not know what the document is; there is no heading to it, there is no signature to it, and there is no date attached to it. One does not know how far it was from the General Election, but my name and the figure of £300 are mentioned. I have now seen that some of the public are misled into believing that this is proof of what the Home Secretary insinuated on the 1st December. I, therefore, beg to state that it is perfectly untrue to say that in any one of the three General Elections I have gone through, I have asked for, or received directly or indirectly, a single penny from Russia, even though in principle I do not consider it is not proper.
That is not the argument. I am merely stating a fact, and I further state that, during my first two elections, I had not received, nor required to receive, any assistance from the Communist party of Great Britain, as my private resources, and the assistance purely of my countrymen, and Indian friends and relatives, was sufficient to pull me through. But the last General Election, coming on rapidly after the two others, and the papers creating a public scare about anybody having anything to do with me, I did apply to the Communist party to be

1165
prepared to give me my share out of the General Election Fund which they were advertising in our party paper, and every shilling and every penny has been openly acknowledged in our party Press. It was out of that fund that a sum of £130, purely collected locally, was passed on to the Battersea Labour party, as the contribution of the Communist party towards the Parliamentary election expenses. The subscriptions were all from British subscribers and British Labour organisations, collected in shillings and pennies, and were published quite openly in the paper. The Government were not right, and were not entitled, to call this little memorandum showing certain names and certain figures a "Statement of Expenditure." Any accountant, any apprentice in an accountant's office, any student in an accountancy school, would say that no statement of expenditure is drawn up in this form. Also the marginal notes, "reserve "and "loan," and certain other annotations, definitely point to the fact that it is some memorandum by some individual just to fix something to be borne in mind.
Further, there is Document No. 27, which is in its form, at any rate, a complete and bona fide statement of expenditure. The persons named are not included in it, nor is any sum given to me included in it, and the sums mentioned therein prove more conclusively that the figures in the draft Memorandum are not a statement of expenditure in so far as it is a certified statement of expenditure. These figures are different, although the difference may be slight. I, therefore, submit, as a matter of personal explanation, that Document 26 is not a statement of expenditure, and never should have been described as such, and it does not supply any proof that any of the members of the Communist party running in the general elections were financed from Russia with those sums of money, as is alleged by the Home Secretary, described in Document 26. I should be glad, in justice to myself and others, to have that point made clear.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If any hon. Member of the House states that he has not received money I need hardly say I accept that statement unreservedly. If the hon. Member cares to put a question to me in regard to these papers, it will be my duty to give him an answer.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill,
Edinburgh Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill,
Passmore Edwards (Tilbury) Cottage Hospital Charity Bill,
Allhallows and Marwood (Honiton) Charities Bill,
Robert Earl of Leicester's Hospital, Warwick, Bill,
Brighton (London Road) Congregational Chapel Charities Bill, without, Amendment.
Amendments to,
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords],
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Ashton - under - Lyne." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton - under - Lyne Extension) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Ealing." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Barnet District Gas and Water Company; to extend their limits for the supply of water; to consolidate and amalgamate their capital; and for other purposes." [Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the London County Council and upon the Corporation of the City of London and Metropolitan borough councils; and for other purposes." [London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton - under - Lyne Extension) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 1.—(Temporary Amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c. 57, s. 3.)
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to add the words
  "Provided that if a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament for the repeal or suspension of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by order to repeal or suspend the operation of this Act to such extent, and in the case of the suspension for such period definite, or indefinite, as may be specified in the Resolution."
  I am afraid I am not at all an optimist as to the possibility of making a good Measure out of this Bill, however much it may be amended in Committee. At the same time, I have ventured to put down an Amendment, hoping the Government will see their way to accept it. Of late years—I am not sure whether it started before the War or since the War—Clauses of a certain type have crept into our legislation to enable the Bill in which they appear to be suspended or repealed, to any extent defined, by a simple Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. The object of that is to put it within the power of Parliament to deal readily and expeditiously with an Act which is in an experimental stage. The introduction of this option into this Bill will, I submit, have very considerable potential benefits. It will not make a bad Bill into a good Bill, but it will give us an opportunity of repealing a bad Bill more quickly than we could otherwise do. The Government have in reserve an option of their own in the opposite sense. This is supposed to be a Bill for five years. It is not really a five years' Bill; many of us think it is intended to be a permanent Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "For 50 years."] The Government can put this Bill into the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and practically take away from this House any power to say "Now that the five years are over, you must bring
  1174
  in a new Bill." If that option exists for the Government, why should not the House have the option of suggesting that the Bill be repealed or amended by a simple Resolution?
  Even the Government admit that this is a Bill of an experimental kind. It is introduced in defiance of the clear statement of opinion expressed by the Royal Commission. It may result, as the Commission say, in such a glut of coal as to destroy any advantages that come or are supposed to come, from the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen with experience tell us that it may result in the eight-hours day in mines not being permissive, but becoming obligatory. That is the view of hon. Gentlemen well qualified to express an opinion. Further, it may be the signal for a general attack upon the existing standard of life amongst the working people of this country. The Minister of Labour, who, I suppose, is officially in charge of the Bill, has shown himself fully conscious of this danger, because in a speech delivered not more than two years ago he said:
  "A competition in the hours of industry might have results almost as lamentable as competition in armaments before the War."
  Everyone who has listened to the Debates on this Bill must be well aware that it is not merely the miners' case that is being fought. There is a general and, many think, a well-grounded fear, that when once this bulwark has been swept away, the standards of life in other industries may be attacked; and, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, competition in the standards of living is as bad as competition in armaments was before the War. In the engineering trades proposals have been put forward for extending the hours, and the fear is that the success of this Bill will result in further, and perhaps successful, attacks in other industries. It is not only the effect of this Bill in lowering the general standard of life in this country that we have to fear. We know quite well, no one knows better than the Minister of Labour—
  The CHAIRMAN: I have no objection to allow on this Amendment a general discussion on Clause 1 if that be the general wish of the Committee, but it will mean that we cannot have the discussion repeated on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Captain BENN: No, I would not suggest that anything of the kind should be done. I hope to keep within the rules of Order in explaining that the character of the Bill makes it peculiarly suitable for the introduction of such an Amendment as I am proposing. I shall not go beyond that, in order to leave perfectly free the scope for discussion on the Clause itself by those who are far better qualified to discuss it than I am. Legislation of this kind is being watched very carefully abroad, other countries are well aware of what we are doing, and the danger, which the Royal Commission themselves foresaw, is that a lowering of the standards in our land will result in a competitive lowering of the standards in other lands. I could give very many instances in support of that contention if I were not afraid of wearying hon. Gentlemen. Whether you take Switzerland, or Poland, or Germany, or Italy, everywhere you find that this sort of attack is being made upon the hours of labour and the standards of living. I will not document those statements unless they are challenged, but they are so well known that I am sure they will not be challenged. I have here a statement made by the "Times" correspondent in Berlin last year—
  "The usual plea for the retention of longer hours is that they are necessary to increase production in Germany. The experience of foreign countries has been largely drawn upon to support it."
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is quite relevant to this Amendment.
  Captain BENN: Then I will not prolong that side of my argument. Not only did that statement appear in the newspapers, but to-day I notice there is an announcement that the Italian hours have been lengthened by one hour. We do not want this Bill to be made an excuse for foreign Governments to lower their standard. Surely the Government do not want to see that take place. They do not want to start in European industries any competition in sweating. Supposing we pass this Bill without my Amendment, and other countries make it the excuse for lowering their standards, we are not only both worse off but we have no means of remedying the evil. The purpose of this Amendment is to give us this means. My Amendment introduces a proviso that if a Resolution is passed by
  1176
  this House and the other House we shall be able to suspend the Act. Surely that is a safeguard which will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. It is not an Amendment devised by private individuals, but a provision taken from an existing Act of Parliament—in fact it is taken from the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. I think it does what every hon. Member opposite would wish to see done if this dangerous competition to which I have alluded comes upon us.
  I submit this Amendment without hesitation as one which deserves to be accepted on its merits by the Government. Although I am prepared to attack the principle of the Bill itself, I wish to point out that this Amendment does not do that, but gives the Government and the House power to suspend, repeal, or amend it. What possible objection can there be to an Amendment of that kind? It does not merely give this power to the Government, but it gives the initiative to any Member of this House, and I think that is very important. I know that we have in terms a free initiative in this House, and we may put what we like on the Order Paper, but, as a matter of fact, we never have time to discuss our views fully. Under this Amendment such a question as I have raised is bound to be discussed, because it has to receive an opportunity for discussion, notwithstanding the Eleven o'clock Rule. We give by this Amendment to the Government, and to every hon. Member of this House, if the danger to which I have alluded comes upon us in regard to hours of labour, the power to raise the subject. There is something in this House more valuable than Divisions, that is the ventilation of opinion and freedom of discussion, and that is the better bulwark to build upon. There are some people who speak of the House of Commons as a bygone institution and speak of new forms of Government, but I believe in the House of Commons, and those who do believe in it should see that it is fortified for the proper ventilation of the popular will and opinion. I think it is a real service to this institution for hon. Members to see that there is an opportunity of bringing forward views which are widely held in their constituencies. For these reasons I submit this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him,

  1177
  in the interests of the House of Commons and British industry, and without detriment to his own Bill, to accept it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: We have had an Amendment moved to the Bill which, in its substance, is a very desirable one in the circumstances under which this Bill has been drafted. I am sorry that I cannot vote for the Amendment because the decision that has been come to by the Labour party, and quite properly come to, is that this Bill occupies a special and a unique position. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) I am a House of Commons man, and I wish to dissociate myself individually and officially from anything that will degrade the House of Commons in the eyes of the country, or that will in any way whatever diminish that freedom of speech and that expression of views from all parties held by men who naturally disagree with each other in their outlook on political and social questions. I hope that in no section of the House is there any doubt about that, so far as I am concerned, and I know that in this matter I am speaking for my colleagues as well. In accordance with that doctrine, I say that when that ceases to be part and parcel of my convictions and my outlook in life, I shall leave the House of Commons altogether.
  In accordance with that principle, when a Bill receives its Second Reading after full discussion, it is the duty of the Opposition to try to amend it, and it is the duty of the Opposition to remove from the Bill, so far as it can, those parts which it thinks are an expression of bad and mistaken policy. That is the rule. But in this case that rule does not apply. This Bill is not only a bad one and bad in its details, but it embodies a very bad principle. It is put forward as a purely partisan Measure to deal with a situation in which the co-operation of all parties ought to have been attempted rather than merely the voting down of the Opposition by huge majorities. It is, therefore, a Bill in regard to which the only Amendment we can suggest is to get it wiped off the Statute Book at the very earliest possible opportunity. It is a Bill for which the Government themselves, having taken this partisan line, must make themselves solely responsible. It is a Bill which, if we
  1178
  try to amend it, as this Amendment proposes, would still be very objectionable. This Amendment does not try to amend this Bill so much as to make it easier for this House to smash it altogether. The Bill is so thoroughly bad, not only in its details but so thoroughly wrong in its purpose and its origin that our only attitude towards it is that the whole Bill as it stands ought to be wiped out, as it will be as soon as we have any opportunity of doing it. I am sorry I cannot support my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment because as far as any alteration in the wording of the Bill is concerned we desire to keep ourselves absolutely free; and when you, Mr. Chairman, put the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall continue our observations on the eight-hours question in relation to the present mining crisis.
  Mr. HARNEY: I am afraid I cannot quite follow the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I myself spoke and voted against this Bill on the Second Reading, and I would like to see it, if it reaches the Statute Book, wiped off at the first possible opportunity. It is for that reason that I am supporting the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn), whose Amendment suggests machinery that will facilitate that process. I understand that the Government have put forward the Eight Hours Bill as a tentative and experimental remedy, and its purpose is to bridge over the period during which a thorough and drastic reconstruction of the mining industry is taking place. They have fixed five years for the operation of this Bill. But why five years? What is the greater virtue in five than in three or seven years? No argument has been put before us to show that five years will be required. The case has been put forward in this way: Reconstruction will take some time, and during that time, and not a day longer, we ask the men to subject themselves to this additional hour. As was pointed out by the Mover of this Amendment, and indeed as I said myself on the Second Reading, it is open to the Government to continue this Measure indefinitely by the process of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. They can do so in that way without having the ordinary Debates in this House on the Second Reading, and surely it is only fair that

  1179
  an opportunity should be given to those who say, "We will take you at your word and accept your statement that the Bill is not to be kept on the Statute Book any longer than is necessary." It is only fair to those who take that view that they should have the opportunity of removing it without the lengthy and cumbrous machinery of repealing the Act in this House. That is as far as the Amendment goes, and I fail to see what there is in it so unreasonable or contrary to the views that the Government has put forward as to justify the Committee in not accepting it. If the Government really mean what they say, that this is not intended to be a permanent lengthening of the hours, and that it is purely temporary until we have had an opportunity of carrying out some of the reorganisation schemes that we intend to enter upon, then what can be the objection to arming this House with the power to remove this Measure when its object has been attained?
  Although I am supporting this Amendment, I wish it to be clearly understood that I in no way depart from my opposition to the whole Bill. Without going over any of the arguments that have been used in the House during the last two days, I should like to point out just two or three simple grounds which make me think that it is advisable to keep open a retreat whereby we can remove this Measure from the Statute Book. The collieries of this country can, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, be roughly divided into two classes, which are about equal—there is 40 per cent. odd in the one and 50 per cent. odd in the other. One class of collieries can be made to pay under the present conditions, and the Bill is not necessary for that class of colliery at all. If there were no other collieries but what we may call the good ones, there would have been no subsidy, no strike, and no need for this legislation. They present no difficulty whatsoever. The other class of mines are those which made the subsidy necessary, which gave rise to the strike, and for removing the grievances from which this legislation is introduced, and the condition of that class of mines may be such that in a few months' time it will be found desirable to remove this Measure expeditiously from the Statute Book. Why? All that the Eight Hours
  1180
  Bill can do, in my submission, is to increase the output and lessen the costs of those mines that are now good mines, that do not need any legislation at all; and the effect of that will be—
  The CHAIRMAN: Is not that an argument on the general principle of the Bill?
  Mr. HARNEY: I wish to point out why it is necessary to have this Amendment, and I am trying definitely to show the Committee that within a few months' time a state of things may be brought about such that no time should be lost in getting rid of this Measure. The result of this Bill may be that within a very few months there will be an increased output from the good mines, there will be lower costs of production, the price will fall, and these bad mines about which we are now legislating will be in a worse condition than they are in to-day. The margin out of which their men are now looking to get wages, and out of which they are told even the minimum wage cannot be spared, because it is so narrow, will be narrowed further still, and their plight will be worse than it is to-day. What is the next thing that may happen? In Germany, Belgium and France, the legislatures will be able to say that, now that Britain is working longer hours than any of them except Silesia, they are not going to put up with this unfair competition, but are going to lengthen their hours. If that competition of making the conditions of the working men worse is started upon, then we shall have to set out at once to destroy the cause of that competition by removing this Measure from the Statute Book. For that reason there never was a Bill put before this House which it was so necessary to regard as wholly experimental, for we do not know what disastrous consequences it may speedily lead to. When those consequences are observed, the greatest haste will be required to get rid of it, and, if ever there was a Bill in connection with which Parliament was justified in keeping a way open for rapidly shifting it off the Statute Book, this is such a Bill. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept this Amendment. I cannot for the life of me see what rational argument they can put forward for refusing to do so. They themselves, in every speech to which I have listened, have commended their

  1181
  Eight Hours Bill, not, they said, because they desired to lengthen the hours, but because it was necessary, until something was done and no longer, to try this method of getting over our present difficulties. Here is an opportunity whereby they can say that, if they find it does not get us out of our difficulties—which is the sole reason for passing the Bill—they can get rid of the Bill, and, if they find that the difficulties are got over more quickly than they thought, they can get rid of the Bill. Most of the opposition to this Bill has been based upon a belief in the insincerity of the Government. It is thought that they mean it to be a permanent Measure. What better assurance could be given that no such thing is meant than by accepting this Amendment? It will go forth to the country, and will have a great and useful psychological effect, that the Government genuinely and in their hearts mean no more than to exact an additional hour until such time as they have completed the great work of reconstruction which they have taken in hand. Here is a great opportunity for the Government to make their position clear, and, if they refuse to do so, they cannot blame me, at all events, or others who oppose them, for taking a sinister view of what their real intentions are.
  The CHAIRMAN rose to put the Question.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Are we not going to have an answer from the Minister?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I will answer gladly the arguments adduced by the two hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment. The reason that was given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved it was that it gave into the hands of the Government power to amend or suspend or repeal this Measure. I would ask the Committee to consider for a moment what are the contingencies that are contemplated in which this power would be exercised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman looked forward to the possibility, as one of the reasons why this power should be exercised, of a real competition in hours between this country and other countries. He mentioned the possibility of its being the cause of a general lowering of the standard of living, not only in the mining industry, but in other occupations. I do not anti-
  1182
  cipate these results from it, but I would ask the Committee just to consider what would happen if these results, which, as I say, I do not anticipate, should occur. In an event of that kind, supposing that so grave a contingency arose, the Government of the day could easily, as it has done on many occasions in the past, remedy the situation by legislation. If ever a grave and urgent contingency of that kind arose, an amending or repealing or suspending Act could be, as it has been in the past, passed at once easily through all its stages with great rapidity. Therefore, I would urge upon the Committee this consideration, which is really conclusive against the Amendment. If anything is needed for so grave an occasion as the hon. Members who support the Amendment anticiapte, it can be met at once by legislation. If the contingency is not of that gravity, and I do not anticipate for a moment that it will be, an Amendment of this kind is not needed.
  I am not using the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He looked upon the Amendment as making it easy to smash the Measure; I am taking it as though it were put forward entirely on its merits. If its virtue lies in its elasticity, I would ask the Committee to realise how inadvisable it is. You can meet a grave situation by emergency legislation at once. What, then, is the need for any very elastic and easily applied method of this kind? It is not necessary; on the contrary, it would be actually harmful. What has been said by the opponents of the Bill, just as much as by its supporters, is that what is required is that, for some time at any rate, it should be possible to make agreements that will be lasting in duration. The moment you get the very uncertainty which is contemplated, I have no doubt, by the Movers of this Amendment, it is quite impossible for an agreement for any length of time to be entered into with that sense of security which makes it possible to make a good agreement. For that reason I would ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment. Let me repeat that, if any grave occasion arose, it would be perfectly possible for legislation to be passed through all its stages with great rapidity, and in any other contingency, in any other circumstances, the very

  1183
  characteristic of this Amendment, as outlined by its supporters and by the Leader of the Opposition, makes it one that ought not to be accepted in the interests of the industry itself.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has just described to the Committee the facility with which this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, may be repealed in certain contingencies in the future, but he overlooks altogether the merits of repealing the Bill under the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend, as compared with the procedure on which he himself would have to depend if he had his way. Under his method of repealing the Act, it would be necessary, first of all, to have a Government which was ready and willing to introduce a repealing Measure, and, secondly, it would be necessary to proceed through all the various stages in the House—Second Reading, Committee, Report stage if need be, and Third Reading—and then the Bill would have to go to another place. The procedure provided by my hon. and gallant Friend would dispose of the whole matter in one stage. Imagine the contingency which might arise. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour and his colleagues have considered the possibility of conditions abroad being raised or degraded to keep pace with the proposals which are made in this House. if that is done, it will land us, so far as foreign competition is concerned, in exactly the same position in which we are now, and it might be as well, if the Government were taking part in any international negotiations on this subject, that they should be in the position, immediately they hear of it, of being able to come to the House of Commons, to initiate proposals, and to carry them through with due rapidity.
  That, certainly, is a step which could not be taken with the same case under the more lengthy procedure which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is another aspect of this matter, on which my hon. and gallant Friend laid stress, and that is that the initiation under his proposal need not come from the Government. That is most desirable. I can imagine no subject on which we ought to be purely dependent on Government initiative less than the subject of the number of hours of labour. Whatever may be the views of the Government with regard to a permanent increase of the hours of labour, it stands to reason that those who are intimately connected with the industry, those who are employed in it and those who draw their livelihood from it, should be entitled to the same powers of initiation as are possessed by the Government themselves. It is because the power of initiation would be in private hands, and not purely in the hands of the Government, and because the procedure would be quicker, and, therefore, likely to operate more freely in any case of foreign competition or degrading of the conditions of labour, that there is so much to be said for the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. The excuse made by the Government for not accepting it is really, if I may say so, one of the lamest I have ever heard from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he is capable of much better reasoning than that. If he has nothing more to say against the Amendment than we have heard from him this afternoon, there is no justification for his refusing to accept it.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 230.

  Division No. 306.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 p.m.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Harney, E. A.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Briant, Frank

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Duckworth, John

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Livingstone, A. M

  England, Colonel A.

  Owen, Major G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Sir Robert Hutchison and Sir

  Fenby, T. D.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Godfrey Collins.

  Forrest, W.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  NOES

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Albery, Irving James

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Balniel, Lord

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Gates, Percy

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Belfairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

  Preston, William

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Berry, Sir George

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Radford, E. A.

  Bethel, A.

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

  Raine, W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Ramsden, E.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remnant, Sir James

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Harland, A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hennessy, Major.J. R. G.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Hills, Major John Walter

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Savery, S. S.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Rentrew,W.)

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Holt, Captain H. P.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Univ.,Belist)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

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

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

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

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Christie, J. A.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lougher, L.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Cope, Major William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Macintyre, I.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur G. Steel

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Drewe, C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fermoy, Lord

  Nicholson, Col, Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Finburgh, S.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I understand we are to be allowed a general dis-
  1186
  cussion on this question. As a matter of fact, Clause 1 is the Bill. The Minister of Labour, in introducing it two days ago, gave various reasons for increasing the hours of labour in the mines from

  1187
  seven to eight per day. Those reasons were not only not in keeping with the position taken up by the Government and the Prime Minister at the beginning of this struggle, in our opinion they were inconclusive and unconvincing and do not justify the attempt to put a Bill of this character on the Statute Book. Nevertheless, I intend to endeavour to deal with a few of the reasons put forward by the Minister on that occasion. The Government, at the beginning of this struggle, expressed their willingness to abide by the Report of their own Royal Commission in the event of the owners and the men agreeing to do so. The introduction of this Bill brings them into direct conflict with that Report on the question of hours and on the question of the wages agreement. I was interested to see that the Minister of Labour in that speech said they had been driven reluctantly, against their wish, to introduce this Bill. It would be very interesting to discover from him to-day what factors have contributed towards driving them reluctantly to undertake such a policy. We on these benches believe that one of the chief factors which contributed towards the production of this Bill was the attitude taken up by the coalowners. We are convinced that on the occasion of their last meeting with the Prime Minister, they practically laid down the law to him. The coalowners, for more than a year, have been advocating an eight-hours day. In season and out of sesaon they have been putting forward the necessity for the law being changed in order to make it possible for an eight-hours day to be worked in the mines instead of a seven-hours day. Within recent times we have been informed that some of them have made the statement that their pits will only open again on condition that an eight-hours day is worked. I wonder whether that was one of the conditions laid down to the Prime Minister at the meeting to which I have referred.
  The Minister of Labour also stated that the Government were putting this Bill forward in the interests of other industries as well as the mining industry. Does that mean that other industries are to be subsidised at the expense of the mining industry? Possibly the Minister of Labour before the Debate closes will be able to tell us whether that is what
  1188
  he meant in stating that it was in the interests of other industries as well as in the interests of the miners that this Bill is being passed. If we are right in assuming that, it means that other industries are to be subsidised at the expense of the miner, by the miner producing cheaper coal. All I want to say is that in that event, the other industries are to be subsidised at the expense of a body of men whose wages are already, admittedly, too low. In all parts of the House hon. Members have admitted that the miner's wages are too low. If those wages are to be further reduced in order to subsidise other industries it means that the Government are carrying out that policy at the expense of men whose wages are admittedly too low. We have heard a great deal in these discussions about the impossibility of subsidising the mining industry. The Prime Minister, on a former occasion, said that he refused to pledge the credit of the British taxpayer to subsidise any one industry, whether it was the mining industry or any other. Evidently, there is not the same objection to the mining industry subsidising the other industries. If subsidies are necessary, the burden ought to be put upon the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it and not upon the shoulders of that section of our people whose wages are already, admittedly, too low. The Minister of Labour will perhaps tell us what he meant by the statement to which I have drawn attention.
  The right hon. Gentleman also stated that this Bill was introduced in the interests of the men. Already the Government have the men's answer as far as an eight-hour working day is concerned The fact that this stoppage has continued for nearly nine weeks and that there is no sign of it ending, is surely a sufficient answer from the men's point of view that they do not agree with the Minister of Labour that this Bill is introduced in the interests of the miners as well as the interests of other industries. The miner's position can be easily understood on the question of hours. The miner claims that the Government is not entitled to ask him to work longer hours than are worked in any other section of British industry. If this Bill becomes law that is what will happen. Under present conditions the miner is working as long hours as the

  1189
  workmen in any other section of British industry.
  We talk loosely in this House about the miner working a seven-hour day. One would imagine from the way we discuss the question that the seven hours counted from bank to bank. The Minister of Mines knows that the average time the miner is underground works out at seven hours 38 or 39 minutes. That is not the whole story. When we add to that the overtime during the week and the weekend, which is inseparable from modern mining with coal cutting and coal conveying, it means that at the present time the miner is working on an average eight hours a day. That is the number of hours worked in every other section of British industry. The men and women in the factories only work eight hours. If we go to the shipbuilding yard we shall find the same condition of things, and also in the engineering shops. If we go to the Civil Service we find that the civil servant is only seven hours inside the office door. Under present conditions the miner is working as long hours as any other workman, because he is eight hours under the shaft. If we increase the hours worked by the miner by this Bill, we shall put the British miner into the position of working longer hours than the miner in any other part of Europe and America, with the exception possibly of a very small corner of Germany. There is only one small corner of Europe where the miners will work something like the hours which it is proposed by this Bill shall be worked by the British miner.
  The Minister of Labour said that this Bill would give the men freedom of choice. He said that it would enable them to choose whether they would work an eight-hours day or, as I understood him, accept a reduction of wages. It is not a question of choice, because as far as the mineowner is concerned he has id it down definitely that in the event the Government passing this Bill the in certain areas will have to accept duction of wages as well as an ase of hours. Yet the Minister of r says that the Government are g this Bill on to the Statute Book e purpose of giving the men freedom hoice. I wonder whether the ter of Labour would put that to a of the men? Would he be prepared
  1190
  to test that by a ballot of the men, as to whether they want this freedom of choice? If so, I say frankly that he will get his answer in no uncertain way. The right hon. Gentleman knew when he used that expression that if this Bill becomes law the men will not have freedom of choice. He knows that once the men agree to go down under a Bill of this character the coalowner and his officials will take precious good care that the men win not get up until the eight hours have elapsed. That is the general working condition now. Our men go down and they cannot get up before the seven hours have elapsed, except with the consent of the manager. That is the position in which the men will be placed under this Bill, and it is wrong to say that the Bill is being passed for the purpose of giving the men freedom of choice.
  The Minister of Labour also said that some people thought that this Bill was a general attack on hours and wages, and his reply was that it was nothing of the kind, but was simply being done in the mining industry because of the economic conditions in which that industry finds itself. Is the mining industry the only industry which finds itself in economic difficulties to-day? I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the mining industry is not the only industry which finds itself in economic difficulties. What, therefore, would his answer be if the employers in any of the other industries put forward the same claim that has been put forward by the coalowners? Not only is this an attempt to increase hours but, in our opinion, it is an attempt as far as mining is concerned to make it easier to reduce wages. In the event of this Bill being placed upon the Statute Book, not only will it affect our hours and wages now, but it will affect our wages in the future. The mine owners have intimated that in the event of an eight-hours day being made possible, in certain areas they will continue to pay the same wage in about 50 per cent. of the coalfields.
  Mr. WALSH indicated dissent.
  Mr. ADAMSON: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) reminds me that I am under-stating the conditions. The coalowners undertake that in the event of this Bill becoming law they are prepared to continue for the

  1191
  next three months to pay 50 per cent. of the men the same wage. To another 25 per cent. of the men they will pay rather less than a 10 per cent. reduction, and for the remaining 25 per cent. of the men they will pay a reduction not exceeding 10 per cent. That means that not only is the Bill increasing hours but it makes it possible for the wages agreement to be entirely changed. In doing that it is doing two things for which there is no justification, at any rate in the opinion of the Royal Commission. The two things which the Royal Commission reported against were increasing the hours and changing the character of the wages agreement. They were in favour of our wages agreement being on a national instead of a district basis. But with the passage of this Bill you are not only increasing hours; you are making it possible for our wages agreement to be changed to a district basis, and possibly to a local basis, because there will be in some cases particular collieries as well as particular districts.
  There is one other point dealt with by the Minister of Labour when introducing this Bill to which I desire to refer. The Minister of Labour, in trying to prove that the introduction of an eight-hours Bill was the only way of dealing satisfactorily with the present situation, said that so far as unification was concerned, which was one of the things put forward again and again in these discussions, it would be impossible and perfectly disastrous to the industry to draw the conclusion that a national body can at once proceed to introduce arbitrary grouping. He said it was really a question of the cost. When you had a large group your overhead charges are greater, but when the burden is spread over a larger production it might then be a little less per ton.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The argument I used was that, if you have a large group, your overhead costs are greater, but as they are spread over a much larger production the burden of them may be per ton a little less.
  Mr. SPENCER: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I draw your attention to the sombre character of the Chamber. Cannot we have a little light.
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): I am always in favour of light.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The exact words the Minister of Labour used were:
  "When you have a large group, your overhead charges are greater, but as they are spread over a much larger production the burden of them per ton may be a little less."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1926; col. 847, Vol. 197.]
  That is exactly one of the things we have been putting forward as against the policy of the Government. That is our case exactly. We contend that if you had unification of the industry, you would reduce your costs per ton and leave more money in the fund from which wages and profits are paid. You are bound to enrich the fund if you are able to reduce your costs. The Minister of Labour has some interesting facts and figures in his Department relating to a scheme of unification, and I would suggest that he should study them. They refer to the unification of six mining companies in Scotland, with a capital of £6,000,000, and in the years 1919–1925, by unification, these companies effected a saving of no less than £580,000, or a sum double the amount of the annual dividend paid by these companies when they were operating separately. There is an object lesson in the value of unification. It is one of the best lessons that has come under my own personal observation, and I think the Minister of Labour would be well advised to look at the facts and figures in that connection. He will find them in a pigeon-hole in his own office.
  I trust the Government even now will see their way to withdraw this Bill. They have had an indication in this House of the strong feeling that has been engendered by their attempt to deal with the mining situation in this way, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this strong feeling indicated on these benches by men who have been engaged in the mining industry, but if he will take the opportunity, as many of us do, and go from mining village to mining village he will find the same grir determination shown, not only by t men, but by the womenfolk as well the Government are anxious to F peace in this industry—and if we do get peace, it will be very bad for mining industry and for every B industry—I appeal to them to with this Bill and follow another line. line I would suggest is that they s arrange for the pits to be reopen

  1193
  the old wages and the old hours. This would put them in the position of being able, in conjunction with the men's representatives and the owners' representatives, to make another attempt to put into operation the Report of the Commission in its entirety. I trust that will be the result of our discussions to-day on this Bill.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not propose to go over the ground that has been so well covered in the Debate, but I wish, during the few moments I propose to address the Committee, to ask both the Government and the miners' leaders if they cannot discuss some alternative policy. I represent a working-class constituency which is suffering a great deal, and will suffer a great deal from the prolongation of this strike. The community as a whole has been badly served by the Government and the leaders of the miners, and I feel very strongly that they have a right to demand that both parties shall take off their coats and come together again to see if they cannot arrive at a settlement of the difficulty on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission. After all, the public of this country have paid £24,000,000 in order to get that Report. It is a good Report, by sound business men, and they make good and sound business recommendations which are capable of solving this dispute if the leaders of the miners and the Government had only enough public spirit and courage to carry out those recommendations.
  I speak with all humility and good will to the Government, but I cannot see how the policy they are pursuing now can shorten this strike. I feel quite confident that as a policy it is disastrous, and it will tend to prolong the strike. It is quite evident that it has exacerbated the feelings of the miners, and I do not believe, even if you succeed in defeating em, that either the Government of the ntry or the mineowners will score reby. What we are neglecting is the t important element of all, the human ent, and I do not believe you are g to get what you want, that is oer production of coal out of a dis tled, discontented and sulky body of rs. What did the Commission say his question? They were of the on that the lengthening of the hours bour would lead to slackened work
  1194
  and greater absenteeism. And the Commission warned the Government and the country that if they lengthened hours other nations would follow suit, and the only result would be a general lowering of the standard of living all over the world. And that is about all you will get.
  May I appeal to the leaders of the miners? I do so in all sincerity; and I have, in this House and outside, done something to support their point of view. I hope, therefore, they will take well what I am going to say. I think they must remember that they are not only the leaders of a splendid body of working men, but that they are also trustees for the community, and it is time they should discuss where they are drifting and where they are going. There is a great similarity between military tactics and economic and political tactics. One sound doctrine is that if you adhere too long to an indefensible position you will either get defeated in detail or forced into a humiliating surrender, and I feel this, that this "never, never" policy is only going to land them into disastrous failure and defeat. I appeal to them with all sincerity to make some gesture now to help those who really are trying for peace. I appeal to the Government to withdraw this Bill on the understanding that if the Government come forward with proposals to implement thoroughly the Report of the Commission the miners will also come forward with help and assistance.
  Mr. SPENCER: I have listened with much pleasure to the speech of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. However much we may disagree fundamentally with the politics which the Noble Lord holds, we can never disagree with the tone and temper and spirit of the speeches that he makes, either in this House or outside it. I know that he has made many efforts of a conciliatory character with a view to ending this dispute. I only wish that from every quarter associated with the Government or with the owners or with the men, there had been displayed the same spirit of conciliation, I suggest that if all parties had displayed the same spirit of conciliation as the Noble Lord has shown, this unhappy struggle would have been ended long ago. It is true to say that, from all points of view this struggle has

  1195
  been characterised by a series of blunders. Blunders have been made in all quarters by those who have been closely associated with the negotiations. I am not going to seek to exonerate my own side from blame. We have made mistakes, the Government have made mistakes, the owners have made grievous mistakes. But I think no mistake could be greater than that which the Government have made in seeking to repeal the Seven Hours Act. I believe that that is the culminating blunder of all the blunders.
  If I concede to the Government the best possible intentions in bringing forward this Bill, it still is a mystery to me why they should introduce it. If they thought it was going to have the effect of mollifying the workmen and turning them from their point of view, as a means of escape from the present difficulty, they have made a great mistake. The only effect of this proposed legislation has been to weld us together as we have never been welded together before, into unbroken ranks, to resist this encroachment upon our cherished possession. I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but it is right I should say that I have tried to play my part. I have stated publicly and in this House that I believe there were within the Report itself elements of settlement if we had followed out the recommendations of the Report The Report states definitely that the hours of work should not be lengthened, and, in so far as the Government are seeking to lengthen the hours, they are violating one of the principal recommendations of the Report. I am opposed to any lengthening of hours on two main grounds. First, I would mention humanitarian reasons. The miners' occupation is an exhaustive occupation. The men are subject to unnatural conditions. Those of us who have worked in the pits can draw upon our own personal experience. I can distinctly remember that during the 25 or 26 years that I was associated with the pits, I would go to work on the Monday morning in winter and not see daylight again until Saturday afternoon. It is true that we had an eight-hours or a nine-hours day at that time.
  I put it to hon. Members opposite, is it right, unless absolutely compulsory, to subject working men to conditions of that kind for long periods of time? Through
  1196
  out the winter the miner goes to his work in the dark in the morning and returns in the dark at night, and he has to wait until Saturday and Sunday before he sees daylight. We have enjoyed a brief respite from some of those conditions during the operation of the Seven Hours Act, and there have been some amenities and enjoyment of leisure in the miners' life. To ask the miner now to return to conditions which he detested in days gone by, and which deprive him of opportunities of improvement, is asking human nature to do something which is repellent. Even assuming that this legislation is proposed with the best possible intentions, the Government, by their action, have engendered in the breasts of the men all the bitterness that such a retrograde proposal could create. If you had anywhere, amongst the miners, those who were desirous of returning to work under different conditions, they would, of the two alternatives, consider small reductions of wages far preferable to any lengthening of hours. The Government have, by this proposal, strengthened the miners' determination, and the men will never be persuaded to submit to this eight-hours day until by economic pressure or by want they are compelled to undertake the lengthening of their arduous task.
  My second reason for opposing this Bill is due to my concern for the younger men engaged in the industry. Nobody who is unacquainted with the miner's life can really understand the position. A boy in the pit has to take his pony 200 or 300 yards to a spot far removed from anyone else, probably at a place where there is a bad roof or a bad side, and every time he gets there, there may be a fall of side or roof. He is in fear of his life. He is only a lad of fourteen years, a mere boy amidst dangers and uncertainty. I ask hon. Members to consider what is the effect of tha experience upon the boy's nerves. It true that it makes a man of him in tir but sometimes it shakes his nerves such an extent that mark is left u him in later life. It is conditions of kind that you are asking men and bo endure to an extent that is uncalled That is a ground upon which I bas plea that the owners, instead of brir their weight to bear in the Div Lobby to-day, should try again to

  1197
  the parties together and see whether a suitable settlement cannot be reasoned out without extending hours.
  I started work at the pit when I was eleven years of age, one day at school and the next day at work. It is tremendously hard work for the young man when he begins to learn. I ask hon. Members to believe that we have the same feelings and aspirations and tastes as they have, and we like to gratify those aspirations and tastes in some way or other. We are not all Bolsheviks. Some miners love literature, some love art and some love science, and they seek to improve their minds in the best way that they can. How can they do it unless they have reasonable time at their disposal at the end of the day's work? It has been my experience to fall asleep over my books when my day's work was done. That has been the experience of many Members on these Labour Benches—doing a hard day's work in the pit and then going home to study the subject that draws them. Art drew me as much as anything else. I know most of the paintings of the world. There is many a man working in the pits who is trying to improve his mind in one direction or another. The only way in which he can do it is by, first, having reasonable time when he comes home, and, secondly, that he shall not be physically exhausted. What is the use of me or anyone else going home to hooks if we cannot read them when we get there, because we fall asleep through exhaustion? There is not only the hard work in the pits but the vitiated atmosphere; men bathed in sweat, wearing only bathing drawers and clogs, and working in a temperature of 70 degrees and over.
  Those are the actual conditions, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite on that ground to stay their hand. I do not want to speak egotistically, but only to show our difficulties and aspirations. wrote an essay on an abstruse subject, The law of nature, state of nature natural law, in what sense can nature natural be used in a political sense," which was examined by the late Master Balliol, A. L. Smith, and he gave me "Excellent." Hon. Members have idea of the effort by a true young that that essay gave, or the difficulties of sheer physical exhaustion that to be overcome. It meant that I
  1198
  had many a time to exhaust myself, as others are doing to-day, to get a little bit of knowledge. If sometimes our manners and our conduct on this side of the House are not all that the standard of an educated man demands, remember that we have been deprived of many of the blessings of training that some of you have had.
  My second point relates to the economics of the question. What do the Commissioners say on this question? What do the coalowners say? In their evidence with regard to the extension of hours the coalowners calculate that a continuity of seven hours would give them 245 million tons of coal per annum, but that an extension of hours to eight would give them 277 million tons per annum. That is an increase of about 30 million tons a year. How do they expect we are going to sell that coal? I know that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) the other night, when the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was speaking, turned to him and said, "We shall sell it if it is cheaper." That is the idea. But the evidence does not support it; it is really against it. What are the facts with regard to output during the last two or three years? In the March quarter of 1924 we sold about 61,000,000 tons of coal at 20s. 7d. per ton. The total gradually declined until the quarter of December, 1925, when we were selling coal at 15s. per ton. In March, 1924, we were selling at 20s. 7d. and we sold 61,000,000 tons. In December, 1925, at 15s. 11d., we sold only 57,000,000 tons. You have nearly 5s. a ton less in December, 1925, than in March of 1924, without any increase. Instead of getting an increase as the coalowners state we shall get, we have here actually got a decline, and I submit to the Committee that, if we increase the volume of trade, the only effect it is going to have on the market is further to reduce price. The owners in their evidence quoted in the Commission's Report state:
  6.0 P.M.
  "Such a return to the longer working day will at once confer all-round advantages. It will benefit the worker by securing for him a larger volume of trade, steadier employment, and larger earnings than are possible if the existing conditions continue."

  1199
  That is their assertion, but the facts do not justify that assumption. I submit to the Committee that that hypothesis cannot be sustained. It may be said that, if you further reduce prices, you may increase your volume of trade. The last two years, in my opinion, provide no guarantee that, if you pursue that course, you are going to succeed in your object. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who has spoken several times on this subject, has submitted, as he was perfectly justified in doing, that if you lengthen hours or reduce wages, you are not going to solve the present difficulty. In my opinion, you are not going to solve the question in that way, because the difficulties lie deeper than mere questions of hours and wages. Furthermore, the Commission has stated that if you take the line which has been outlined by the coalowners, the effect of that policy will be that you will have a great community of disgruntled workers, and that point has also been dealt with by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck).
  The policy of the Conservative party, as enunciated from time to time by the Prime Minister, aims at goodwill between employers and employed. If the real desire of the Conservative party is to do away with the suspicion, ill-will, and distrust which exist between masters and men at the present time, I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to upset their own plan than the introduction of this Bill. Assume that you are successful in getting this eight-hours proposal worked; assume that you get an unwilling body of men to undertake it, what is going to be the result? All along the line you will have agitation for a return to seven hours. Every man who goes into a mining district, addresses a meeting, and advocates a return to the seven hours, will be a popular hero. He will be the man to capture the imagination of the people and win their favour. He will find a ready field for the spread of his ideas and doctrines. Therefore, if you desire goodwill among workmen and employers it is essential that you should avoid having an army of disgruntled men smarting under what they consider to be an injustice.
  I further desire to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman
  1200
  the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). If you were to-morrow, under your own conditions, employing your own agents if you like, to conduct a ballot—making it perfectly secret—on the question, "Are you in favour of returning to the eight hours or not?" I venture to say more than 95 per cent. of the men would vote for the continuance of the seven-hours day. It inevitably follows that if you force this Measure through, instead of removing suspicion and ill-will, you are going to engender and breed suspicion and You are not going to get the best out of the men, and you will repeat, in a few years, this struggle, which may end in catastrophe for us all. Every man who is true to himself and true to his best ideas must regret this struggle, because it is going to be disastrous for the general well-being of the country. The Commission has said that if you take the course proposed in this Bill, and, if you are successful in carrying it out, it must inevitably follow in the great economic struggle, which is going on internationally. France, Germany and Belgium will have to follow suit, and in the last resort there will be no improvement either in the trade or the temper of the men, but things will have been made worse.
  I submit that this is not the way in which to tackle the problem, and I appeal to the Minister in charge to-night to ask the Government to reconsider the question. I, like other hon. Members, want to conduct this business in a way which will redound to the credit of all and give all the best results. We have tried to point a way. I am not afraid of stating inside this House what I have stated outside. I do not make one speech in the House of Commons and another speech elsewhere. I have said outside that on 24th March we should have taken the Government's offer, whether the owners did so or not, and should have accepted the Report in its entirety. I would do so, if it were part to take action. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife suggested that we should drop all the controversy and start again on the sta quo with the understanding that we the Report in all its bearings and sequences and, as far as I am concer I would agree with that, if we can real reorganisation and not a sham believe in such a way this matter w

  1201
  end, not in suspicion, hatred and ill-will, but in that fellowship which ought to exist and without which we can make neither this country nor the industry what they ought to be.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House always puts his case with such moderation, fairness, and pathos that it is very difficult for everyone not to agree with him. On the other hand, whilst his speech and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) have, I think, considerable significance in the terrible condition of affairs in which we find ourselves, yet we have to remember that here we are, after nearly eight weeks of a paralysis of the coal industry, and apparently no nearer a solution. Indeed, in some ways we seem to be further away from a solution than we were a considerable time back. I am not going back into history to try to attribute blame or praise to any of the parties concerned in the negotiations. I can only register the fact that whereas at one time the Samuel Report was accepted and agreed to by all parties as a basis of discussion, we have now drifted away from it and apparently there is no solid ground on which any negotiations are proceeding or can proceed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife urged the Government to try to get back to the Samuel Report. He said, in effect, "Let us reopen the pits on the old terms and the old wages and recommence negotiation." But what guarantee can he offer, if the pits are reopened on the old terms and the old conditions, that any settlement will be brought about, that any change of policy will take place, or that, after a few weeks or months, we shall not be exactly where we are to-day? That is the real difficulty of the present position
  The economic facts of this question been stated so often that they are known. It is stated in the Report eorganisation cannot be immediate, must take time. You may argue the length of time which it would I, myself, think—particularly as selling is concerned—that it will considerably shorter time than people seem to imagine, but it something which you can apply as day to another, and the inter-
  1202
  mediate period has to be bridged. As we visualise the situation, that can be done in one or other of two ways, either by some temporary diminution of wages or by a lengthening of hours. There is where I myself am rather troubled. The reports which I get from those who are closely in touch with mining areas indicate that the men, and particularly the older married men, prefer longer hours to lower wages, but the hon. Member who spoke last, and who speaks with great knowledge, is of the opposite opinion. Surely, that is a question which can be tested out and ascertained by means of a ballot, and thus at any rate one question which is a continual source of argument and of honest difference of opinion between those connected with and interested in the coal industry would be out, of the way.
  The Bill, after all, is not compulsory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes it is!"] In what way? I am astonished at hon. Members making that interruption. I should not have thought that the Miners Federation of Great Britain, one of the most powerful trade unions in the country, was incapable of guarding its hours without legislation which no other trade union in the country has. No other trade union has a statute or ever had a statute dealing with hours, and I am not aware that in any other great industry like engineering the hours have been lengthened without the men's consent or without their will. It is a curious testimony which the Miners' Federation gives itself regarding its own power as a trade union, when it declares that unless it has Parliamentary protection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well that is the fact, is it not? Negotiations went on surely long before the Eight Hours Act and before the Seven Hours Act, and I maintain that if this Bill be passed, and if the miners and the Miners' Federation really do not intend to work eight hours, the passage of this Bill will not compel them to do so.
  Mr. PALING: It is your intention, in any case.
  Sir A. MOND: Surely it is not a question of intention; it is a question of option. There is an option, between reduction of wages and longer hours, and I do not understand why an independent body of people should be so terrified at

  1203
  having an option placed before them. They have up to now refused both alternatives, and their official leaders continue to refuse both. I understand there is now a tendency to prefer the evil of wage reduction to that of lengthened hours. That point will be met whether this Bill passes or not. Personally, if the Bill compelled anybody to work any number of hours, I should vote against it. I object to compulsory legislation on hours. I think it is very doubtful whether this House ought to legislate in regard to matters of hours at all. That is another question which I do not wish to open now, although it is one which, on general grounds, would be well worth the consideration of the House of Commons. We are put in the position that the House of Commons is being dragged into a trade dispute on a question which the industry ought to settle for itself. Cannot we get away from the mere question of whether this Bill is to pass or not, to the wider question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as to whether we could not re-start with more hopes of a settlement of this problem than we have at the present time.
  The question of whether or not this Bill passes seems to me to be irrelevant to this issue. The right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) threw out from that bench a proposal for new negotiations. Undoubtedly, the Government feel, not unwillingness, but some hesitancy about knowing how far, if they embark upon that course, success will follow, or whether we shall merely get back to the impasse into which we have been landed before. That seems to me to be the point at which we stand at the present time. I should think that probably tempers have mellowed on all sides. I should think that on all sides, probably, the spirit of negotiation is more ripe than it was a little time ago. I should think there is more accommodation, probably, in the air. Certainly, many of those interested in the coal industry are getting heartily tired of a struggle to which they see no end, and many of them are losing large sums of money, and under conditions which are entirely unsatisfactory. The general industry of the country is certainly suffering more from day to day. There is a growing paralysis of the industries of
  1204
  the country, and we have the miserable spectacle of industries being kept alive on imported foreign coal. That is not a spectacle which can fill anybody who has any sort of love for his country with anything except a sense almost of shame. Therefore, cannot some new basis once more be found? Cannot one of the many recommendations of the Samuel Report, which I regret to say was equally rejected, both by the mineowners and by the Miners' Federation—that of a Court, with an independent Chairman, to settle the wages question—be revived, and a practical step made forward? That is one of the cruxes of the whole Samuel Report, and I am convinced, myself, that if that Committee were duly set up and that award were given—and I believe it would be loyally accepted and carried out—one of the great stumbling blocks of the whole situation would be got out of the way.
  I know that hon. Members opposite are not much enamoured of the Government Bill upstairs on reorganisation, and I do not want to go over again the discussion we have had on that question. All that I would say is that it goes much further than any legislation of that kind that has ever been introduced into this House, and, after all, we have not finished with the Committee stage yet. So, at any rate partially, the Samuel Report is now being embodied in legislation on a very crucial and important question. Once we had the wages referred to an independent tribunal, relieving in a sense both parties to the dispute of the difficult responsibility, a responsibility that is always difficult for those representing others, of giving a final decision, we should surely have got a very much greater step forward. That, I think, is one practical step, which could be taken almost immediately, and would require no long negotiations. If that could be agreed on, a tribunal could be set up at an ea date, an award could be given, and believe it would be followed on both and then possibly this Bill, if it had become legislation, might become operative, because it, would no long useful or required in order to help industry over the difficulties with it is faced. That seems to me to of the practical steps that could b
  Another step, possibly—it rather belated now, as the suggest

  1205
  put forward some time ago—would have been for a Committee to have been set up, consisting of representatives, not merely of the miners and mineowners, but of trade unions and employers, with an independent Government representative, to have gone through the Samuel Report and come to an agreement, with a majority decision. I believe we might then have had the prospect of success by this time. It is not merely a question of two sets of people employed in the mining industry, and it cannot be regarded as such. The whole country and every other worker and every other industry are interested, and, therefore, you cannot allow the two disputants simply to say: "We are the only people who are to be allowed to enter into negotiations and admitted to the negotiating table." I throw out these suggestions stimulated by what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do myself most sincerely feel, every day which goes on, how much more serious the position is becoming. The responsibility of the Government in these matters is always very great and very difficult, and if one is not a member of the Administration, it is much easier to offer advice, but I do say that the people of this,country expect, and rightly expect, not a. prolonged, drawn-out battle of attrition, leaving behind a, legacy of bitterness and disgruntlement and unwillingness, which are of no use to anyone, but a settlement which would be a, lasting peace, for a number of years to come, in this tortured industry which has suffered so much. We cannot continue to be a great industrial country, we cannot maintain the position of Great Britain in the world's markets, with her basic industry subject to these volcanic interruptions and disturbances from which it has suffered in the last 15 or 20 years in the history of the industry in this country.
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: Last night there were one or two hon. Members opposite who were in doubt as to the wisdom of this Bill. We, on this side, were very pleased to hear the speech to-day of the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), because we feel, like him, that. with this long drawn-out struggle continuing, between the coal-miners on the one hand and the coal-owners on the other, it is not at all to the credit of the Government that they
  1206
  should have introduced a Bill which, instead of minimising the danger before the country and trying to alleviate the distress occasioned thereby, is going to add considerably to the warfare between the two sides in this struggle. I think it was conclusively proven yesterday, not only by the admission from the party opposite, but by what was said on this side, that the Government have no, mandate for a Bill of this kind and for the proposal contained in Clause 1—no mandate from the country, no mandate from the Royal Commission's Report, no mandate from any quarter of the community except the mineowners them selves. Under these circumstances, it seems perfectly plain to all of us on this side of the House, and to all those who sympathise with us outside this House, that this struggle is likely to be prolonged by the unfortunate introduction of this. Bill. Reference was made to the fact that the Royal Commission did state that the lengthening of hours might be possible, but they suggested that it should only be undertaken on one ground, namely, that the miners and employers were agreed that such a thing was necessary. You have not had that agreement, and, therefore, from our point of view, you are departing entirely from any recommendation of the Royal Commission in relation to this matter.
  What is to be the effect of this Bill? Serious as the trouble was before, it has been made more serious by the introduction of this Bill. The determination and also the antagonism of the miners have been strengthened, and the whole industrial movement of the country is against the Government. I do not speak as a miner, but I happen to have a large number of miners in my constituency. I come into contact with them, I know their daily life, and, though I do not know and have not experienced the dangers of their employment, I am well aware of the grave risk that they run to their lives every day of the week. Therefore, those of us who belong to other trade unions, who at the present moment enjoy an eight-hours day and in some cases a 42-hours week, cannot feel in our hearts that if we, as trade unionists, and other organised workers have an eight-hours day or less for work above ground, under pleasant circumstances and conditions, the men who labour in the bowels of the earth or under the bottom of the sea

  1207
  should be called upon to work as long as those of us who are above the ground. We know from sad experience the dangers they run. We remember the disaster that occurred in relation to the Working-ton pits not so many years ago, and We have had repeated instances of how these men, upon whom the Government are seeking to impose longer hours, risk their lives every day. In fact, it is one of the circumstances of their livelihood that part of their obligation to the community is to risk their lives in the service of the country in the course of their work.
  It is nearly 30 years ago since I, myself, took part in a large industrial struggle on the question of an eight-hours day, and the trade union at that time was defeated. People said they had smashed the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, that they had put an end to the demand for an eight-hours day, but the only result at that time was to strengthen us in our demand, and ultimately we secured a lesser working day without having another dispute. We, therefore, know that if this is quite sufficient for us above ground, there must be a difference between our trades and that of the miners, in that the Government themselves were induced to pass legislation for the miners' protection. No one can deny that the Seven Hours Act was passed because those who were responsible for its passing recognised that the seven-hours day was long enough under the earth. Recognising that, it seems to me to be a most regrettable thing that now, after these years through which we have passed, the Government of the day should come forward and seek to lengthen the hours of labour of the coalminers of this country.
  How will this Bill be regarded by the workers in the country? Have the Government taken that into consideration? I have been in various parts of the country since this dispute commenced. Many of the workers have assumed that there will be a long drawn out struggle and that possibly, at the end of it, through starvation and destitution, the coalowners may break down the miners and win, and they are under the impression that the miners may be forced back to work under conditions that would give them lower wages, perhaps; but the miners now realise, that not only is there the fear of lower wages
  1208
  for the miners, but the Government have deliberately, on their part, said to them in effect: "You not only go back to lower wages and degraded conditions of life, but you will work longer hours as well." That is the position which appears to confront every sensible worker in the country, and that is a position which will consolidate their opposition to the Government in relation to this matter.
  We have not yet heard from the Government what they expect to obtain by this Bill. I, for my part, regret that we did not hear a reply last night to the very destructive criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition (Mr. MacDonald), but perhaps we shall hear something to-day, within the rules of the Debate, during this discussion. What do the Government expect to obtain? Is it more production? It has been pointed out that you already get more production than you can sell. If you seek more production, surely you are not going to ask the miners that that production should be utilised for purposes contrary to their welfare. Is it that you want to get the same production with fewer men? The Government have not told us that under those conditions they are prepared to tackle the unemployment problem in the interests of all concerned.
  You will not attain anything by the introduction of an eight-hours Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), in the remarkable speech which he made several days ago, pointed out how many mines were being worked under the present system of seven hours a day under unprofitable conditions. Out of 613, only 217 were making a profit; all the others were on the wrong side. Your eight-hours day will not solve the problem of making the mines economic. If you got the production you expect, you would only recover 208, thereby giving 425 economic mines out of 613. The object of this Bill is not merely that the employers will have the weapon of an eight-hours day to impose on the workmen, but, on top of that, they are to suffer reductions. What I regret is that the Government have not functioned in relation to this question. They have not acted upon their responsibilities to the nation.
  Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER, reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1926.

  2. Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, 1926.

  3. Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Act, 1926.

  4. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1926.

  5. Edinburgh Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Act, 1926.

  6. Passmore Edwards (Tilbury) Cottage Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1926.

  7. Allhallows and Marwood (Honiton) Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1926.

  8. Robert Earl of Leicester's Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1926.

  9. Brighton (London Road) Congregational Chapel Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1926.

  10. Doncaster Corporation Act, 1926.

  11 Medway Conservancy Act, 1926.

  12. Halifax Corporation Act, 1926.

  13. Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Act, 1926.

  14. Ramsbottom Urban District Council Act, 1926.

  15. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1926.

  16. Taf Fechan Water Supply Act, 1926.

  17. Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Act, 1926.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. R. YOUNG: When I was interrupted, I was questioning the Government as to what they expected to attain by the introduction of this Bill. I was saying that, in our opinion—at least, in
  1210
  my own opinion—the Government appeared to fail to realise that there was in existence a Report of a Royal Commission which they themselves had appointed, and that a responsible Government would have recognised that there had been an inquiry into the mining industry and that the Royal Commission had reported along certain lines. I suggested that it would have been well if the Government had taken action on the lines of the Report rather than take action that led away from the Report. In fact, my own view is that it would have been much better if the Government had insisted upon the status quo being maintained, and had invited both parties together and told them plainly that on the points on which they were agreed they could consult with the Government as to which way action should lie, and that upon points where they were disagreed the Government themselves should indicate theft view, and inquire what they were prepared mutually to leave out, and that perhaps the Government might make some concessions along those lines. That seems to me to have been the proper line the Government should have taken, for in this matter the interests of the country transcend, not only the interest of the miner, but also the interests of the coalowner, and, indeed, both combined. Therefore, the Royal Commission's Report ought to have been made the basis of some arrangement whereby in the end the mining industry could have been carried on.
  Speaking the other day, an hon. Member referred to the Report as having in it ambiguities and obscurities. If there were such ambiguities and obscurities in the Report surely the Government should have asked the Commission to elucidate them and in that way provide a basis for going forward! Legislation of this kind will not succeed. Legislation which seeks to put back the workers is in the long rum sure to fail in its object. This legislation is not, as has been indicated, permissive. It is obvious that it is not temporary. If the Government had come to the House and said that here was a provision in the 1908 Act, and that the miners and mineowners had agreed to work eight hours a day, 60 days in the year, but as that was not sufficient they proposed legislation, it would have been different. Why have not the Government realised that the provisions of the 1908

  1211
  Act are there, and that if the miners were agreed to work, and the mineowners were prepared to meet them, that could have been done without this legislation. The fact that you cannot get this 60 days work is proof positive that the miners will not undertake to work under new conditions, namely, the eight-hours day the whole year through. I think they are justified in their opposition to this proposal. The country is behind them. The only result of this legislation will be that in the near future the Government will experience what a stronger Conservative administration experienced in the past in relation to the Taff Vale decision. In that great question the workers realised that an attack was being made upon them. Generally, the position is the same here. It is admitted on all sides that the workers in the mining industry work under arduous conditions; that the occupation is as laborious as any in the land. It is admitted that the miner runs the most serious risk to his body, and it is not only a question of the risk of accidents, but of daily risk to his life.
  The Government have already been found out in this matter. This Measure will place the men engaged in this arduous occupation in a worse position than all other industrial occupations; than even people in shops, for many of these nowadays only work an eight-hours day. Yet we are going to force the miners to work a longer day. It is admitted that these are men who have rendered yeoman service to the country in the past. They were men who were essential to digging trenches, as well as to digging coal, and now they are being forced back, after all the promises made to them to this lengthened working period. Hon. Members would be astonished to know the opinion amongst the miners on some of these points. Some of them have been asking: Was it worth winning the War to arrive at this position? Would it not have been better digging reparation coal rather than accept the conditions imposed upon us under this Bill?"
  This is, I believe, the first time in the history of the country that a Government has introduced a Bill for lengthening hours of labour. Bills have been brought forward before now to alleviate conditions of work, and I would pay due
  1212
  honour to those pioneers of the party on the other side of the House who came forward in those early days and did what they did, and placed matters on a basis that enabled these forward movements to go on from strength to strength. No legislation of this kind will succeed in the long run. You may say it is permissive. We believe your intention is to make it permanent. We believe that employers at all events will regard it as permanent legislation. It has been admitted by one hon. Member that a certain employer said that the only fault in this matter was that the Government had not been brave or courageous enough to make the hours permanent, because he believed had they been made permanent it would have saved some reduction in wages! It is only temporary so far as the Government is concerned, but the mineowners of the country will seek to maintain its permanence. Five years is a long time to talk of the temporary nature of this Measure.
  The progress that has been made in the past will continue in spite of this Measure. Just as the workers from time to time have come from slavery to serfdom, from serfdom to free labour, and then on from free labour to organised labour, so that movement will continue, and the struggle will go on till the workers get a share of the control of industry. [A laugh.] The hon. Member may laugh at that suggestion, but why should they not seek to have some control, some share in the control of an industry to which they give their lives rather than those who come in merely for profit? I was somewhat astonished the other day at the argument put forward by an hon. Member opposite behind the Front Bench in difference of the proposal of the Government. I remember speaking to the late Lord Kitchener in the early stages of the War, and he told me he was then responsible for directing several wars at the same time. Later, however, the whole organisation practically, or at all events the command of the whole of the armies in the field were in the hands of one man. I suggest that with proper legislation what could be done during the Great War under proper conditions could be done by the people who are running this industry: that it could be run in the interests of the country, and in such a way that there would be peace as well as profit.

  1213
  What I fear is that this introduction of the eight-hours day is going to create discontent, deep-rooted discontent, in the minds of those on whom you are imposing it. If you are going to put the mines under an eight-hours day, there is no guarantee that in the pit the men will respond to it. You cannot make them work eight hours, or give increased production, if they labour under a sense of injustice, as they undoubtedly will under these circumstances. That sense of injustice will rankle in their breasts and will be a bar to any good understanding with their employers. Those of us who have laboured for better relations between employer and employed begin to realise, if the Government can take up a position of this kind, that we had better adapt our struggle accordingly. What is the use of the efforts of men like myself who for years have been endeavouring to create better relationship between employers and workmen? We do not believe in strikes or lock-outs. We should like to see them obviated. What is the good of men like myself trying to arrive at various amicable relationships if we are going to get this kind of legislation? When we ask for these better relationships in the future, our men will turn round and point to this sort of thing as their reward. The Government are not helping in these matters. We have in fact to-day in several instances better relations between employers and employed, but industry will have to be run in the interest of the whole community in the interests of those who should reap the benefit, and in all this men ought to be able to realise the promises that were made to them during the War were being made good.
  7.0 p.m.
  Major PRICE: From a purely general public point of view, I should like to say a few words, because it seems to me that the general public are the last people who are thought of in this matter. I should welcome more expressions of opinion in the tone of the hon. Member for the Broxtowe Division of Nottingham (Mr. Spencer) who addressed the Committee just now. I venture to think that if such speeches as his had been made in these Debates a little oftener, some sort of settlement would have been arrived at. Is it the real desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to attain to that? Have they really a desire for a settlement in order
  1214
  that the industry may succeed? If it be their wish, why, in the name of Heaven, do they not give it expression on every possible occasion? It is up to them, not to find fault constantly, but to find a means of settlement. To blame the Government, even if the Government is to blame, is not a way to go about it. Only by seeking a means to attain agreement, being desirous to create goodwill on every side, to pour oil on troubled waters, and not to stir up strife in any way, only in that way will you get a settlement; not otherwise. Can hon. Gentlemen say if the Coal Report is accepted in its entirety, they will on behalf of the miners agree to it and abide by it? Can a single Member of the Front Opposition Bench come forward and say he will use all his endeavours and the endeavours of his party to put the Report into operation if the Government will agree to it The Government have already said that they are prepared to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am certain that I am speaking for Members on this side of the House when I say that, if such an offer were made from that side, we would accept it.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the coal owners accept it?
  Major PRICE: The coal owners would be forced to accept it, if you on your side accepted it. The main objection urged to this Bill is that it prevents future negotiations for a settlement of this dispute. In what way does it prevent you now, or at any time, or when the Bill passes, putting forward a settlement?[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I must ask hon. Members to remember that freedom of expression cannot be confined to one side.
  Mr. PALING: When the hon. Member puts his speech in the form of questions, surely we may reply to it?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If he does so, he is wrong in not addressing me.
  Major PRICE: With regard to this Bill preventing a settlement of the dispute, it is said that this is a compulsory Eight Hours Bill. We are told that, when we say that the Bill is a permissive and temporary Measure, we are entirely wrong, and that, although in form it is permissive, yet in practice it will mean compul-

  1215
  sion. An hon. Member from Durham told us that the Durham miners bad enjoyed a seven-hours day for many years, long before there was any legislation compelling it. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Miners' Federation insisting in any district, or in every district, that a seven-hours day shall be worked. All these are purely quibbles. Has there been a single suggestion which will lead to a settlement of this dispute? I am perfectly aware that, if you take the miners' leaders, nobody can honestly say that they have from the beginning sought a settlement. Why, the very opinions expressed time out of number by Mr. Cook during and before this dispute shows that, instead of trying to create a state of affairs under which the industry could progress, his one desire has been to kill the industry on its present lines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] You may say it is rubbish, but I would refer you to Mr. Cook's own speeches, and you will see it there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote!"] You know far better than I do where he said it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member should address me.
  Major PRICE: It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) that we shall create an army of disgruntled miners if this Bill is put into force. We can only create that army if the propaganda which is at work misrepresents the whole purpose of the Bill. So long as our object is to pave the way to a settlement of the dispute, so long should the miners give us a fair hearing, just as we give their representatives a fair hearing. Of all the points put forward in regard to a settlement of this dispute, that which is most likely to lead to a settlement is that there should be consideration given to the appointment of a committee, with a chairman, which would settle the question of hours and wages. That may be done although the Bill becomes law. There is nothing that this Bill does which prevents any further points in the Coal Commission's Report, which are likely to lead to a settlement, from being put into operation if there is the slightest chance of the miners accepting it in the spirit in which it is put forward. Undoubtedly we will never have a settlement of the dispute between the two parties unless there is a desire for
  1216
  a settlement on the part of both parties. I have no doubt whatever that my hon. Friend, who represents the miners in Glamorgan, knows that an effort of goodwill on the part of both parties would bring about a settlement. I ask hon. Members opposite to use every effort and every influence that they have got in order that the atmosphere of good will may be created, and in order that the country may be saved from this great suffering, which may be prevented if that spirit of good will prevails on both sides.
  Mr. JOHN: The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price), in his closing remarks, made an appeal for a spirit of good will to prevail. It is very difficult to create that atmosphere of good will, while one is at the same time making a deliberate travesty of the truth. I challenge the hon. and gallant Member to produce in any speech which Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation, has made, anything to the effect that he is organising this stoppage in order to ruin the mining industry.
  Major PRICE: I did not say so.
  Mr. JOHN: Or to kill the mining industry. There is not much difference.
  Major PRICE: What I said was that the leader of the miners had shown in speeches, before the strike and during the strike, that the existing system was one which he was not in favour of.
  Mr. JOHN: If the hon. Member's second statement signifies that he is withdrawing his first, we will accept it in that sense. The statement he made in the first instance was that Mr. Cook is out to kill the present industry.
  Major PRICE: To kill the present system.
  Mr. JOHN: We can prove that, so far as the leaders of the hon. Member are concerned, they are assisting the coalowners in order to ruin and kill the miners. You cannot get a spirit of good will whilst introducing a Bill of this kind. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) stated that we were no nearer settlement to-day than we were eight or nine weeks ago, and that it was wrong to argue that this Bill was a compulsory Bill. A large number of Members have argued in that sense. The right hon. Member said that

  1217
  the miners should get a ballot taken upon it, that they should ballot as to whether they should accept this particular Bill or not. If it is to be a question of the miners balloting as to whether they would accept this particular Bill, why not have a ballot of the whole country as to the right of the Government to introduce this Bill? During the period of the general strike this party and the Trade Union Congress were taunted with calling a general strike without a ballot of the men. Here is a principle, which affects over a million miners and their dependants, and which is going to affect the liberties of all the industrial workers of the country. The Government have got no right to do this. They have violated all traditions and they have violated the Constitution in introducing this Bill. If it was a question of acting on democratic ideals, then surely, in order to make that democratic ideal practical, they ought to submit this to a General Election. It is quite true that we are farther away from a settlement, and the reason is that the Government have not attempted to solve this problem of the mining industry. They have not looked at it in a broad, comprehensive, and statesmanlike manner. They have ranged themselves behind the coalowners, and taken their marching orders from the coalowners, and the Bill which is introduced at the present time is introduced at the instigation of the coalowners. On 15th June, the Prime Minister said, in a speech in this House:
  "I have received positive assurances from the owners that on the basis of an eight-hours day—I have not received them myself, but one or two of my colleagues received them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1926; col. 2152, Vol. 196.]
  He said that he had received assurances from the coalowners that, if the Government would introduce an Eight Hours Bill, the coalowners then would not introduce very harsh measures in regard to reduction in wages. Yet the coalowners in South Wales are prepared, according to the Welsh Press, notwithstanding the assurances given to the Government that they were not going to give such terms to offer terms to the South Wales miners under which the wages for the first three months, July, August and September, would be the same rate of wages as pre stoppage rates, but after September a reduction in wages down to the standard
  1218
  of 1921 would take place. That would mean that the lowest paid man would receive 6s. 7d. a day or less than £2 per week.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: The Secretary said it would come down to the level of 1921, but it would not be lower.
  Mr. JOHN: It would not be lower than the level of 1921 or the ascertainments whichever was the lowest, and it would be possible to go down to 1921, which would be a wage of less than £2 a week. The education authorities at the present time are feeding the school children at the expense of 3d. a meal. Suppose you take the same basis for a family of five, then five meals at 3d. makes 1s. 3d. and four times a day makes 5s. The miners feed every day like other people so that makes 35s. a week simply for food on the basis of 3d. a meal, and there is 5s. balance.
  Why did the Prime Minister send his colleagues to the coalowners? Or was it the coalowners that came to the colleagues of the Prime Minister in order to instruct them what to do? How were these assurances got or given? What was the position last year? Then the coalowners wanted the miners to work with a reduction in wages. The miners said that they could not accept a reduction of wages. A stoppage was imminent. The Government stepped in and said that they could not afford a stoppage just then and were prepared in order to tide over the difficulty to pay a subsidy and to appoint a Commission in the meantime in order to make full investigation as to the real difficulties of the industry. That Commission brought in its Report, not a report to the coalowners, not a report to the miners, but a report to the Government who had appointed them, and in that particular inquiry the coalowners gave evidence. The coalowners said: "We require one fundamental thing, and that is a change of hours. We believe the best medicine to cure the illness of the mining industry is the eight-hours day." The Coal Commission stated in their Report that the eight-hours day would not cure the illness of the mining industry. The Government, in going to the coalowners to get their assurances, or in accepting assurances from the coalowners, throw over the Coal Commission and want to prescribe the medicine suggested by the coalowners. That is a very

  1219
  strange way of doing business—to appoint a Commission to make investigations and then to ignore the findings of that Commission and go to the coalowners, who had already given evidence opposed to the findings of the Commission, in order to ascertain the best course to be adopted.
  This Bill is intended to assist the coal-mining industry, but when we consider it alongside the Bill introduced last week we find a complete absence of co-ordination and no continuity of policy. The Bill last week was intended to reorganise the industry; this Bill is going to disorganise the industry. If it be a question of increasing production, the best way to increase production always is to reduce hours. Not only in the mining industry, but in any other industry, a reduction of hours has always resulted in increased production. One is consequential on the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question!"] I will give proofs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), in discussing the reorganisation Bill the other evening gave figures showing the electrical and mechanical revolution which had been made in the industry. He showed the tremendous increase in the number of conveyors and coal-cutters in use, and said that as a result of this revolution in the industry—or, at any rate, in parts of the industry, in the coalfields that were responsible for 40 per cent. of the output—there had been increased efficiency. I think it can be shown that the increasing use of machinery in mines has come about since the change from the eight to seven-hours day. The reduction in hours has meant that the coalowners have concentrated upon the technique of the industry. The Government now attempt to reverse this. Instead of concentrating on the technique of the industry, they are attempting to exploit human material. Instead of increasing the use of machinery, they are depending on the brawn and the muscle of the miner; they are limiting the life of the miner in order to meet the requirements of the industry, instead of expanding the industry to meet the requirements and the needs of the miner. The miner was not created for the mining industry. The mining industry was developed in the interests and for the sake of the miner.
  1220
  Let us see for a moment whether the use of machinery has got any practical bearing on this particular question? The information I propose to give does not come from the Miners' Federation. It was given at a meeting at Cardiff of the South Wales Miners' Engineers' Institute in connection with the Treforest School of Mines. An expert was delivering a lecture there on the practical effects of machinery upon output and upon costs. He said that in one seam in a district in which he was agent the output per man before the conveyor had been introduced as 1·66 tons a day; when they introduced the conveyor the output per man was increased to 2·75 tons, that is, an increase of three-quarters of a ton a day. The cost of a ton of coal without the conveyor was 4s. 1·95d.; the cost with the conveyor was 3s. 0·2d. The introduction of this machinery had increased the efficiency of the mine by increasing output and by reducing costs to the extent of 1s. 1d. per ton. A conveyor was introduced into another seam. The average daily output of the miner without the conveyor was 1·74 tons, the output with the conveyor was 3·04 tons. The average cost per ton of the coal without the conveyor was 9s. 2·01d.; the average cost with the conveyor was 5s. 5·36d., a reduction of 3s. 8·65d. per ton. Accompanying this there was a decrease in the face costs ranging from 48 per cent. to 58 per cent. All this has been going on as the result of the change from eight to seven hours and the concentration of the employers on the economic needs of the industry. Instead of increasing the hours of the miners they have brought about a revolution by the introduction of machinery. Instead of going on with the methods of 50 years ago we ought to get up-to-date methods in the industry.
  During the general strike the Prime Minister made an appeal, and in that appeal he asked whether the miners could not trust him to give them a fair deal. I am very sorry for the standard of fairness of the Prime Minister. His standard of fairness is to increase the hours, accompanying it with a reduction in wages. What was the standard of fairness of the late Mr. Bonar Law? When the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) was discussing with him the reduction of hours from eight to seven a day, he said "We do not want

  1221
  a reduction in wages, we want the same wages for working seven hours as we were receiving for working eight hours," and Mr. Bonar Law said, in reply to that, that getting the same wages was quite legitimate and fair. That was the standard of fairness of the late Mr. Bonar Law; but the standard of fairness of the present Prime Minister is to increase the hours and to reduce the wages. We cannot depend upon the Prime Minister to give the miners a fair deal if that is his standard of fairness. Reference has been made to the effects of fatigue among the miners upon the number of accidents and upon their health. The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Spencer), whose speech has been eulogised, showed the effects of increased hours upon the social, the physical and the mental conditions of the miner. The Bill introduced last week contains a provision for taking 5 per cent. from royalty owners in order to make provision for pithead baths, and a certain sum of money was also to come from the welfare scheme. While in that Bill we are providing amenities for the miner, in this Bill we are increasing his hours and curtailing his opportunities for enjoyment.
  On several occasions we have had arguments based on a comparison of wages, output and hours of the British miner, the German miner, and the French miner. It was argued that to enable this country to compete with Continental countries it is necessary to get a, reduction in costs, in order to bring about a reduction in the price of coal, and that the only way in which that can be effected is by reducing wages and increasing hours. We ought not to forget that there is as much intelligence among the German coalowners as there is among the British coalowners. They will apply precisely the same arguments in their own country. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that increased hours will bring about a reduction in the price of coal and puts this country on a better basis than Germany and the other countries for competing in the world markets. Whose markets are we going to take? The markets at present held by the Germans. To that extent the German miners and the German coalowners will find themselves in difficulty. The owners will go to the German miners and say, "Look here, if you want to reduce your unemployment, if you wish
  1222
  for regular employment, if you want wages in order to maintain yourselves and your families, it is necessary for us to get markets in order to sell the coal you produce. Our markets are being constricted because the British coalowners are stealing them, and they are enabled to steal them because the British miner is working increased hours. If you want work and wages you will have to follow the methods of the British miner."
  Arguments were used last night based on the standard of living among the Germans. During the War speakers went round our country imploring the miners and other industrial workers to join up in the Army in order to prevent the Germans from coming here. They were told that the Germans, if they came here, would curtail liberty and reduce the standard of living. Now the conditions of the German miners and the standard of living among them are taken as a basis to decide the standard for the British miner. If it is good enough for the German miner it is good enough for the British miner, is what is being said. During the War the miners were used for military purposes, and now the miners of the different nations are being used for economic war. This particular Bill is not going to solve the problem of the coal industry. We shall not get goodwill by the introduction of this Bill. It is argued that it is permissive—that the miners can take it if they so desire or they can leave it. We say it is compulsory, and that the difference between this Bill and last week's Bill is this: the Bill last week left the initiative to the coalowners, it is a voluntary Bill for three years; the Bill affecting miners' hours is compulsory, obligatory and immediate. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what way?"] If the Press reports are correct with regard to the meeting of the Mining Association, then there is not a single mineowner ready to take back any miner unless he is prepared to accept their terms. That is the position taken up by the Mining Association, and, under these circumstances, how can that be said to be giving an equal chance to the miner who has been out of work for eight weeks, and has had no wages during that time? How can it be argued under these circumstances that this Bill is permissive? On the contrary, it is going to be obligatory. We shall be told that the present dispute is a strike

  1223
  against the Constitution, and we shall, no doubt, have a Press campaign in that direction. Politicians will be saying that this is not an industrial dispute but an attack upon the Constitution. In my view, good-will between the parties can only be brought about by the withdrawal of this Measure, and the only way to bring about a lasting settlement is by giving the workmen a decent standard of life.
  Viscount SANDON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has been repeating what has been said so frequently by hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, that there is no good to be found in this Eight Hours Bill. Exception has been taken to some remarks made about Mr. Cook and other members of the Miners' Federation. I think the remarks made by many of those people compared with the remarks of Members such as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), who are anxious to find a solution, show by the reception that is given to the latter on this side that there is a difference in the point of view expressed by some hon. Members opposite and those who lead the Miners' Federation. Hon. Members say it is the same on our side but like breeds like. We have been repeatedly told that this Bill cannot possibly solve the mining difficulties, and I share that view. I agree that it is retrograde. I have always felt the force of the suggestion that whereas in good times wages can go up, and can vary according to trade conditions, this cannot be done with hours. What I say, however, is that if eight weeks ago the Miners' Federation had been prepared to face the Report of the Royal Commission the question of hours would never have arisen at all.
  This difficulty has been very much aggravated as a result of the stoppage, and the situation which has arisen in consequence has made these steps necessary. This Bill would never have arisen if the Report had been accepted eight weeks ago. A good deal has been said about the assurances given by the Prime Minister, and we are told that he has now come down on the side of the owners. Surely it is necessary that there should be an assurance as to what will be the action of the owners if this Bill is passed. Were it not so, I can well imagine hon.
  1224
  Members opposite asking, what are the owners going to do if this Bill becomes law? It is true that the Report of the Commission did not recommend an extension of hours, but it should be remembered that their recommendations were based on the fact that what they recommended should be carried out at once without any delay, and we have since had a long stoppage which has very much altered the situation. It is now a very much stiffer proposition. A good deal has been said about the promise of the Prime Minister that the miners would have "a square deal." I am sure the Prime Minister will not go back upon that pledge, but I would like to point out that a square deal is bound to bear a very different interpretation on the 1st of May than it can possibly do at the end of June, and it is bound to be worse as the stoppage goes on. What so many of us resent on this side of the House is that hon. Members opposite seem to think that all the points they are able to make against the owners are arguments against the Government. I do not say that a case cannot be made out against the action of the coalowners during the negotiations and since the stoppage, but hon. Members opposite have referred to Sir Adam Nimmo; he is a Liberal, and a large proportion of coal-owners are of that party, and in those circumstances is it likely that the Government would be on the side of the owners when they have landed them in all this trouble, and ready to stand by people who belong to another party altogether? A night or two ago the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) quoted some remarks I had written from the point of view of the public and the coalowners on this question. I have always felt that it is a matter of great consequence that people in responsible positions in this country should maintain the same ideals and spirit in their public life which they maintain as a rule in private life, and I do not go back on that for one moment. I went on to write, however, that:
  "So many of these people label themselves as members of a party whose policy is remote from that which they profess."
  In my view the Government have shown themselves absolutely impartial in this controversy and they have tried to do the best they can for the industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that to find a solution the Government had to come

  1225
  back to hours and wages and nothing else, but from the start the Government have accepted the Royal Commission Report, and they have accepted the proposals in regard to reorganisation, the hours and wages being only temporary. I have strong sympathy with the plea that the Government should be spurred up by hon. Members on all sides of the House to carry out those recommendations to the fullest extent. I think, however, it should be fully realised that those recommendations were made before the stoppage took place, and every day that has gone by since has made it far more difficult to put those recommendations into operation owing to financial reasons due to the stoppage than would have been the case if a settlement had been arrived at about the end of April. At that time all those recommendations would have been put before the House if they had been accepted by all parties, although I agree that some of them would have taken some time to table owing to departmental preparation.
  We are now, however, up against a very different proposition and I am amazed when I hear hon. Members speak of the value they attach to the nationalisation of royalties and municipal competition in the coal trade—not that I have any belief in that in itself, but value it for its competition—that they should have thrown that all over eight weeks ago when they could have had the whole of these things by merely agreeing with the Report. The Report involved no sacrifice in principle on my part. I welcomed it all including nationalisation of royalties, but what was the Report sacrificed for by the miners? Instead of it we have now got an eight-hours Bill which no one likes, but which has been forced upon us by the situation which has come upon us as a result of the stoppage.
  With the question of hours, is the very crucial one which we have to take into consideration about the third-class pits. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) gave some interesting statistics grading the pits as to profits and losses. But though we hear on this side many complaints as to scrapping these pits, we do not have to go to Mr. Cook or the leaders of the Miners' Federation for the endorsement of this policy, but to Mr. Evan Williams
  1226
  himself, the owners' president. On 12th January, giving evidence before the Royal Commission he said:
  "There is no getting away from the fact that it is hopeless, quite hopeless, to maintain the coal industry in existence, except on a very reduced scale."
  The Coal Commission Report really deals and is needed only for the second-class pits. The first-class pits are in clover, and need no Report. I think everyone will agree that they are not involved in this question, and it is a great pity the Miners' Federation did not allow them to be kept out of the dispute altogether. Equally, the question of the third-class pits, if it does arise, ought not to arise, as they are hopeless anyhow. The Report is essentially for the second-class pits which will pay in good times, but not in bad times, and we cannot afford to allow these second-class pits to go bankrupt, and thus sacrifice the immense amount of coal which is produced in them, when we know they can pay for a large part of their career. Some 500,000 to 600,000 extra men would be involved—a degree of unemployment we could not cope with—though we might manage the 200,000 or so involved in the third-class pits. These pits depress the wages and conditions throughout the industry and act as a drag. They should not be there. Furthermore, their absence will, by lack of that competition, make it easier for these second-class pits to carry on and pay.
  In conclusion, I only wish to deal with one other point, and that is the question of the Bill being permissive. There is nothing whatever in this Bill to prevent the Miners' Federation, if they like, negotiating with the coalowners on the question of wages instead of on the question of hours. The only thing is that in regard to wages some extra sacrifices will have to be made owing to the stoppage. It is desirable that the negotiations should be able to take place on the question of hours as on the question of wages on equal terms, so that they may be able to bargain one way or the other as they wish.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SUTTON: I have been surprised at hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee saying that this increase in hours is not going to solve the problem in the coal industry, while, on the other hand, everyone who has made that statement during the last few days

  1227
  has decided to vote for this Bill. It is said that in the House of Commons you can never make a convert. It is not very often that I speak in this Chamber, but, being connected with the miners, I could not allow this opportunity to go by, if it were at all possible for me to be called upon, without entering my protest against the Bill which is now under discussion. I have had 46 years' experience of industrial disputes, and have been connected with the mines for 49 years, so that I know the position of the miner today. It is said that this Bill is only to be in operation for five years, but I am afraid that if it should come into operation—God forbid that it should!—many of us, even the younger ones, will be below before it reverts to a working day of seven hours and 35 minutes.
  I remember taking a deputation of black-faced miners to the present Lord Balfour in 1892, to ask him at that time to support the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and he put the question to me and to the miners, "Could you not arrange an eight-hour day with the colliery owners, without its being introduced into the House of Commons?" I told him it was an impossibility to do that, because the firemen and under-managers would be constantly going round to the work-people in their working places begging of them to work more than eight hours daily, and, naturally, men are afraid when they are intimidated by the officials of the mines. I am of the opinion that, once this Bill is passed, and if it is put into operation, we shall never be able to go back again to the working hours that obtained previous to the stoppage. Therefore, so far from its being a temporary Bill, I am strongly of opinion that it is a permanent Measure. And it is a retrogressive Measure, too. The policy in this country, as far as I know it—and I have taken some little interest in public affairs—has always been to be progressive, but here we are going back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) said on Monday, never before during the last 100 years has there been an attempt to adopt a retrogressive policy such as this present Government is adopting.
  The Sankey Commission, after hearing evidence on both sides, decided that the miners were then working, on an average
  1228
  all over the country, eight hours and 35 minutes daily. They came to the conclusion that seven hours and 35 minutes was sufficient, and that in a certain time, if the industry guaranteed it, they should go to a working day of six hours and 35 minutes. I admit that the industry has not allowed that to take place, but that should be the policy, not only in the mining industry, but in all industries. In Lancashire we have collieries, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Greenall) last night, where the winding time is one hour, with the large number of men that are engaged in certain collieries. That means that it takes one hour to go down the pit, and another hour to ascend. Therefore, even with the present working day of seven hours and 35 minutes, there are thousands of men who are down the mine for eight and eight and a half hours. In fact, they are working longer than men who work in the cotton mills or in engineering shops, because these people get to their workshop and commence their eight hours' work at once.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), speaking in his own Division, said that he was as physically fit as any man in that town, and I believe he is. He, however, visited a pit where he had to travel two miles to the working places, doubled in two almost, because the seam was only 2 feet 6 inches thick. He had to travel also two miles back, and, although he never struck a blow with the pick, he was exhausted when he got back to the shaft. I visited a mine in Burnley for an inspection a short time ago, where we could not even walk to the working places doubled up; we had to push ourselves along on little trolleys on lines—it was impossible to get along without them. While, therefore, many on the opposite side of the Committee may say that when men are travelling to their working place and travelling back again they are not working, I say, knowing something of the mines and the miners, that it is harder work to travel to their working place than it is when they get to the coal face. When a man is getting on in middle age especially it is a terrible job to him. Therefore, I want to appeal quite honestly to the Government. The Minister of Labour is here. I have known him for many years, having been a Member of the House since 1910, except for a short time, and I want him, if he can, to

  1229
  appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw this Bill. The Prime Minister has a big job on hand, and a big man is needed to tackle this question, but he could do it if he would. Therefore, I hope he will do something in the direction of withdrawing this Bill.
  We have 1,200,000 mine workers in this country. It is said that by increasing the working time by one hour per day the coal getter may be able to make up what he is losing in reduction in wages, but, of the 1,200,000 mine workers in this country, there are not above 400,000 coal getters at the coal face; the other 800,000 have to be kept, and their wages have to be found, by one-third of the mining population. Therefore, these 800,000 mine workers would have to work an additional hour and would have to suffer a reduction in their wages as well. Is that a system that should operate in 1926? The miners of this country would be working far longer than the miners in any mine in Europe, with the exception, as has been said, of those in Upper Silesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Even than they!"] Yes, even than they. The Government have not done what they ought to have done. I was a Member of the House when we had the strike for the minimum wage. The Government of that day brushed aside the coalowner, they brushed aside the miner, and they introduced a Minimum Wage Bill. It is true that we did not get the minimum wage we wanted all over the country, but, at least, it was an improvement on what had been happening previous to the strike. Therefore, I say that the Government, seeing that they have paid over £20,000,000 in subsidy, ought to try to get at the true facts of the position in the coal industry.
  When they got the Report of the Royal Commission, they ought to have brushed aside the coalowner and the mine worker, and ought to have introduced their Bill in accordance with Sir Herbert Samuel's Report. But they hesitated; they qualified their acceptance of that Report by saying that, if the miners would accept it and if the coalowners would accept it, then the Government would accept it. If either the coalowners or the coal miners rejected it, the Government, after paying that large sum of money in subsidy and appointing their Commission, ought to have introduced legislation in accord-
  1230
  ance with the recommendations of that Commission. If they had done that, if they had shown the miners of this country that they were in earnest in doing something and had gone into the question of reorganisation, I believe there would have been no necessity for any increase in hours or reduction in wages. Even the Prime Minister came to the House a few weeks ago and told the Members of the House that the Government had come to the conclusion that this matter would never be settled by the coalowners and the miners, and that they, as a Government, would have to settle it. He said at that time that he was going to send his proposals to the two sides. His proposals meant at once a reduction in wages, but no increase in hours; but now, as was said by an hon. Member a short time ago, because the dispute has gone on for eight weeks, an increase in hours must take place. Well, rather than see an increase in hours, I hope it goes on for another five or six weeks, and then, perhaps, we shall have the Government coming along and introducing a Ten Hours Bill in connection with the mining industry.
  This question is not going to be settled either by an eight-hours working day or by a reduction in wages. Let legislation be introduced in accordance with the Commission's Report. Five million people are starving through the blundering of the Government at the present time. The question can never be settled by the miners and the coalowners, as I have said from the very commencement. Therefore, the Government, as custodians of the people of this country, ought to take their courage in their hands and do something for a reasonable settlement. This is not a reasonable settlement; it is giving way to the coalowners all the time; it is giving them what they wanted. When they rejected the Government's first proposals, even with the reduction in wages, the reply that they sent to the Prime Minister was, "Give us freedom; keep your hands out of this industry altogether; leave the miners to us; we will teach them a lesson." That was their attitude then, it has been their attitude all along, and I am sorry to say that the Government have taken up that attitude on behalf of the coalowners. I want to make an earnest appeal, because I can assure the Committee that, if many Members of the opposite side had to go down

  1231
  some of the pits and work in them, they would hold different opinions from those which they hold to-day. I was on a Government inspection a few weeks ago, as the Secretary for Mines will know, down a colliery in Lancashire, which I look after. Six men had been killed there. Six men were also killed there on the 4th November last, and five other men were killed in the same working places two years previously. We had a Government inspection. That pit had been sunk 80 years. The shaft is eight feet in diameter, and there are two cages in the shaft. The men have to double themselves up to get into the cage, and after getting down the shaft we have to go down an engine way a mile long that dips one yard in every three, and then we have to travel to the working place, and in that mine men have frequently been brought out with cramp through heat. The heat varies from 96 to 100 degrees. Professors from different universities have been there to see how the cramp can be overcome and they have suggested that the men should drink salt water. I wish hon. Members who talk so glibly about working for eight hours and thirty-five minutes had to go down collieries of that kind. We went down. We visited the working place where the men were killed and when I went there I met with a slight accident. I do not go down there very often, but every time I do go down.I come to the conclusion that I would never be a collier again if they paid me £20 a week. Some people say they like it. They like it because they are compelled to do it to support their wives and families. They do not do it from choice. If some hon. Members had to do this kind of work they would come to a different conclusion.
  I want to appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill, because the feeling of the miner is such that he will not work this extra hour, or if he is compelled by starvation to work, I believe you will never get peace in the industry, because the miners believe they are working long enough. We were told, during the War, of the good work the miners did. They were praised in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs gave them the greatest praise for the work they did. Now they have to suffer. The only little bit of good
  1232
  they got out of the War was the shorter working day granted to them by Mr. Justice Sankey. Now it is going to be taken from them. Therefore I appeal to the Government not to allow the Bill to pass. If they would only introduce legislation on the lines of the Royal Commission, I believe a settlement is possible. The Prime Minister said he was not out to reduce anyone's wages. It is rather inconsistent to make a statement of that kind and only a week or two afterwards to ask for a reduction in wages. Because the men would not accept it at that time he now asks for an additional hour per day and a reduction in wages as well. If the Government are going to persist in this, I shall never again accept any statement made by the Prime Minister and shall never believe again that he is in earnest. I appeal to the House when the vote is taken to give us their assistance. I believe this is not a party question. It is a question for both sides to settle and we ought not to take party advantage of it. If it was a party question, I should go so far as to say the Government, by their action, are playing into the hands of the Labour party and they will be doomed at the next election, but I do not want even to go as far as that. I want them to do the right thing so that these men shall work reasonable hours.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: One would imagine from the speeches we have heard from that side that this is a Bill which the Government and their supporters support with the greatest possible enthusiasm. The facts are these: The Prime Minister said quite frankly, "We much prefer that all three parties should accept the Royal Commission's Report, although there are many features in it with which we do not agree." But that was their original position. They exerted every endeavour, they explored every channel to bring about an agreement on those lines. Unfortunately, it failed, and the next thing to be considered was the adoption of another policy which would, and must, have an immediate effect on the situation. Therefore, with great reluctance it introduced, as I understand it, the Eight Hours Bill. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), in a very moving and, I am sure, a very sincere speech, threw out a suggestion which, if he has any authority for so doing, would be very significant in settling

  1233
  this problem. If I correctly understood him, he asked, "Why do not the Government consult the miners by ballot as to whether they prefer to work eight hours a day or have their wages reduced?"
  Mr. TINKER: Or take the Report.
  Mr. SPENCER: What I said was that if a ballot were taken with regard to the eight-hours question, 95 per cent would vote against it. I did not couple wages with it.
  Captain EVANS: I apologise. Let us take the hon. Member on his own statement, because it is a very significant statement. It means that, in the first instance, the miners' representatives have realised that this is not a question that commends itself to this side of the House, but is dictated solely by economic facts. I hope, if the hon. Member has any authority for it from the Miners' Federation, the Government will seriously and carefully consider the suggestion, because I think if the miners were consulted by secret ballot on a question of that kind, the Government would be in a more favourable position to introduce any legislation that might be necessary to settle this dispute. What is the real opposition of the Socialist party to this proposal? As I understand it, it amounts to this, that if you follow this policy, if your Bill becomes law, the natural consequences will be that your foreign competitors, in order to retain those markets which they hold at present, will immediately take steps to increase their working day by one hour. If that is a logical conclusion to arrive at, it is equally logical to say that in consequence of the Sankey Commisson Report and the seven-hours day operating in this country, the trade union movement in the foreign countries would have taken immediate steps to agitate for a working day one hour less than they had before. But what are the facts? The trade unions, even the miners' representatives in Germany and France, took no steps whatever to agitate for a decreased working day. The other opposition put forward to the Bill is that the Government have no mandate, either from the Royal Commission or from any source whatever, to introduce this Eight Hours Bill. To be quite frank, I think it is true to say that, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Government have already made proposals in an
  1234
  entirely opposite direction. It is not fair to lead people to believe that this, after all, is the considered policy of the Government in the first place. The contrary is true, because the Government made every endeavour, although they disliked it, to secure agreement on the Report of the Royal Commission.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe, in a most moving speech, told us that this was not a permissive Bill at all, that you were saying to the miners, "Unless you work eight hours a day you will not be able to work at all." I do not think the cause of the Government is in any way injured by admitting that fact, because economic conditions dictated that course. Many speakers have pointed out that eight weeks have passed since the stoppage started. Many considerations which weighed with the Government and those responsible for a settlement in the first instant cannot, in view of the financial position which is necessarily involved, weigh with the authorities to-day, and therefore this is not really a permissive Measure because you say to the miner, "We are not in the least desirous of your working eight-hours a day. If the economic conditions of international competition permit it, we should like to see you work six hours a day if it were possible, but all economists know that that is not practical politics." It is all very well to make speeches of that nature and state, as the, hon. Member did, that the way to become a hero after the Bill is passed is to go to one's constituents and say, "I do not believe in the eight-hour Measure. I believe in a seven-hour Measure," because if you measure heroism by that standard I am afraid to think what kind of hero a man would be who went to a mining area, as some Socialist Members do to-day, and said he wanted to see them work not seven but six or five hours a day. That is a very nice state of affairs to contemplate. After all, I think Members on all sides of the House, even if you look at it from the very low level of political propaganda desire in every way they possibly can to improve the standard of living and the wages of the working people. But it is not only unfair to the House, it is unfair to the workpeople themselves to lead them astray and not point out to them what is evident to the Members their selves, that economic conditions and com-

  1235
  petition throughout the world do not permit conditions which all of us sympathise with. In view of these facts, and in view of the fact that 95 per cent. of our basic industries in this country are being starved for want of coal to-day, I hope that if the Government press forward with this Bill and a secret ballot were held as to whether the miners desire to work eight hours a day, instead of having their wages reduced, that the miners will immediately realise the true aspect of the case and return to work, in the hope and in the sincere belief that when those markets are recaptured which we have already lost, the Government would see to it, as I believe they would, that any benefit which was derived by any action of that kind would be recognised when the conditions of the industry permitted.
  Mr. RITSON: The last speaker has dealt with the last eight weeks, and he said that the stoppage of the last eight weeks had thrown such a burden upon industry that the Government considered that this Bill was necessary. Who is to blame for this Bill? Mr. Garvin said that we had a wonderful Prime Minister, whose fault was that he could not make up his mind until somebody made it up for him. The result has been that although the Prime Minister said at the beginning of this trouble, "I cannot interfere; it is a question between master and man, and my Government are not allowing me to deal with this question, and to sit as an independent chairman," he comes along eight weeks later and tells us that the only solution is this Bill for the introduction of a working day of eight hours. He has made the greatest mistake, politically and industrially, that he ever made in his life.
  We have been told that this is a permissive Bill. Hon. Members might as well argue that the public executioner is not compelled to hang a man, because the law does not compel him to do it; but the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) would be the last man to walk confidently to the scaffold with the Rabbi whispering in his ear, "Have courage, my son. This man has a permissive option as to whether he hangs you or not." Under such circumstances a man might go to the scaffold feeling certain that the bolt would be drawn. That is
  1236
  the position we are in. Hon. Members may call the Bill permissive or use any language they like in describing it, but it all means the same thing. I did not understand the phrase "permissive," and when I made inquiries as to what "permissive" meant, I came to the conclusion that it was only another word for compulsion. That was why the Bill received such a large majority last night on its Second Reading.
  I wish to deal with another aspect of the question. In Durham we have three shifts of coal hewers. We have another shift called the tubloading or fourth shift for the purpose of filling empty tubs in order that the pit may be ready for the first shift of men next day. Apart from the work of examining the roads, how are we to get three shifts of coal hewers of eight hours a day into some of these old collieries in Durham, which are 80 to 100 years old, and to get them properly prepared? Every hewer who goes down these pits carries 4½ men and boys. The question is to find places to be prepared. I have here an official sheet of the time at which the men go down. They begin at four a.m. That fact has not been mentioned. Others begin at three a.m. in other collieries in the county of Durham. A man is entitled, surely, to six hours off. He would have to be awakened at two o'clock to turn out and go to work. Is that a natural time for a man to get up and go out to do a hard day's work? We are compelled to do that, under the three shift system.
  The question for us is, how will this Bill affect us not only in regard to hours and wages, but how many men will be dismissed? The owners may say that they would rather have two shifts of eight hours for hewers than three shifts, on the ground that they could not possibly manage to get the old workings ready and keep the place right for three shifts of eight hours. If we are to have one-third of our hewers struck off, it means that 4½ men and boys will be dismissed with every hewer who is dismissed, because of the introduction of this eight-hours Bill. You are not going to get any more production from that. We are entitled to have the places examined, according to the Mines Act. Where will there be the opportunity to examine a mine where you have as in mines in

  1237
  Durham, 600 ponies, in addition to the miners, running through all the miles and miles of alleys?
  What about the effect of the increased working day upon the health of the miners? Hon. Members can tell by my face what has been the effect upon me. I do not like to make a personal reference, but I must. Any man who has worked in a deep colliery on the East coast of Durham, where there is lack of oxygen, can be recognised anywhere. I could identify such a man if I met him in Edinburgh. The faces of these men are as white and bleached as it is possible to be. Yet the Government is saying to these men, "Go and work another hour." I would ask hon. Members whether they have ever seen these men coming up from the pits, as I have seen them, or whether they have seen them working down in these deep pits, as I have seen them? I have been present on occasions when, owing to shortage of oxygen, a pony has had to be taken out of a place where there has been a pressure of heat of 90 odd degrees. The pony has used up the oxygen, and it has had to be removed in order that the men could breathe. I remember sending back a lad with a pony, so that I could get my breath, so limited was the supply of oxygen. Notwithstanding, this House is asked practically to ridicule the work of these men and to say that they must work another hour, and then expect the last hour to be as good as the first. We shall fight this thing to the bitter end.
  In the time-sheet to which I referred, there are 18 different times in each shift for going down the pit. I ask.any hon. or right hon. Member, who talks so glibly on this question, to try to work out a sheet, showing how to get the men to the face of the coal to do their work, under an eight-hour day in the pits to which I have referred, and to give the requisite opportunities for examination, preparing the places properly, and the other things necessary in accordance with the Mines Regulation Act. I can assure the Government that they have never united the miners more than they have done by the introduction of this Bill. They have united the women as well as the men. The women delight in having the companionship of their husbands and menfolk, but by this Bill the Government are going to destroy the home life of
  1238
  which we are very proud, and which has been possible during the operation of the Seven Hours Act. Under the existing Act, we have been able to get a better share of domestic happiness and the companionship of our wives and children, who, naturally, are anxious from day to day as to whether or not the miner is going to return home.
  We are told that we are talking sob-stuff when we make reference to these things. Let me give the authority of one who was an honoured Member of this House for many years. I refer to the late Dr. John Wilson, who could not be charged with being of our political faith. Had he been here he would have fought this Bill with all the power of which he was capable. He would have been strongly against any extension of hours. In connection with a trade dispute for wages, he said:
  "These men are at the face of the coal in a cramped position. They are in the most dangerous parts of the occupation. A large number of our hewers are working in seams below three feet in thickness and down to two feet and even lower. It will need strength of imagination to picture a man of fair and average size lying in a place where there is only two feet or less or, say, 2½ feet between the floor of his working place and the roof. He cannot sit. There is no possible working position except lying on his side."
  We are not making this appeal on the grounds of sentiment alone, but because we as practical men find that it will be impossible to increase the output to the extent suggested. The hon. Member who spoke last said that a ballot should be taken of the men as to whether they would accept it or not, and I see that some of the Press of the country are putting forward the same view. They are saying that if this Bill is hurried through and the owners then put up their conditions at the pithead, the men will flock back to work. Already in Durham we have been notified of a, 10 per cent. reduction, and the stone man, the most important man in the mines, is to have his wages reduced under the new conditions which will be put up by the owners to 4s. 8d. per shift, or by 33 per cent. Will that encourage the men to vote for it? I want to warn the Press of this country as to what will happen when the owners do put up their conditions at the pitheads. You say that the subsistence wage will still go on. We say, Yes, we

  1239
  have been told that the subsistence wage must go on because it is statutory law, but the owners who have been able to secure the removal of the Seven Hours Act so easily will be able to remove the subsistence wage too and we shall always have our doubts as to the conditions under which we are to work.
  Appeals have been made to us for better behaviour. We have been appealed to on many occasions and for various things. We have been prayed for for the first time in our lives. The Archbishops and all the rest set apart a day for prayer for the mining population, and most of them prayed that we would accept the conditions of the owners. We refuse to have prayers answered in that way. If you want a better feeling to exist between the two parties you must, in the first instance, muzzle some of your Press who misrepresent and slander the miners. If you want to make a man a hero to-day the best way to do it is to set the "Daily Mail" on his track; he will immediately become the greatest man in the land. If a man owes his present position to anything, our friend Cook owes his present position to the "Daily Mail," because it misrepresented him and slandered him before ever he got into the saddle. Now that he is in the saddle, he can look down at the "Daily Mail" with disdain. But we have something else besides the Press. We have a very heavy burden to carry with the Bishops. Unfortunately Durham has to carry two—and such Bishops! I object to the Bishops and such persons coming into the fray and backing up the owners on this question. These people are supposed to lead us in spiritual things, in brotherhood and love, but they are always batting with the owners whenever there is an opportunity. Dean Welldon last summer was batting on a wet wicket and was very nearly in the River Wear.
  I want to make this public appeal, and I am at least sincere when I say that I am anxious this struggle should cease. I hate strikes, but there are times when we have to use the strike as a last weapon. I am anxious that these things should cease and that our people should have an opportunity of living decent lives. I am anxious that when this
  1240
  struggle is settled it will be settled in a permanent way. But do you think that if you end this struggle by starvation, by forcing the miners to accept the new conditions—do you think that their acceptance in these circumstances will last long? Do you think that the spirit of the men who went to the front in the War is going to submit to a tyranny like that? Do you not think that class feeling will be aroused again and again, and indeed intensified ten times over? I heard a working-class woman say only last Sunday night,"I have five of them who go down the pit, and God help me if I have five hours added to my day's anxiety, in addition to my own work." Think of the position of a woman like that if you change the seven hours and make it eight. The man goes down the pit at 4 o'clock in the morning and does not come back until after 12. One lad may go down at 6, and not come back until after 3, a second lad may go down about 3 o'clock and not come back until 10.30 or 11 o'clock at night. Think of the home life of a family under such conditions as that.
  We look after our aged poor in the County of Durham. We have subscribed £250,000 for homes for our old people. We have done our best. We have not thrown them on the rates, and we are not going to be charged with being neglectful. We are fighting the battle of our womenfolk as well as our own. This Government must remember, and they shall remember, that they have done the best thing they could have done in order to continue this strike, and the sooner the Prime Minister reverses his opinion the better for the nation and the whole community. The only reason the Government have adopted their present policy is because the mineowners said that if they did not give them the eight-hours day they would stop their contributions to their political fund. That is the opinion which we hold in Durham. We are going to hold out, but if the strike is broken by starvation and the power of the Government we are going to say, and we are determined to say, that we shall fight again at the first opportunity.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I am not a miner but the son of a miner and shall certainly vote against this mineowners' Bill at

  1241
  every stage of its progress. I am one of those who believe that this Bill is not the result of necessity but the result of blundering, and very bad blundering, on the part of the Government. It is an extraordinary thing that whilst in every country in Europe working hours are becoming shorter and labour legislation getting more in favour of the workers this country of ours is the country where labour legislation is getting worse, where reaction is in the saddle, and where the workers are feeling the pinch. What has become of all the talk of young Conservative reformers who were going to show the country that the Conservative party was not a reactionary party, that it was a party which could move forward, that it was a party which meant reform, that it was a party which meant stability and progress? Where is the reform, where is the stability, where is the progress?
  We have had a constant beggar's march since the Government came into office. Wages have gone down. Now hours are to be increased. There is no progress; there is retrogression in every stage of our national life. We who represent the Labour party are in the humiliating position that, while every country is progressing, from North to South and from East to West, we are the only country which is going backward. On the question of hours the record of this Government is a record of miserable failure. We are the one great industrial country in the world which has absolutely prevented an improvement in the hours of labour. All along the line we see the same stupid blundering and incapacity. Could anyone opposite dream of a Government which, knowing that at least two Commissions, after careful inquiry, had reported that mining could never be prosperous without reorganisation, would give £20,000,000 of public money to that industry without making the slightest request for any re-organisation? I deny that any decent ordinary common-sense working men or men from anywhere could be found who would be so stupid as to pay over £20,000,000 of public money to an industry, when it has been said over and over again that reorganisation was necessary, and do it without demanding that anything at all should be done in return.
  This money has been thrown into the gutter. Everybody knew that at the end
  1242
  the conditions would be just as bad as at the beginning. Yet this Government of all the talents, which owes it position to misrepresentation, has not only added to its misrepresentations an absolute failure to carry out its programme, but has made the country ten times worse than it was before the Conservatives took office. What has been the Government performance? In the nine months of the Labour Government, with all its faults and failings, wages went up. But wages have consistently gone done since the present Government came into office. Now we are to have an attack on the hours. During the discussions no one has argued that seven hours' work is not enough for a miner. Nobody dare argue that, at any rate not anybody who has ever seen a miner at work and was prepared himself to take off his clothes and handle a pick. No one has ever tried to argue that an eight-hours day in the mines, even if it materialised, is an extra hour of actual production and that it will solve the problem. No one has ever contended that this hour's work is necessary because of the longer hours worked by other nations. No; we are in the humiliating position of being the only industrial country in the world where the workers are going backward instead of forward.
  We have had several speeches about other countries and how they are lax in their administration in comparison with our noble selves. I am speaking with some knowledge when I say that if you take this country and compare it with any other European country, every country in Europe during the last 10 or 15 years has made infinitely more progress than ourselves. If it be a question of keeping their word, I know no country which has less claim to talk about people keeping their word than our own. We have had this question of hours before. We had it under discussion at the Washington Convention. Who is it that has kept that Convention from being ratified in the principal industrial countries of Europe? This country, the country that boasted that it was in the van of progress. It was in the van of progress until recently. It is precisely this Government, with its great majority of energetic young Conservatives, who were going to show everyone how they would reform this country when they got to work. They have reformed it. Another 18 months of

  1243
  reform and the country will be ruined beyond repair. With a colossal majority, and the Prime Minister who makes saintly speeches, the Government produces an Eight Hours Bill for the miners! We have got into the position where our industries are in a state of chaos, where there is no peace and no stability, and no sign of peace or stability.
  No one will say that if the miners are starved into submission—I do not think they will be—it means peace and stability. On this question of hours the record of the Government is not only a bad one but a desperately bad one. What has become of all the fine statements of the Prime Minister— "We are not going to reduce the miners' conditions; we are not going to make things worse; we are going to help things on and are going to try to get 'Peace in our time, O Lord!'" Does the Prime Minister or any member of the Government think that "Peace in our time, O Lord!" is to come by making the British miner worse than the French miner and worse than the Belgian miner? Is peace to come by making the British workman, who for half a century and more has been absolutely in the van of progress in the world—does anyone think that peace is to come from a Measure that will set the best part of our working population below the general average of Europe? When one comes to think of the conditions that have existed during the last 10 or 15 years, and of the progress that has been made in other countries, and we see ourselves slipping back and back behind other countries, one is ashamed even for his nation.
  If there had been the slightest idea of common sense in this Government, there would have been no £20,000,000 paid to the mineowners without a demand for a quid pro quo. We can fiddle away with minor things. We can stop men from coming into the country. We can lie about the Communists and the Labour party. But we cannot do the work. That is the position of affairs in this country. Instead of getting better, we are getting worse. There is no man who can look with satisfaction at the condition of this country to-day. There is no Englishman, proud of his race and of the progress of his race, who can look upon the position with anything but a deep sense of humiliation. We are humiliated in the eyes of the world. What
  1244
  is worse, we are coming to the conclusion—some of us have been driven to the conclusion—that there is no longer a Government in this country, that the real Government of this country is not the group of right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, but the members of the respective employers' associations. This Bill is a mineowners' Bill. What did they demand at the beginning? The whole country was deeply shocked when the mineowners' president demanded a reduction of wages and an increase of hours. That is precisely the policy of the Government to-day.
  What the Prime Minister has been doing I cannot tell. Certainly, no one can square his pledges with his actions. It is impossible for any of us to believe, in the future, when the Prime Minister is speaking of "Peace in our time, O Lord," and of the desire of the Government not to reduce the conditions of anyone—it is impossible to believe when Bills like this are presented to the House, after those speeches, that the Prime Minister either has the wish or the power to put into operation the statements he makes. It is quite evident that you cannot square the ethical declarations with the actual facts. The voice is the voice of the Prime Minister, but the hand is the hand of the President of the Mineowners' Association. I congratulate the Government, with its huge majority of young Conservatives who were going to reform the country, bring about peace and stability and improve the conditions of the workers, on having had tremendous success in one respect, and that is in proving that everything they said at the Election was unjustified and unwarranted. They fought with the "Red Letter" last time; next time they will fight with lower wages, increased working hours, economic chaos, and, instead of reform, the very opposite of reform. We are slipping back in every direction. We are slipping from the path of progress, in education—
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be entering upon a very general discussion.
  Mr. SHAW: I am sorry if I have strayed from the mark, and I will try to get back to it at once. I say we are slipping from the path of progress, so far as hours in the mining industry are

  1245
  concerned. Every other body of miners in Europe, since the War, has made enormous progress. We are the one country which is going back. Imagine the humiliation which it is to our miners to be asked to work longer hours than the Germans, the French, or the Belgians. Can hon. Members imagine what that must he to the British miner, proud as he has been all his working life that, whatever were his conditions, at any rate he worked shorter hours and more efficiently during those shorter hours, than any other miner in Europe. Now the British miner, proud of his craft, his strength and his skill, is to be told that he must work longer than the German, the Belgian or the Frenchman. That is the result of the magnificent victory of the Conservative party at the polls. All I have to say is that if the Conservative party is proud of a record like that, I cannot understand them. If they are proud of the fact that they have thrown away £23,000,000 of public money without demanding the slightest reconstruction, I congratulate them on their pride. It is a pride in which I do not share, but in the present position some shred of comfort ought to be left to them. One thing is certain. They can claim for themselves that in this Bill they have shown that of all Governments in Europe they are the most incompetent to advance the prosperity of their country. They have shown that they are more reactionary than any other Government in Europe. They have shown that all the benefits we were promised by them have vanished into thin air. They have shown that they have no care for the health of the miner. If they had cared for the health of the miner they would not propose this Bill. They have shown that the miners does not appeal to them so much as profit.
  The policy of the Government is plain. It is that a profit should be made by even the most inefficient part of the industry, and that a fabulous profit should be made by the efficient part of the industry. It is the policy of the Government all the way through, to make every commercial concern profitable, whether it is efficient or inefficient, and to make the efficient industry so profitable that wealth may be earned beyond the dreams of avarice. That is what the Bill means. There is little or no thought for the miner. One
  1246
  of the worst excuses I have heard on behalf of the Government is this. "We were in favour of the Report if you had agreed to it. Neither side would agree, consequently we had to take our own course." They took the course of one of the two parties to the dispute. In my opinion, the majority of mineowners would be far more generous in this matter than the Government. I question whether a majority of the mineowners would have the assurance to propose an eight-hour day in the industry. They leave it to the Government. With its tremendous majority, it will carry its way; it will put another injustice on the top of those it has already inflicted on the workers; it will reduce another set of workers below the level of the European average; it will take to itself the credit of saying, "We with our majority could not restore prosperity to your industry or improve your conditions, but we could make your conditions worse"—and that is what they are doing in this Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. PALING: It seems amazing that the Government should be following this course in trying to rectify the trouble in the mining industry. In 1919 the Sankey Commission took evidence from the best experts in the country, and after fully sifting it came to the unanimous conclusion that a seven-hour day should be put into operation. The result of Lord Buck-master's inquiry was almost the same. There was another inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Macmillan, and the result was again the same. There has been another Commission, the Report of which we are now discussing, and all four have come down emphatically against the eight-hour day. The first reduced the hours from eight to seven, and the other three and—the last one in particular—have been unanimously in favour of retaining the seven hours. All came to the conclusion that the illness of the industry was due, generally speaking, to the inefficient methods under which it had been carried on, and all have said that the wrong way to cure the illness is to put an eight-hour day into operation. Two Commissions and two inquiries have come to the conclusion that, as the miners have no say in the control or management of the industry, no blame for its state can be laid upon them. Yet the very people on whom no blame can be laid are being asked to make all the sacrifice in order

  1247
  to bring the industry back to economic prosperity. It is the most unfair thing I have ever known, and it passes my comprehension why a Conservative Government, with a majority like the present Government's, could use its power to inflict an eight-hour day on the miners.
  I wish to speak particularly on the question of accidents and the effect which the eight-hour day is likely to have in that respect. I have been careful to get as much evidence as I could from the best possible source. I read through the Report and did not find what I wanted. A day or two ago, I put down a question in this House, asking the Secretary for Mines if he would state the number of fatal and other accidents occurring in the mines of this country in each complete year immediately before and after the introduction of the Eight Hours Act and the Seven Hours Act respectively, and the number of persons engaged in the mining industry during each of such years. The question has been answered to-day, but not orally, because it was in tabular form. Since then, however, I have had the figures put in my hand, and they are amazing. Nine years are given under the Eight Hours Act, 1910 to 1918 inclusive, and the number of fatal accidents in each of those years is given in the first column I have totalled them up, and I find that they come to 12,669 in the nine years, the average over the nine years being 1,407 for each year. For the purposes of comparison, I asked also for the fatal accidents under the Seven Hours Act, and the same table gives the figures for the years 1920 to 1925 inclusive. In the year 1921 there was a three months stoppage, or just over, and I have allowed for that. The total of fatal accidents in those years was 6,597. I have divided that total again, and I find that the average killed each year, after allowing for the three months off in 1921 in those six years under the Seven Hours Act was 1,147. The figures were 1,407 under the Eight Hours Act and 1,147 under the Seven Hours Act, or 260 fatal accidents more per yea under the Eight Hours Act than under the Seven Hours Act.
  Presumably, therefore, when we go back to the eight-hours day, it is fair to imagine that the accidents will jump up again to the neighbourhood in which they were before the Seven Hours Act
  1248
  operated, and presumably the Prime Minister, with his honesty and his reputation for being a big, generous-hearted man, by imposing the Eight. Hours Act on the mining community, is bringing it about that 260 more men and boys are going to be killed in the first year it is in operation than would have been killed if the Seven Hours Act had been kept in operation. I wonder how a man with a reputation of the present Prime Minister will view the result of putting this Bill into operation when he is faced with a fact of that description. It means 260 extra widows of men or mothers of boys killed in one year, in order to put into operation an Eight Hours Act which his own Commission, set up by his own Government, has condemned. That is not all. I was careful to ask, in addition, in order to make the comparison as fair as possible, the number of men working in that industry in those particular years, and I find that in the nine years under the Eight Hours Act the average number of men working was 1,057,000, and in the six years under the Seven Hours Act 1,187,000, so that there are more men actually working under the Seven Hours Act than under the Eight Hours Act, which makes the figures all the worse from my point of view, and the comparison all the worse from the Government's point of view. There is a second column also, and it is almost equally enlightening. I asked for the number of serious accidents, and the number of such accidents in the nine years under the Eight Hours Act was 5,096. By "serious accidents" is meant accidents causing fracture of head or limb or dislocation of limb or any other serious personal injury. Over the same period of six years, again allowing for the short year in 1921, there were 4,597 serious accidents, or about 500 less per year under the Seven Hours Act than under the Eight Hours Act; that is to say, 260 fatal and 500 serious accidents less, or a total of nearly 800 less, with nearly 150,000 more men working in the mines in the seven-hours period than in the eight-hours period.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the hon. Member not aware that the number of fatal accidents in mines for

  1249
  the 10 years previous to the figures he has quoted were consistently declining under the eight hours day?
  Mr. PALING: It may be, but they were not declining at anything like the rate I have mentioned. The point I am making is the terrific drop between the eight hours period and the seven hours period.
  Sir H. CROFT: I think the hon. Member will find that the drop was just as great in the previous 10 years.
  Mr. PALING: Certainly it was not. It was not nearly as great, and the natural decline to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has been going on, not only in the period before the Eight Hours Act, but during the Eight Hours Act and also during the Seven Hours Act. It was pointed out yesterday, in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, that there is such a thing as industrial psychology, and it has been proved up to the hilt that the number of accidents in the last hour of the day is always likely to be greater than in any other preceding hour, because of the fact that the men are tired. An expert in this particular science gave evidence to this effect before the Royal Commission, and everybody who knows anything about it will agree almost without dissension that that is the case, and the figures I have quoted bear that out. I have gone to the trouble of getting the percentage, and I find that the percentage drop from the eight hours to the seven hours is 19 per cent. in the last hour, which bears out what was said yesterday, that, as the hours increase, the chart showing the number of accidents rises very steeply in the last hour in particular. I think these figures prove conclusively that if the Government are successful, as no doubt they will be, with their majority, in passing this Bill, and supposing that circumstances compel the miners to accept it—I am only supposing it, because I do not think for a moment they will, and if I know anything of their temper they are almost prepared to eat grass before they will accept this, but supposing the Government were successful in their attempt to impose this on the mining community—the result is going to be 260 extra killed each year and 500 extra seriously injured each year. In addition, 170 other people meet with accidents of a more or less minor character each year.
  1250
  I do not know whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have looked at it from this point of view, and have seen the evidence. If they have not, I think they ought to have had it before deciding to put this Eight Hours Bill into operation. They had facilities to get this evidence, and I think they will agree it is from the best possible source. I suggest that to put this into operation, in face of these figures, is to be guilty of what the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) said is sheer murder of the miners of this country. Trouble cropped up here last night by virtue of the fact that certain accusations were made against the Prime Minister for holding shares in mines. I am not going to make any accusation against the Prime Minister that he is doing this to increase his profits, or anything of that kind, but what I want to say emphatically is that the Prime Minister, the Secretary for Mines, or any Cabinet Minister with shares in mines or owning royalties ought to put himself above suspicion by refusing to have anything to do with this.
  After all, most of the colliery owners are hoping that the result of this Bill is going to increase their profits, or, if you like, to bring them profits where there are none at present, and, in spite of the fact that it might not have been the intention or the thought of the Prime Minister that an eight-hours Act would have that result as far as his shares are concerned, if it does have that result, he will benefit by it, and ought to be the last man to touch this unholy thing. The same applies to the Secretary for Mines as a royalty owner. The best. thing they can do is to put themselves above criticism by having nothing to do with this, and, in any event, every argument advanced from these benches, and the Commission's evidence, is of a kind which shows that an eight-hours Act is not necessary in order to achieve the result which hon. Members opposite deem so desirable, and, from the miners' point of view, it is sheer murder for the Government to bring it into operation.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The principle underlying this Bill has already been dealt with by some of my colleagues, very much better, probably, than I could express it, but I do want to say a word with regard to the appeal which was made

  1251
  by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price), who, I am sorry, is not now in his place. I think the burden of his remarks was that a better atmosphere could be created, and more good will engendered between employers and workmen, and that no effort at all had been made from these benches, especially among the miners' leaders, in order to try to foster that condition of things. I, myself, and at least one or two of my colleagues, can modestly claim that, during the last 15 or 20 years, we have done our share to keep the peace, and fought to obtain good will between the employers of labour and the workmen, and to improve the atmosphere with regard to conditions of employment and wages. In fact, some of us upon some occasions have been assaulted, and even mobbed in the past for trying to preserve that atmosphere of good will. But, as one of my colleagues on the Front Bench said, after the action of the Government, having regard to what has transpired during the last 18 months, especially in the coal trade, it will make it impossible for us to try to attempt to carry that out, in view of what the Government are trying to force upon the miners with regard to the extension of hours in this Bill.
  Reproaches have been levelled at us for not having attempted to bring about a settlement. I think it has been abundantly proved by my colleague from Rhondda West that it is impossible for us to do anything in face of the attitude of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition last night asked the question —and we are waiting for an answer—as to the origin of this Bill and whence it emanated, and that question will be asked of those who later on go into the Division Lobby in support of this Bill. Does it not strike the supporters of the Government as being very peculiar, and more than a coincidence, that the Government, in the last two weeks especially, have been employing themselves solely with the two outstanding questions which the employers put to the Coal Commission, namely, the extension of hours and reduction of wages. It is more than a coincidence—it is strange, to say the least of it, that we find the Government now the champions in bringing forward those two main pro-
  1252
  posals which were made by the President of the Coalowners' Association before the Commission.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) pointed out that if the Report of the Commission had been adopted by the miners, we would have avoided all the trouble we are in at the present moment, as a settlement would have been arrived at very quickly. I would remind those Members who are supporting the Government that the Prime Minister himself has made an admission that for five weeks prior to the 30th April, he was engaged in trying to persuade the owners to bring a proposal to him and to the miners' representatives, which would enable him to get a joint meeting, and the coalowners' representatives refused during the whole of those five weeks, until 15 minutes past one o'clock on Friday, 30th April, to bring a proposal down which the Prime Minister could put before the representatives of the men with any hope of a settlement being found on those lines at all. And the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pointed out during former Debates with regard to the unfortunate stoppage, that nearly the whole of the men, especially as far as South Wales and various other districts were concerned, had terminated their notices which had been issued by the employers, and finished their employment before any proposal was ever made by the employers on the lines of the Commission's Report in respect of this matter.
  I am not concerned to ladle out any of the sob-stuff with which we have been charged. I am not going to claim more credit than is right for the miners for their conduct during the War. I am not going to dwell upon that or claim that the miners should get any special consideration in this matter with regard to it. Their services in the War were recognised; but I do want hon. Members, having regard to the description that has been given of the miners' lives, not to forget that the miner is in the trenches every day. Not only during the War was he in the trenches, but, so far as his occupation is concerned, he is in the trenches every day that he is following his employment underground. I ask hon. Members to make that a consideration with men who are facing the dangers and difficulties of the mines. I am

  1253
  not concerned either, so far as this Debate is concerned, with whether this Bill is temporary or permissive. The miners are opposed to it. As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers yesterday, they were opposing the principle of the Bill. It does not matter whether it is for five days, five months, or five years—they are opposing it on principle. The miners do not think they should be called upon at all at the present time to do what is asked of them.
  There was, I remember, a great fight between employers and the miners 31 or 32 years ago. Some of my colleagues here will remember that the owners were saying then what is being said to-day about the economic facts of the situation, and that the miners were to be called upon for an extra hour in consequence. I remember a very able leader, the late Mr. Edward Cowey, telling the mine-owners here in London at this time of great trouble in the mining situation and in the coalfields that "if the money is not there the wages cannot be paid, but it must be put in the books." This position ought to have been taken in hand two, three or fours years ago. If it had been taken in hand only nine months ago, several of our collieries would have been put into condition, and would have been able to produce coal and put it on the market, and we should not be in the position in which we are in to-day in that regard.
  My concluding word is that I hope Britain is not going to be the leading nation to force, not only the miners of Great Britain—if we are going to have a fight—but the miners of other countries backward, so far as hours are concerned. I think the Government are making a mistake, a very big mistake, and a big blunder indeed. You may force the miner, though not for some time to come —for I have been at home during the last week-end, and the, week-end before, and I want to tell hon. Members that, so far as I can find out, the miners are as strong and as determined to-day as they were when we commenced the fight nine weeks ago—you may be able to force them in some instances to work these hours, but you can only do so by starving the men, the women, and the children. As a miner's agent, actively engaged with the miners in the Rhondda Valley for the
  1254
  last 30 years, I have never known a very much worse time than the last three or four years. And that is in a valley producing the best class of steam coal in the world. The men are barely able to eke out a living on the wages paid. Notwithstanding their sad conditions, I subscribe to every word of Mr. Smith, that rather than the men should work an additional hour underground, as this Bill proposes, I would rather they received less wages, because I know we should be able in the future to rectify the wages; once, however, our hours are increased, we shall have the same fight before us in order to bring us back to where we are to-day.
  Mr. CAPE: In intervening in this Debate there is just the danger of having to repeat sentences that have already been said. I want, however, to direct the attention of hon. Members to the words that fell from the Secretary for Mines yesterday when he opened the Debate. His words were something to this effect: that the Debate of the day before was unreal and lifeless, and that those on this side offered no alternative, that this was a permissive Bill. He also read extracts from a letter that he was supposed to have received from the Miners' Federation. I want to tell hon. Members, and especially the Secretary for Mines and Members on the other side, that so far as we on this side are concerned this Debate has not been unreal. A large number of us have experienced the eight hours in the mines, and also other conditions; therefore, when we speak on this question we speak from our own personal and practical experience At the present time a large number of us on these benches have sons and relatives in the mines. We are prepared to fight to the bitter end to prevent them having to go back to the times we went through when we were in the mines. Therefore, when we speak of this question we speak from reality, and in reality, and everything we say we absolutely mean.
  We have been asked time and again by hon. Members on the other side what alternatives we have to put up against the proposals put forward by the Government. As a matter of fact, I am one of those who cannot understand why we have been asked to suggest any alternative.

  1255
  We do not want to alter that which we have. We have an Act of Parliament, which gives us seven hours a day for the mines, and that is working in a constitutional manner; therefore, there is no obligation on us to offer up any alternative or suggest why there should be a change. During the last three days we have been trying to show why the present law should not be altered. Consequently, I am not prepared to offer any alternative; I want to remain under the Act as it is to-day. That is a position I am going to defend for all I am worth.
  We are told that this is a permissive Bill. I have heard a good many Members express their opinion that it is permissive. I am prepared to listen if they are talking about something of which they know, but I was amazed that a man like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who thoroughly understands the situation, should talk about this Bill as he did. Where does the permissiveness of this Bill come in? We have been told that certain words will be deleted from the original Act by this Bill, which means that the right to work an extra hour per day for a period of 60 days will now be extended during the next five years. There is no permissiveness in that, nor is there any option. If it had been permissive or optional, then the people engaged in the industry ought to have the right to ballot as to whether they accept it or not, but there has been no oppotunity of that kind given to them. I want to suggest that this Bill, instead of being permissive, is a coercive Bill, and is a weapon given to the coalowners to beat the miners to their knees.
  We have been told by a good many speakers on the other side that the Government are not to blame for the position and are not responsible for this Bill, yet when a good many of my colleagues have charged the Government with being in the hands of the colliery owners, the Government has repudiated that position Who is responsible for the Bill? The miners did not ask for it, and we are told that the owners did not ask for it and that this has been done spontaneously by the Government themselves to put the industry on its feet economically. I suggest that the first attempt made to bring the Eight Hours Bill into operation
  1256
  was made by the coalowners of this country. We have been told by hon. Members on the opposite side that if the terms of the Commission had been accepted at the outset, this dispute would not have arisen. As my hon. Friend who spoke just in front of me said, the coal owners were asked by the Government to make proposals for a national settlement on national lines. That was received on 15th April of this year and it was definitely stated that they ought to have a temporary suspension of the Seven Hours Act for at least three years.
  The Government and, if I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister sent a letter to the Miners' Federation indicating that he agreed with the proposals set out by the owners in that document. Therefore, first of all, we had an application made for the suspension of the Seven Hours Act for three years, and now the Government go even further than the coalowners and say: "No, it is not wise to suspend that for three years, but for your benefit we will suspend it for five years." The Secretary for Mines also read a portion of what he called a letter from the Miners' Federation, and, I believe, with the intention of trying to mislead the House. In that letter of the Miners' Federation, which he read, they said:
  "We are largely in agreement with the legislative and administrative proposals set forth, and are prepared to render every assistance possible to ensure their success, but see no reason why such measures should be first reviewed by the Coal Advisory Committee."
  That was a resolution passed at the conference held in London and sent in reply to the Prime Minister and to the proposals which he put to the Miners' Federation on 14th May. In those proposals there were five Bills proposed or suggested and six committees to be set up to make certain inquiries and in those proposals there was no intimation of any Bill being introduced to extend the hours from seven to eight. What we said in our resolution we are prepared to carry out to-day, but alongside those proposals came this proviso, that those Bills and those committees could only be introduced and set up on the understanding that the miners first of all suffered a 10 per cent. reduction before they resumed work. Notwithstanding that, the Miners' Federation put those

  1257
  words in the resolution that the Secretary for Mines read out in Committee yesterday. I want to put that before the House so that they may understand the reason why and in what circumstances the Federation sent that reply.
  In regard to the Seven Hours Act, one found out yesterday in the Debate that a large number of Members on the other side did not understand the ratifications of that Act. As a matter of fact, one coal-owner did express himself rather astonished when he found what happened under the Seven Hours Act from the time of the first man going down the pit on the shift till the last man comes up. What really happens is this. I will take the case of a colliery I am well acquainted with in the county I come from. The winding time there is 40 minutes, so that that colliery is open at twenty past five for the men to descend to work. The pit starts to wind coal at 6 o'clock, and the men begin to come back out of the mine at one o'clock, so that the last man may come up at twenty minutes to two and still be within the Seven Hours Act.
  These times are not settled by the miners or by the owners, but the inspector in that particular district, who is the law on this point, can settle the times of descending and ascending the mines and the men and the employers have to comply. If you take the instance I have given, you find that at this colliery which is within two miles of where I live, the men are down for perhaps something approaching eight and a half hours and still they have complied with the Seven Hours Act. If you add another hour you will still have the same conditions as regards descending and ascending, and it means for the wives of the miners absolute slavery from one week-end to another. There is a great deal of sentiment expressed in these things, and I think that hon. Members will agree that we who have experienced these things cannot help ourselves from giving expression to sentimental ideas. Let us take the miner's wife. There are plenty of pits where collieries work three shifts. I think in Durham, and in the county I come from, and in other counties the three-shift system is prevalent to a very large extent, and the miner's wife rises daily somewhere about four o'clock, and if she has members of her household working on all three shifts she is a very fortunate
  1258
  woman if she gets to bed by 11.30 at night. We have some regard for our own women, and we want to see them have a reasonable chance of enjoying some of the small pleasures of life than can be obtained by the workers.
  I do not want to deal so much with the economic side of the question, for that has been dealt with more ably than I can do it by previous speakers, but it would be interesting to know, if we have a reply from the Minister of Labour, when for the first time the Government gave any intimation of their desire for the eight hours to be inaugurated. First of all, the suggestion was that it should be for three years, and then we find now they bring in a Bill that they say, if it is to be done, it ought to be done for five years.
  The Commission's Report also says that once the hours are increased it will be a matter of far greater difficulty for the industry to retrace its steps. One could give a lot of quotations from the Commission's Report, but I want to turn to another point which has already been explained by some of my hon. Friends, but which I want to put before the House. The miner has been charged with being selfish and avaricious and generally making certain demands for certain things he ought not to have. I want it to be remembered that the miner asked for nothing but to be left as he was in regard to hours of employment, and if possible to retain the wages paid on 30th April. I want it to be thoroughly understood that the attack came from the other side and not from the miners themselves. Again, we have been told of the Government being prepared to accept the Commission's Report. The Government set up the Commission, and it was their business to accept the Report. But did they accept it, and if they did, what were the conditions on which they accepted it? The very first intimation they gave was they were prepared to accept the Report to a certain extent, although there were items in it which they did not like, but only on the understanding that both the miners and the owners accepted the Report in full. The people who set up the Commission and who ought to have been the first to give a lead to the others in their attitude to the Commission, were only prepared to do certain things on the condition that

  1259
  the other parties gave a definite promise that they would agree to everything the Commission had said.
  In regard to what has been said about the miners, I am delighted to say that in my district I have not yet found a man who has given any indication of any willingness to go back to an eight-hours day. The miners simply laugh at the idea of the Government trying to enforce this legislation. They are not looking at things so much from the economic point of view. I agree with what my colleagues have said, that there cannot be an increase of wages, because, first of all, the miner will have to face a reduction of 14·2 per cent., and in all probability another 10 per cent., making 24·2 per cent. in all, and he would have to be a pretty good miner to reimburse himself even with the additional hour. But, as I say, in the county I come from, the miners are not looking at it so much from the economic point of view as from the human point of view. The miner has as much right to have some regard for his life as we have regard for our lives. As Members of this House we complain sometimes about the lack of ventilation making us feel a little bit drowsy, or making our heads ache. We make those complaints with the object of trying to maintain our health; and the miner has as much right to try to avoid conditions which may destroy his life, or probably disable him for the rest of his life.
  According to statistics I have been able to gather, every working day—taken on a seven-hours basis—five persons lose their lives in the mines of this country and 850 are injured. One does not need to be very well advanced in mathematics to see what the eight-hours day is going to mean so far as additional loss of life and injuries are concerned. The reason why the miner's wife stands so firmly beside her husband on this issue is that she wants to safeguard the life of her husband, and wants some alleviation of the suspense and the anxiety she feels when her man is not at home. And there is something more! She thinks about her lad. When she has to send her lad of 14 years into this dreadful danger zone, it is quite natural that her feelings of mother-love should come out to protect that lad so far as it lies in her power to do so; and
  1260
  when she knows that last year 79 boys below the age of 16 were killed in the mines of this country and 15,241 injured, one can understand her bitterness against any extension of hours.
  If the Government believe this Bill is going to settle this strike they are labouring under a delusion. I believe a lot of hon. Members opposite sincerely believe that this Bill, when it becomes law, will have settled the miners' dispute. Let there be no mistake on that point. They never made a bigger mistake in their lives than in thinking that. To my mind, it is going to prolong the dispute. It is embittering it; and when it comes to trying to obtain a settlement in another way it will be found that the miner is not prepared to do anything until the eight-hours menace is removed from his path. All the facts in the Royal Commission's Report show that it would be a fatal mistake to increase the hours of labour—that it would not only be a mistake on the Government's part, but it would be a fatal error on the men's part to agree with the employers to work longer hours. Those who set up the Commission, who were responsible for its constitution, who put down the terms of reference, and who should have made themselves responsible for trying to give full effect to its Report, are the very people who first deliberately violated its recommendations.
  Like others who have spoken, I am anxious for peace. As a miners' agent I carried on a district—not a big district—for a great number of years under what was called a Conciliation Board for the settlement of disputes that arose. We tried the spirit of good will and harmony successfully for many years. After a time, however, we found that, unless we were prepared to make sacrifice after sacrifice, good will could not be maintained, and in the end we were asked to make so many sacrifices that good will could not be preserved, and then the miners were blamed for not being prepared to maintain good will and harmony in the industry. I am as anxious for peace as any other miners' Member in this House, but I am not prepared to advise the men I represent to accept this Bill. I want to be frank and candid with the House. I shall go out and use all the power I possess to prevent my men accepting, or giving any countenance to, a Measure

  1261
  of this kind, Even after the Bill becomes law we shall only get the miners to accept it and put it into operation when they have been bent and beaten to their knees. This Bill is one of the finest weapons for the colliery owners. They know perfectly well that they cannot beat us into accepting longer hours, but now the Government have said to them: "We know you could not put your eight-hours scheme into operation, because the Statutes said the miners were to work only seven hours, but this Bill says"—in so many words, for it means this— "Beat the miners down, and when the miners come to make a settlement with you, you make it imperative on them to work an eight-hours day. We have left the door open by which you can do it. This Act will be the best negotiating weapon you have got." That is the reason why the Government have brought in this Bill—to give the owners more power and a better weapon with which to thrash the miners; but I am as positive as I stand here that if the miners accept it it will have to be through sheer force of starvation. Therefore, anxious as I am to have peace in the coalfield, I am not going to accept peace with dishonour. There must be peace with honour when I sign a declaration that is to bring peace to the men I represent.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I want to-night to strike a note of appeal to the organised leaders of the miners in respect of the position in which we find ourselves, I do not think there is any man with whom I have had the honour of friendship or acquaintanceship who will accuse me at any rate or at any time, either publicly or privately, of stressing the desire of permissibility to the lengthening of hours of labour in any single work-a-day walk of life. I have very carefully read and considered, not only the speeches of the leaders of the miners, but also of those who represent the managerial interests and the capitalists' interests in the mines of this country. I have also taken the trouble to obtain the speeches and the pronouncements of the leaders of the miners and the owners of the mines in the United States of America—the soft coalgetters—also the miners' leaders in Germany and France, and I say here, carefully and deliberately, on the Floor of the House to-night, that while, forsooth, we are given to understand that there is a direct and practical sympathy being
  1262
  shown to the miners of this country by miners, aye, and it is suggested by those who own the mines in the United States and in France and Germany, I am prepared to say emphatically to-night—as a result of my reading of that which is expressed in the Press of Europe and the United States—that we are being befooled and hoodwinked in respect to practical sympathy in our great and tremendous national trouble, because that is what it is, and the whole industry of our land is being exploited.
  I am constrained to-night to make my appeal to the miners from the standpoint of the workers in other industries, who rely entirely for their opportunity of work and of getting work upon the hazardous work of the miner. It may be suggested to me to-night that I have knowledge only of the easy side of life, but I do not think it is necessary to enter into personal details as to what one's practical acquaintanceship of craftmanship and industrial participations may be. All I want to say is that I have had the privilege of knowing, and I was going to say of living among, miners, because I have been connected with the mining industry for some time in a subordinate capacity, and I know it is one of the most dangerous employments that we have in our land. Just as the miners have accepted these risks in every walk of life and as they accepted them in the great War trouble of 1914 to 1918, just as they then accepted their great responsibility, so to-night I plead with them with some distinct and it may be some qualifying appreciation of what their talents may be worth financially, I plead with them to remember those who are suffering in the engineering, steel-rolling and blast-furnace trades, the textile trades and the other great trades of this country, who will continue to suffer and starve if it be that the miners with that magnificent heroism that they have shown in regard to national and industrial life of this country are not prepared to come somewhere nearer the closing of the breach between themselves and the mineowners which is vitally essential at this time. What is the great problem? I am not prepared to say that in regard to the report of the Commission either its acceptance or application is going to solve the problem. In fact I know it is not, because the problem is much bigger

  1263
  than that. To-day the breadth of our land and the inter-communications of industry, whether managerial, capitalistic or connected with craftsmanship has compelled and is further compelling the broadening of the aspect of other industries from national to international. Coal is the first industry thus expanding and only shows one of the immensities of this problem, which is also operating in other parts of Europe and I have no doubt the time will come very soon when they will be connected also with America. The time will no doubt come when both the miners and the mineowners will have zollvereins in connection with Europe and America. Consequently the time has come when there must be give and take and live and let live for every section of industry in our land as there must be in this our great national industry.
  What is the problem? It is a fact that certain industries and trades are for good or for ill being paid at certain prices which in connection with their unit of production and their hazard of risk are greater and more remuneratively paid than those industries which carry greater hazard and which pay a toll of life and blood like the mining industry. I say that the policeman plays a very proper and useful part in life, but when I remember his remuneration and his payment for the risk he carries in his job, and compare it-with the hazard and the productive capacity of the miner, I say the comparison is against the miner. I think in this connection it is also necessary to mention many other sheltered trades, but when I mention the engineers, when I mention the man who guides the engines of a ship in the stoke-hole, when I mention the fireman who sweats and takes his hazard equal to that of the miner, when I remember his remuneration I plead with the miner to help here also.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a question of hours.
  Sir W. SUGDEN: The argument I want to make is that this Bill, with its question of permissibility, has been made necessary by the refusal of agreement of miners and employers, and this Bill is one to make legal the permissibility of eight-hours work. The argument I am endeavouring to make is that while it may have some tentative capacity of
  1264
  helping us in our difficulty at the present time, and helping us to compete in other industries, I want to affirm again that it will not cover the ground entirely, and I suggest that if by the help of trade unions and the miners we could have a round table conference and a re-adjustment of the correct payment for the units of labour and produce in every walk of life, then we should get more at the fundamentals and have decent conditions of life, in all trades as well as the miners, than at the present time we are able to do. Be that as it. may, I want to suggest most definitely and distinctly that, so long as there is a cul de sac, so long as organised labour in coal mining—even, for the first time, with the help of the international organisation in that industry—cannot function with the employers in the coal trade, as has to be done in every other industry, then, even if it be only as a temporary palliative, we are doing right in giving some support to the Bill which the Government have produced.
  Let us remember the great textile industries, with their special craftsmanship, the blast furnaces and other hard industries in which the men who work by the sweat of their brow have been brought to a standstill, the engineering and many other trades which rest on the coal industry, and which are also struggling in competition with the low-priced labour in their own trades in Europe. If nothing can be produced from the trade itself, whether by organised labour or by the owners of the pits, then we have a right to make trial with this Measure, and I, for one, support it, much as I regret lengthening hours, as I said at the beginning of my speech; for the very essence of progress in industry in this or any other country is to endeavour, by means of the magnificent research organisations in our industries, to get production at less hours and with a less toll of human fibre and blood, so that we may be able to compete economically and yet preserve our individualism of craftsmanship, so that the British Empire can lead, as it has led in the past, in every walk of industrial life. I appeal, therefore, to hon. Members on the Labour Benches either to produce their solution or to help us in regard to this trial Measure. I promise them that, if they do, there are many of us on this side of the House

  1265
  who are as keen in regard to comradeship and fraternisation with our workers as they are, and who will help all we can. Let us have the opportunity of showing that not only the miners but every section of workers in all industries shall be able to breathe God's air and strive for higher ideals, not only in the industrial life of this nation, but in the greater life of Imperialism and nationalism throughout the world.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. TINKER: We have listened to a very curious speech, which is very hard to analyse. I think the hon. Member meant to say that the miners were enjoying a rather better standard of life than other grades of workers, and that they should in the national interest accept a lower standard of living. That is just the argument that we expected. If we have the example of the miners working longer hours for lower wages, immediately our hon. Friend and others will go to other grades of workmen and say, "Here are the miners working a longer day than any of you. Look at the hard conditions under which they work; look at the low wages they get. Surely, you can accept conditions more like the miners' conditions." That is what we are afraid of in this matter. We are taking this stand against any lowering of the present conditions of the miners, believing that by doing so we shall prevent other grades of workers from being brought down also. That is the argument that has been used all the evening on the other side, and we were told earlier in the Debate that many of our arguments were following on similar lines. I agree, but in our arguments there is a ring of sincerity that cannot be detected in those used on the other side. I will tell the Committee why. We on these benches every weekend go among our people—
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: So do we—amongst the miners.
  Mr. TINKER:If you go amongst the miners—
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: On this side of the House we also visit our constituents. I have personally been into 300 miners' houses in West Salford during the last month.
  Mr. TINKER: If the hon. Member has been amongst the miners, and comes
  1266
  from the Manchester district, he will be able to bear out what I say. I have been amongst the miners every week-end and there is a solidarity among them that I have never seen before, against any attempt at reduction of wages or longer hours. On the question of longer hours, whatever else may happen, I can promise this, that you will not get the miners back in six months' time on that question.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: May I tell the hon. Member that in 300 miners' houses in which I have been during the last month—and I may say I have been feeding 100 miners' children during the last month—there was only one man against going back on an eight-hours day from bank to bank without a reduction.
  Mr. TINKER: Let the Committee take notice of what the hon. Member says—from bank to bank. I will clinch that argument, and say we are prepared to accept that position. I have here the figures relating to a large number of mines where I have been going this week-end and where they have been working eight hours from bank to bank. Here are some of the figures for the winding times. These are the figures for the time in one direction only, so they have to be repeated twice each day. The figures are, 60 minutes, 70 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, 60 minutes, 45 minutes, 60 minutes, and so on. I have the figures for 13 collieries where the average winding time is 56 minutes, and the number of men employed is over 7,000. In those cases the proposal which the hon. Member puts forward as to eight hours from bank to bank would not make the position any worse than it is at present. If he went to the miners in his constituency, he would get agreement as to that, so I hope he will take it from me that eight hours from bank to bank is no worse than they are doing now.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Will the Miners' Federation accept an eight-hour day from bank to bank?
  Mr. TINKER: I was trying to point out that the average winding time where I come from is eight hours bank to bank. The Government have no right to introduce this Measure. I have looked up the King's speech and can find no reference to it at all. It is not mentioned in the Commission's finding unless by consent of

  1267
  the men. I know the function of Parliament. It is that there should be no change in existing legislation unless by general consent of the House or by going to the country and getting a mandate for it. On this Measure there is more than a half of the electorate dead against any change. You certainly have more Members in the House of Commons than we have on this side, but the majority of the Votes belong to the Liberal and Labour parties, so I claim that you have no mandate to make any change and that the Government are doing wrong in this matter. I want to make it known that the fact that the owners are being backed up by the Government is clearly shown by what the Prime Minister has done. He stated recently that he was not going to take any dictatorship from capital or labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members can get it into their minds that he is not taking dictatorship from one party now their way of thinking is different from mine. This is clearly dictatorship from capital. There is only one section that has claimed the eight-hours day and that section is capital. Labour has not asked for it, so I think I am right in asserting that it is capital that is dictating to Parliament. If you can dispute that you are of a different way of thinking from myself.
  We only have three per cent. of the world's supply of coal, and when you are talking of working eight hours do you think you are doing right by posterity in squandering the mineral wealth of the country? It may be said we want to get trade, but the time will come sooner or later when this House of Commons will regret that it has not paid closer attention to the mineral wealth of the country. Every pound of coal that is wasted is a crime against the future, and that is why I am so keen on reorganisation. If that is done, I think a solution can he arrived at I have said times without number that I am prepared to accept, and recommend to my men acceptance of the Commission's findings in their entirety. I want to put the reorganisation schemes into operation. You cannot expect a body of men who have been deluded time after time on the reorganisation question to accept anything like a half-pledge from the Government.
  1268
  You have never had the courage to tackle it in earnest. The Prime Minister said he was prepared to put the Commission's Report into operation if both sides would agree. Now he has shifted from that position. If it was statesmanship at the outset it is statesmanship yet to put it into operation. If the Commission's findings were worth putting into operation then, they are worth putting into operation now, whether you agree to them or not. I appeal to the Government to have the courage to make full use of the opportunity they have. They have a majority which has never been equalled. They have no need to pay attention to anyone, but they are playing into the hands of the owners, and there will be no attempt to reorganise if you give them a longer working day. We have been out nearly nine weeks, and this is the time the Government propose to extend the working day. They are intensifying bitterness amongst the men. If they want to malinger there is no one who can do it better than the miners under the conditions in which they work, because you cannot have supervisors everywhere. Can you think, if the men are forced back, you will get the best out of them? Can you expect it? The miners are a most loyal body of men, but turn them the wrong way and you will make them as bitter in the other direction. I appeal to the House to take the matter in hand at once, to drop this Bill and tackle it in another way.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to say a few words with regard to one or two of the points which have been raised in a long Debate, and the reason I do so will, I hope, meet with approval from all sides of the Committee, because I understand through the usual channels that the desire is that there should be an early Division on this Clause and that we may then take the other two Clauses and finish the Committee stage. The discussion in Committee has ranged, quite naturally, over the same field as was dealt with on the Second Reading, and will be dealt with on the Third Reading. For that reason I am sure hon. Members opposite would prefer not to have a long Debate covering the many subjects that have been raised to-day, but a very few words to-night and then the same subject in effect will be debated to-morrow on the Third Reading, and I am sure care

  1269
  will be taken to deal with many of the other points which have been raised on which I do not propose to touch to-night. There were one or two points of a rather special character which have been raised to-day, and perhaps I may deal with them. One deals with the number of accidents in the mines, and the effect on the rate of accidents of a seven-hour day or an eight-hour day. The subject was mentioned, I think, by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), and it has been mentioned by one or two other hon. Members. I cannot help thinking that there is misconception on the part of those who have raised this subject. They contended that, as with the seven-hour day there were more accidents during the last hour, therefore with an eight-hour day the rate of accidents will be still further increased. I can assure them that no such inference as that can possibly be drawn from the statistics, if they are carefully examined. So far as the statistics yield any inference, the inference is rather to the contrary. [Interruption.] I am giving the facts, and if the hon. Member will verify them himself I shall be only too glad.
  As far as the facts yield any inference of that sort, it is this, that always in the last hour of work there has been somewhat of an increase in the accident rate, but that increase, if anything, has been rather greater with a seven-hour day, possibly under greater pressure, than it has been with an eight-hour day. That is the inference, if any, that can be drawn; but I would say at once that it is not wise to lay too much stress on any conclusion of that kind whatsoever. The only conclusion that can quite safely be drawn on the question of accidents is this, that year after year the accident rate has diminished and is diminishing, partly through care, partly through more appliances, partly through general overseeing, and that, little by little, as everyone is glad to see and everyone hopes it will continue, the rate of accidents is growing less.
  Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that these statistics bear out the interpretation which he has put upon them? Neither of the interpretations which the right
  1270
  hon. Gentleman has given is correct, according to the figures. I went through them very carefully before I got out the average, in order to be sure that I was, not drawing a wrong inference.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will study them again before to-morrow, and to-morrow if I have anything to withdraw or modify of any sort or kind I will do it, quite frankly, either personally to the hon. Member or before the House.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in. the steel trade the insurance companies asked for a premium which was far higher in connection with a 12-hour day than they did for an eight-hour day when we established it?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not competent to give any opinion offhand in regard to steel works.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: It is the same in all industries. There are more accidents the longer you work.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In considering these figures for to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether there is any information in the Labour Department which shows the incidence of risk in the last hour, whether it is under a seven-hour day, an eight-hour day or a nine-hour day? That is important.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making the point clear. The point on which I will endeavour to get such evidence as there may be from the Mines Department, and I will give it freely to the House, is as to the incidence of accidents during the last hour, under a seven-hour day and an eight-hour day respectively. I will endeavour to do that. As far as I can speak from memory, the facts are as I have given them, but I will make sure about them by to-morrow. There are two points on which I wish to dwell; one is the competition with other countries. I frankly admit that I should be exceedingly sorry to see a competition in lengthening of hours or reduction in wages. I say that advisedly, but I put it to the Committee that the question is precisely the same whether you are dealing with an increase of hours in the working day or with a

  1271
  reduction in the rate of wages. Precisely the same argument can be used in either case. The Report of the Commission is perfectly specific in this, that it suggests a concession, and it indicates quite clearly that it prefers that the concession should be a reduction in the rate of wages rather than an increase in the working day. I admit that at once. On the other hand, it quite clearly demands a concession, and if a comparison is made with ether countries, then the whole argument as regards competition applies alike whether it is a question of a concession in regard to wages or a question as regards hours.
  Mr. HARNEY: The Commissioners are quite clear that a reduction of wages would have quite a different effect in other countries than a lengthening of hours. They said that a lengthening of hours would at once be neutralised by a lengthening of hours in other countries.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: But precisely the same argument applies in either case. The point on which the Commission laid stress was this, that one way or another there ought to be some reduction for the moment in the matter of labour costs of production. Hon. Members are aware of the position in the coal industry, and I have no doubt it was in the minds of the Commission when they made their recommendation. I find that the cost per ton in this country, quite apart from marketing costs, the cost per ton commercially disposable, other than wages costs, amounts to about 5s. 6d., as against 7s. 9d. in the Ruhr. That means that as regards the costs per. ton, other than wages, that is management, stores and maintenance, we were working at considerably under the cost in the Ruhr. On the other hand, when it comes to the wages costs, in this country they are 13s. 6d. per ton as compared with 8s. 6d. per ton, commercially disposable, in the Ruhr. That was the reason which led the Commission to ask that there should be a concession, and it is perfectly open, as regards competition, to say that whenever a change is made in one country it may possibly lead to competition in the other. I quite agree that it is open to hon. Members to use that argument. But it is equally applicable whether it is a change in wages or a
  1272
  lengthening of hours. If it applies in the one case, it applies also in the other. The wages cost in England is 13s. 6d. Those are the figures at the end of 1924, and they have not altered very much since then. I think I have a later figure, but it is the same within a few pence.
  Mr. LEE: The latest figure is 12s. 3d.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can get the latest figure. I am informed that it was 12s. 4d. in March. The disparity is very great between wages costs in the two countries. With the figure of 12s. 4d, there is a difference between the two of very nearly 50 per cent.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is that not offset to a certain extent by the fact that the output per man employed here is higher than that in Germany?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My figure is per ton "commercially disposable." The figure takes that into account.
  Mr. BATEY: You have given the figure for the whole of the country instead of for the exporting districts. The exporting districts are less—Durham, for instance.
  Dr. SALTER: It invalidates the whole of your argument.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It does not invalidate my argument, as the hon. Member knows. If he takes the average of the wages of a hewer per shift in all the big districts of the country, he knows that the figure of the hewer per shift, when you allow for the house allowance of the married person, in Northumberland and Durham, is rather below the average, and in South Wales it is above the average. You get a difference between one district and another. To take the average cost for the country as a whole is perfectly fair. Before I sit down I will deal with one other point, and that is the question of carrying out the Report. The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) criticised us because as a Government, he said, we should not have taken up the attitude that we took up. He said that we took up the attitude of saying that we were willing to carry out the whole of the Report, provided that the other two parties in the industry did the same, and what our attitude should have been was to have said, "Whatever

  1273
  you do, we will get what agreement we can between the two parties, but we will then by law carry out the whole of the rest of the Report."
  That sounds a very easy thing to say by way of criticism. I ask hon. Members opposite to realise that a criticism of that sort, however sincerely meant, comes in actual practice to this: I take the question of the National Board. The Report suggests that there should be a National Board for the industry with a neutral element in it, and it goes on to indicate further characteristics which it thinks should belong to that National Board. What would have happened had we proceeded in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? I think it is advisable in dealings in an industry between one side and another that there should be neutral elements, but, at the same time, I should consider it very inadvisable, from the point of view of the future of the trade, that if the different sides did not agree we should impose upon them by law a constitution which possibly both of them would dislike.
  Mr. SHAW: You are, trying to impose this arrangement on the miners by law.
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I said that what the Government ought to have done was to have brought the two parties together and to have taken their advice as to the course of legislation where they agreed.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I would be the last to misrepresent him, but I understood from what he said—and I withdraw if I did not understand him aright—that he wished us to carry out all these points by law. I take another point. What ought we to have done as regards the crucial question of the reduction in the rates? I do not want to be controversial at this hour of the night, but it was quite clear that the Report advocated this as the one step that could meet the immediate situation. It was perfectly impossible for us to go on and do as many people have suggested we should have done—even if it was not the right hon. Gentleman—and impose on the parties a settlement of that kind. You cannot impose a settlement in that matter on the two parties. As was quite clear, it would not
  1274
  have been accepted by the Miners' Federation, and to try to impose a settlement by law would have been perfectly futile.
  Mr. GREENALL: Is not that exactly what you are doing now? You are forcing the miners absolutely against the Report of the Commission. You are doing what the Commission said you ought not to do, and you are doing it in the interests of the coalowners.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am led by that remark to one other point with which I had not intended to trouble the Committee. I state quite distinctly I am not acting in the interests of the coalowners or anyone else. We are introducing this Bill—at least I myself so far as. I have a share in it am doing so, simply because I believe in the circumstances it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that we are at once the slaves of the coalowners and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought that statement would produce a cheer from the other side such as I seldom get. Yet the same time, while hon. Members say this about us, one of them earlier in the day produced the fact that one of the coalowners had said: "Why do they not make it permanent. They ought to have made it permanent."[HON. MEMBERS: "So it will be!"] Clearly, we have only made it temporary. Clearly it ought to be tried for a certain time and there should be a fair opportunity of review at the end of that period. There are some other points which I am not going into now, because of an understanding with hon. Members on the opposite side, and I do not want to take up their time further to-night. Some of the other points will be dealt with to-morrow.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The right hon. Gentleman gave some figures of the wages paid to the miners in Germany and in Great Britain. Can he give us at the same time the amount of taxation that the miners in each of those countries respectively pay out of the wages which they receive?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure that I can. If the hon. Member remembers, two nights ago, in speaking to him, I said I was not quite sure that I could get the figures, and I have not yet been able to ascertain them. The

  1275
  reason is simply that when one asks for taxation figures it becomes a little more complicated, and the question arises as to whether it is rates or taxes, whether you shall put in social insurance charges, and the rest. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee further to-night, because I understand that an agreement has been reached, but, as regards the other points, I trust that, whether by myself or by some other speaker on behalf of the Government, they will be dealt with—and I have taken a note of them—when it comes to the Debate ranging over the same field to-morrow on the Third Reading.
  Mr. EVAN DAVIES: I am sure the Committee will agree with me when I say that the Minister of Labour has made a very ineffective reply to the speeches heard on this side. I do not know that I have ever heard anything more weak, and it is clear his heart is not in his work. There was one point upon which he touched, to which I wish to refer. He wanted to argue that working eight hours a day in a mine made not the slightest difference to the number of accidents that occurred, but I think everyone who understands the question will agree that the longer you work in any employment like working underground in a mine, the larger the number of accidents that will occur. I do not wish to ask the Minister to look up special statistics; common sense tells me that if we get the eight hours imposed.on the miners of this country we shall, of necessity, have a much larger number of accidents than under a seven-hours day.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman just touched upon the question of the argument put from this side that the introduction of the eight-hours day would bring about a race between Great Britain and the Continent with regard to hours of labour and wages paid. I suggest that this is the first step in that direction, and I think I can appeal to the ordinary common-sense Member of this House to agree that if eight-hours mining is introduced into this country, it is only natural that the German coal-owner, the Belgian coalowner, and the French coalowner will immediately go to the miners of those countries, suggest that unfair competition is coming from
  1276
  Great Britain, and ask for an increase of hours in those countries. It must follow as one of the inevitable consequences of the attempt made to impose eight hours on the miners in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans) pointed out that we expressed from these benches a considerable amount of sentiment. I stand as the Member of Parliament for the particular constituency which I represent, simply and solely because I believe in the quality of sentiment. If I did not believe in sentiment, I do not think I should be in this House at all. I think sentiment, after all, is the greatest virtue in the human race. If individuals or nations have no sentiment, then they are nothing more than empty carcases. Sentiment, I think, was the thing which brought the miners into the War. It was sentiment for the country which inspired them to go forward. Unless we have reasonable sentiment in the conduct of our affairs, I think our lives are very empty indeed.
  If the Government intended the Eight Hours Bill to be a sensible proposal in order to meet the economic conditions of the present situation, I think they should have gone as far as to say that they were introducing eight hours to be worked in the uneconomic pits, and allowing the seven hours to be worked in pits which are economic to-day, and are even paying a reasonable profit in very many parts of the country. The introduction of a Measure of that kind would be the sensible thing to do if they wanted to meet the economic situation. I know it is very impracticable, but I think they are neglecting the practical proposal which ought to be put forward to meet the mining situation. But if they were trying to make miners' lives fit in with the economic conditions of the industry, the only sensible proposal to put before the House, that is, if the House is to settle it, is for the eight hours to be applied to the uneconomic pits, and let the others work the seven hours. Everyone knows that is a very impracticable proposition, but it comes to the surface because the Government want to apply the eight-hours day to the collieries which are already paying their way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes"] I do not wish to go into any particular statistics. We have been given a very

  1277
  lucid explanation of the coal industry of this country, with statistics from Scotland and Wales, showing that there were losses in collieries of 3s. 6d. per ton, and there were collieries paying as much as 7s. 6d. a ton in the same district.
  All I want to say is that the inference to be drawn from these particular statistics is that if you want to apply the Eight Hours Bill without making the rich richer, you should apply the eight hours to the collieries not now Paying, and allow the seven hours to remain in the collieries already paying. I know it is an impracticable proposition, because the Government will not face the practical solution of the economic difficulty of the industry, which is, that in order to make the industry a paying proposition throughout the country, it should be unified. Hon. Members may smile, but I venture to predict here and now, that the time is not far distant, when even a proposal will come before this House, not for unification, but nationalisation as a practical proposition, and I believe that unless the Government will face the issue as it should be faced, and deal with it by unification, it is impossible, owing to the economic condition of the industry, to carry the thing through with any success.
  It has been said here that an eight-hours day will probably settle the coal mining situation in this country. If hon. Members will only go into the mining areas, and test the sentiments of the people in those areas as a result of the Government action in regard to this Bill, they would find—and I speak, I hope, quite practically, and I do not want to exaggerate the situation nor to express unnecessary alarm—but I think they will find that the result of Government intervention in this Eight Hours Bill has actually extended the dispute further into the year, without any hope of a settlement in the mining industry. If a settlement does come by the application of the eight hours, it will come by the actual starving of the people into submission, and then there would be no rest in the industry until that particular Measure has been removed altogether from the Statute Book.
  I should like hon. Members opposite to appreciate exactly what is the position. Let us take the position at the beginning. First of all the Government
  1278
  attempted to deal with the economic position in the industry by a subsidy. In the meantime they set up a Commission which made certain recommendations. There were some things to which the Commission was obstinately opposed, and they said why they were against putting forward the eight hours again. Yet the Government come along, after a nine weeks' stoppage, and ignoring the recommendations of the Commission that they themselves appointed, and after the Prime Minister stating in the country over and over again that they were prepared to accept all the proposals in toto of the Commission—at the end of so many weeks' struggle they come forward and propose to the House of Commons, not what the Commission recommended, but what they consider to be a solution of the mining difficulty. Everybody knows it is no solution. Every intelligent person knows it will only aggravate the situation, not only nationally but internationally. Everybody knows it will mean more hours being worked on the Continent. Everybody knows there will be the same position in the neutral markets as now. No solution can be found in this particular respect. But the Government come forward now, and say they do not come forward at the behest of the coalowners.
  Will the Government tell us, and tell us in plain, simple language why it is that nine weeks ago, before the struggle started—because they ought to have known where they stood nine weeks ago—why they did not come forward and say than an eight-hours day in the coalfields was a solution of the economic difficulties of the industry? If they knew this, then they were guilty of criminal conduct in coming to the industry, after nine weeks, and putting forward what would have been from their standpoint the practical application to remedy this state of affairs in the country. I want to say that I have myself come to the conclusion that the Government have allowed this struggle to go on for nine weeks because they know, naturally, that the people are getting to feel that they are going below the poverty line, and the Government hope that this legislation at the very last moment will demoralise and degenerate the working classes, and that ultimately they will drift in one after another, until the whole thing has settled itself in that particular form. I want to warn the

  1279
  Government that I do not think that that would take place for a considerable time. It is just possible that a great upheaval will take place before that particular solution will be applied effectively to the mining industry. The Government are really guilty of wilful conduct in allowing this legislation to be brought in, knowing
  well it is against the wishes of the community.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 307.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Albery, Irving James

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Ganisbro)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Apsley, Lord

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

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Astor, Viscountess

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Drewe, C.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Atkinson, C.

  Duckworth, John

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  England, Colonel A.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Berry, Sir George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Bethel, A.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lougher, L.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Finburgh, S.

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Forrest, W

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

  Fraser, caption lan

  McLean, Major A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Frece, sir Walter de

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Brass, Captain W.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Gates, Percy

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Meller, R. J.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Merriman, F. B.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mirchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Gretton, Colonel John

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Campbell, E. T.

  Harland, A.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Cassels, J. D.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Neville, R. J.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Christie, J A.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Oakley, T.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hennessy, Major.J. R. G.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Perring, Sir William George

  Cope. Major William

  Hilton, Cecil

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Philipson, Mabel

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Pielou, D. P.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Shepperson, E. W.

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

  Preston, William

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Raine, W.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Ramsden, E.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Watts, Dr. T.

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

  Sprat, Sir Alexander

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rye, F. G.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Salmon, Major I.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Withers, John James

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Womersley, W. J.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Templeton, W. P.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Sandon, Lord

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Savery, S. S.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Captain Margesson and Captain

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

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Bowyer.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  NOES.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Scurr, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Harney, E. A.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shaw, Rt. Han. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, W (Bradford, South)

  Smillie, Robert

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Briant, Frank

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J (St. Rollox)

  Clowes, S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sullivan, J.

  Cruse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Valley, Frank B.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan, C.

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

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Murnin, H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Fenby, T. D.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Owen, Major G.

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Palin, John Henry

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Gl morgan)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Saklatvala, Shapurji)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 143.

  Division No. 308.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Drewe, C.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Albery, Irving James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lumley, L. R.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Applln, Col. R. V. K.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macintyre, Ian

  Apsley, Lord

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Atkinson, C.

  Faile, Sir Bertram G.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Balniel, Lord

  Finburgh, S.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Meller, R. J.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Berry, Sir George

  Fremantle, Lt. Col. Francis E.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Bethel, A.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Gates, Percy

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

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

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

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Blundell, F. N.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Neville, R. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Braithwaite, A. N.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Grotrlan, H. Brent

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Oakley, T.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harland, A.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Brocklebank, C. E R.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

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

  Peering, Sir William George

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Pete, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pielou, D. P

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-colonel Sir Alan

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Preston, William

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Ralne, W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hliton, Cecll

  Ramsden, E.

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Cassels, J. D.

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

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

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

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Rye, F. G.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cope, Major William

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Shepperson, E. W.

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

  Locker-Lampsan, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lord, Walter Greases-

  Skelton, A. N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lougher, L.

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Smatters, Waldron

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Sprat, Sir Alexander

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Withers, John James

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

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Storry-Deans, R.

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

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Warner Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Wragg, Herbert

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Watts, Dr. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Colonel Gibbs and Major

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hennessy.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harney, E. A.

  Scurr, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hors-Belisha, Leslie

  Smillie, Robert

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Briant, Frank

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charlelon, H. C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sullivan, J.

  Clowes, S.

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, J E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Compton, Joseph

  Lowth, T.

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

  Connolly, M.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Fenby, T. D.

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Owen, Major G.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Calne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Hayes.

  COAL MINES BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, extent and duration.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I want to object emphatically against the Bill being cited as the Coal Mines Act, 1926. I believe
    1286
    that is a misnomer. There are many other citations that might have been made in connection with an Act of this kind. For instance, it might have been cited as the Coalowners' Act. It might have been cited correctly as the Increased Accidents Act. It certainly would so far as the mining population are concerned, have been correctly

    1287
    cited if it had been the Increased Mining Act, and it certainly would have been correctly cited as the Starvation of Miners Act. Any of these names would have been far more appropriate than calling it the Coal Mines Act. I believe the most appropriate name would be the Murderers Act, and the murderers sit opposite.
    Mr. BATEY: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said as to the renaming of the Act. It is altogether wrongly named. I leave the naming of the Act as it has been described, and I oppose the Clause here. It makes provision that the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland. The miners for Northern Ireland have been voting against the miners every time a vote has been taken, and voting and speaking for the miners being starved, and I think the Act ought to apply to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: This Clause not only gives the title to the Act and says it shall not extend to Northern Ireland, but lays it down that it shall continue for five years. The Minister in charge ought to be able to advise us as to why the object they think is necessary in the interests of the industry should not apply to a part of the country where there are coal mines. I should like to understand why this wonderful cure for the mining troubles is not to be applied all round. One would have imagined this patent medicine of the Tory Government would be equally extensively applied and be a cure for all evils, including those of Northern Ireland and I should imagine the Minister of Labour, who has been trying to placate members on these benches by the mildness of his statements might have gone a little further and informed us why the Bill is not going to apply to Northern Ireland, more particularly when we find hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, walking into the Division Lobby to vote in favour of miners in this country working eight hours, while the miners in the country they represent are to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. If in the opinion of hon. Members from Northern Ireland an eight hour working day is a good thing for the miners of this country, then, surely, they should have no
    1288
    objection to the Bill applying to Northern Ireland. I am not in favour of the Bill applying to Northern Ireland, to this country or to Scotland. An amendment should have been inserted, providing that the Bill should not apply to Scotland or to any other place except mines in which the advocates of an eight hour day would work themselves. If the coal mines are such wonderful health resorts as they have been represented to be in this Debate, I suggest that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should go down the mines and work eight hours.
    This Clause provides that the Bill shall continue in force for five years. Why is that provision unsuited? Because the Minister of Labour and other Government spokesmen have been endeavouring to make out that this is only a temporary Measure and that was said about the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and yet its provisions form part of our legislation every year. What guarantee have the miners or the people of this country from the Government and those behind the Government, who are compelling the Government to bring in this Bill and force it through as a mine-owners' Bill, that at the expiration of five years, this Measure will not be continued and take its place in the expiring Lands (Continuous) Bill? A Government which brings in a Bill of this kind without any mandate for the country can only be said to be carrying out a mandate for the coal-owners. If you examine the votes given in the Division last night. yon will find coalowner after coalowner.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): This Clause says that the Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland and that it is to continue in operation for five years. The hon. Member is now debating what the House has been debating for the last two days.
    Mr. MACLEAN: We have not debated the fact that the mine-owners voted in the Division last night.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Clause.
    Mr. MACLEAN: This is to extend the Bill for five years. Then profits will go up during that period; otherwise the Bill would not be passed. It is brought in in order to put the mining industry on a paying basis. That is the purpose of the

    1289
    Bill. These mineowners voted in the Lobby last night to put the mining industry on a paying basis at the expense of other people. Surely it is quite in order for me to draw attention to what happened last night in the division? The Government are acting—[Laughter.] If hon. Members below the Gangway care to laugh at a Bill that going to— [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] You are not laughing at the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, at you."] You are laughing at me! I have no abjection to you doing so inside the Chamber; that is your right; but do not laugh at me outside in the Lobby.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. Should not the remarks of the hon. Member be addressed to the Chair?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to know what is behind all this; what negotiations passed between the Government and the coalowners in order to induce the Government to arrive at five years as the period of operation of the Bill. What led the mineowners to suggest five years, and what induced the Government to accept five years as the term? What proofs were forthcoming for the adoption of that period. Surely the Committee is entitled to know something of the secret meetings which were held, whether at Downing Street or the office of some mineowner. Surely the Committee is entitled to know what propositions were put forward on behalf of the mineowners and what inducements were offered to the Government to pass this Bill? Surely the life and interests of 1,200,000 men and their dependants are of greater value to this country than a few mineowners—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again returning to the merits of the whole Bill. I want him to confine himself to the question of the five years.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Pardon me. This Bill is cited as "The Coal Mines Act, 1926." It is also supposed to be continued for five years. Surely, I am entitled to debate the conditions under which the workers in the mining industry will work during those five years?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have discussed all those points on the question that Clause I stand part of the Bill, and we cannot have a double discussion.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If it is not in order to discuss the conditions under which men will work during those five years, surely I am in order in discussing the conditions under the Title of the Act, which is also part of the Clause?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the Title of the Bill at all; it is only a descriptive Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that this Bill amends the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1919? It is not a Clause of any parts of those Acts, but an Amendment or Addendum.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has been discussed.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The marginal note says, "Short title, extent and duration" The extent of the Bill means the scope of the Bill, May I put my point?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has gone quite far enough to make me understand. The marginal note is not in the Bill; it is outside the Bill altogether.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am not discussing the marginal note. I am drawing attention to the marginal note, which describes what is in the Clause. Surely I am entitled to discuss the scope or extent of the Clause. If there is anything wrong in this Bill that enables a Member of this House to go over the same ground on the two Clauses, that is not the fault of the Opposition but of the draughtsmen. I submit that this Clause opens again discussion as to conditions of employment and the period of time during which this Bill is to operate. That is my point, and I want a ruling.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular Clause deals only with extension to Northern Ireland and the period during which it is in force.
    Mr. MACLEAN: No; it says "extent," and mentions Northern Ireland. The marginal note is:
    "Short title, extent and duration."
    "Extent" can mean anything; it may mean the whole scope, and, if the Government draftsmen have not put in the proper description of this Clause, that is their fault, and not the fault of the Opposition. Consequently, we are

    1291
    entitled to discuss what the marginal note describes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again referring to the marginal note which is not part of the Bill. The only questions before the Committee are the duration of the Bill and whether or not it should extend to Northern Ireland. That is its "extent."
    Mr. MACLEAN: That is geographical extent. With regard to the duration of the Bill, surely five years of this Measure is more than any country can stand. As far as I understand the miners, the five years will have expired before they are

    Division No. 309.]

    AYES

    [11.30 p.m.

    Aciand-Troyte, Lieut.-colonel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Aetbury, Lieut.-commander F. W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

    Crooke, J Smedley (Deritend)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Balniel, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hilton, Cecil

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

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

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Holt, Captain H. P.

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Bethel, A.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hopkins. J. W. W.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Drewe, C.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Eiveden, Viscount

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    England, Colonel A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & p'bl's)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Flnburgh, S.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Loder, J. de V.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Fremantle, LI.-Col. Francis E.

    Lord, Walter Grooves-

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Laugher, L.

    Burman, J. B.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Gates, Percy

    Lumley, L. R.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

    Campbell, E. T.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Cassels, J. D.

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E

    Manninaham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meller, R. J.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harland, A.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cobb, Sir Cyrll

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    prepared to work it and it will be necessary to ask for an extension. The miners do not want the Bill. Why should the Government bring it in, even for one year. The mine-owners and the Government want the Bill. Let them go into the mines jointly. They will not be missed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 132

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Fllnt)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Ropner, Major L.

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Rye, F. G.

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

    Monsell, Eyree, Cory Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Moore, Lleut Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Morden, Cal. W. Grant

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Neville, R. J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl, (Renfrew, W)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nicholson, Cal. Rt. H n.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Oakley, T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Peering, Sir William George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Sprat, Sir Alexander

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Pielou, D. P.

    Stanley, Cal. Hon. G. F. (Will'sder,, E.)

    Withers, John James

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Preston, William

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Womersley, W. J.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

    Raine, W.

    Streatfelid, Captain S. R

    Worthington-Evans, Rt, Hon. Sir L.

    Ramsden, E.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Wragg, Herbert

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Major Cope and Lord Stanley.

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

    Sykes, M ajor.Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    NOES

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Purcell, A. A.

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

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

    Richardson, R. (Hooghton-le-Spring)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Riley, Ben

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Billiton)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ritson, J.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Scurr, John

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Brlant, Frank

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Broad, F. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Short, Alfred (Wedneshury)

    Bromfield, William

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bromley, J.

    Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Buchanan, G

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Spencer, George A. (Brextowe)

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Cluse, W. S

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, J.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Crawford, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Taylor, R. A.

    Dalton, Hugh

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

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

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thurtle, E.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Donnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Townend, A, E.

    Fenny, T. D.

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

    Varley, Frank B

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Webb, At. Hon. Sidney

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Greenail, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    1294

    1295

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Windsor, Walter

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hayes.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 132.

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Withers, John James

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Womersley, W. J

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W H.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Wragg, Herbert

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Watts, Dr. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wheler. Major Sir Granvilla C. H.

    Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Frederick Thomson.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    NOES.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smillie, Robert

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St, Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Lawson, John James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lunn, William

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

    Compton, Joseph

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

    Thurtle, E.

    Connolly, M.

    Mackinder, W

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawford, H. E.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Montague, Frederick

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Murnln, H.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Naylor, T. E

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Donnico, H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Owen, Major G.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Palin, John Henry

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Ponsonby, Arthur.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Potts, John S

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring).

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Scurr, John

    Hayes.

    Hardie, George D.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
    Captain GARRO-JONES: The question you, Sir, have proposed is that the Bill be reported without Amendment to the House. I desire to oppose that Motion and on this ground. For eight months there has been a growing practice on the part of the Government of refusing to accept any and every Amendment which
    1298
    has been moved on any Bill en the ground—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with this Question.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am well aware that it is not the practice to debate this Motion. But I submit to you that this Motion is debateable if relevant reasons can be shown why the Bill should

    1299
    not be reported without Amendment to the House, and I am offering you a perfectly valid reason for not reporting the Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already decided that there shall be no Amendments to the Bill, so there is no question of whether the Bill should be amended or not. The question is that I shall report to the House what the Committee has done.
    Captain BENN: This is a Motion dealing with procedure. I submit there is not a Member in this House who can remember—

    Division No. 311.]

    AYES.

    [11.55 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hills, Major John Walter

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

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Hume, Sir G, H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Drewe, C.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Beamlsh, Captain T. P. H.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kennedy, A. R, (Preston).

    Bethel, A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

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

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

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Blundell, F. N.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Loder, J. de V.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Laugher, L.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Finburgh, S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Maclntyre, lan

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    McLean, Major A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis L.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Galbraith, J. F W.

    Makins, Brigadler-General E.

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gates, Percy

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Burman, J. B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Hanbury, C.

    Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harland, A.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Christie, J. A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Neville, R. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Clayton, G. C.

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

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Haslam, Henry C.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Oakley, T.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Cope, Major William

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has nothing whatever to do with the question of my reporting the Bill to the House.
    Captain BENN: With very great respect I would submit that I should be allowed to complete the sentence. The sentence is this: that I do not think any Member can remember any Bill of first-rate importance on which a Minister, with a Clause of moment such as Clause 2 is, has treated the House with marked contempt.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 89.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

    Pielou, D. P.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Preston, William

    Smithers, Waldron

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Radford, E. A.

    Sprat, Sir Alexander

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Raine, W.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stott, Lieut.-colonel W. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ropner, Major L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Withers, John James

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Templeton, W. P.

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Savery, S. S.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Colonel Gibbs and Sir Harry

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Barnston.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    NOES.

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton. J. E.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Clowes, S.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lansbury, George

    Thurtle, E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, F. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Duncan. C.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Hayes.

    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS [22ND JUNE].
  Resolution reported.

  MONEYLENDERS (EXCISE).
  "That, on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by a moneylender an excise duty of fifteen pounds, or, if the licence be taken out not more than six months before the expiration thereof, of ten pounds."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Council in the said Resolution."
  Captain BENN: I assume this question, being in the form of a Money Resolution, is exempted business. If it is, I shall formally content myself with objection. If a simple objection is not sufficient to prevent it being taken, I should like to examine the amazing procedure by which the Chief Whip sees fit to arrange business in the House in reference to the Resolution he has just moved. We had a discussion at a quarter to four

  1303
  as to what business was to be taken. Not a word was said about this Resolution. The Chief Whip, with his amazing knowledge of procedure, will say it was not necessary to draw attention to the fact that it was to be taken because it was possible to slip it through under the Standing Orders without giving notice that he intended to take it, but I think hon. Members who are interested in it are taken by surprise. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway on this side know their duty. It has been defined in the classic words, "make a house, keep a house and cheer the Government." They are not concerned with the business that is done. But other Members, who consider it part of their duty to put to the test of reasoned criticism the Measures proposed by the Government, are taken by surprise and have a just cause of complaint against the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. It is not treating the House fairly to bring in, without any notice, after questions have been asked as to the business to be taken, this business, even though it may be exempted under the Standing Orders at this hour of the night. Of course, hon. Members on the Government side naturally are satisfied to let business be done in this way. It is idle for a single Member to raise his voice except as a protest, but I think there is such a thing as the rights of private Members, and the Member who raises his voice on behalf of private Members' rights is doing a service to the House as a whole, whatever arrangements may be come to by those in charge of the business. I am told there was no arrangement come to. It is the practice of Ministers now not to answer. We have had instances of Ministers sitting mum and treating the House with implied insult. It is possible that when I have said what I have to say, no reply will be vouchsafed. [HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Those cheers are merely a sign of self-degradation. I seriously suggest that, apart from the merits of this motion, which excites a great deal of public interest, the House is entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury for some explanation of his conduct in attempting to slip this through in the middle of the night without warning hon. Members on this side.
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I think there is some misunderstanding on the part of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in relation to business. If I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, said he did not intend to keep the House late, and it was understood his only reason for moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule was to get certain stages of the Bill which has now been disposed of. While it is true this is exempted business, it is understood that nothing further was to be taken.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The question addressed to the Prime Minister was what business we were going to take by virtue of the exemption of the Eleven o'clock Rule. I am most particular never to take business without agreeing with the Official Whips of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not pretend to please the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) and should not like to do so. These Reports of Money Resolutions do not require the Eleven o'clock Rule to be suspended. They are exempt altogether, and go through as a rule. On the Committee stage of this Resolution not a word was said. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that this is a perfectly normal way of proceeding, and I am not trying to take advantage of the House.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that after Eleven o'clock at night, even without the suspension of the Rule having been moved, the Government could still have taken this Motion, but the point is that it is being put forward without having been notified. When a question is asked about business, it is customary to state the business that is to be taken. That has not been done today, consequently the House is taken by surprise. It is true they could have got it any time, but it is customary to do the courteous thing and inform the Opposition what they intend to take.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the Chief Whip to put this off till to-morrow. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that our Chief Whip had no knowledge that this was going through, nor had his assistant, who

  1305
  ten minutes ago walked out and said there would be no more business to-night. Under the circumstances, and this being a non-contentious measure, I think it might be held off.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I have been an observer of the proceedings of the House for a much longer time than I have been a Member, but I have never seen a Bill with so many privileged Clauses marked in it as there are marked in this Bill. There has been of late a growing tendency on the part of the Government to introduce these Bills in another place with headings on them in these words,
  "The words included in brackets and underlined were omitted by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. and gallant Gentleman understands that we are not discussing the Bill now.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Nor am I discussing any Clause of the Bill.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not only not discussing the Bill, but he has not even got the right Bill in his hand. The Bill to which the Money Resolution is to apply is a Bill that was introduced in this House.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: That state-merit by the Solicitor-General illustrates far more strongly than any words of mine the extreme inadvisability of bringing forward a Financial Resolution of this kind, without notice. There are two Money Lenders Bills. Hon. Members have no opportunity of discovering to which of the two Bills this Resolution refers. It is impossible to tell from the Order Paper.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is the Report stage. The Resolution has already passed through Committee.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: My remarks apply equally to that [Laughter.] It may be amusing to hon. Members. It is amusing to me to see how they remain dumb for six months in the year. As they are bound to do something, they laugh. The Order Paper notice says:
  "Ways and Means [22nd June]—Report."
  1306
  These words offer no indication to which Moneylenders Bill they refer. If arrangements are made between the two sides it is essential that there should be mutual consideration. I have seen very little consideration shown by the Government in the earlier Debate this evening. I had several questions to put to the Minister of Labour, and other hon. Members desired to ask questions, but in a most unprecedented way he rose and moved the Closure. When hon. Members have an important question to raise, if it does not concern the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury does not attempt to keep a House. I have seen his supporters beckoning hon. Members to leave the House in order that a House should not be kept. I give notice, most respectfully, that if on any future occasion any hon. Member has a grievance to raise affecting his constituents and he is not given any support —[Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER rose to put the Question—
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, might I make an appeal? We have had a fair explanation from the Chief Whip, who always endeavours to be courteous to hon. Members, irrespective of party. We have had a clever Sunday school debating point raised by the Solicitor-General, but we have not had an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always courteous. As we have had no courtesy shown to us during the preceding Debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will show courtesy now and explain exactly what this Money Resolution means.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid the hon. Member will be disappointed in receiving no explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will try to give him the best explanation of which I am capable. The Resolution, when it was before the Committee a week ago, was disposed of in three minutes. It is necessary in order to enable the Committee upstairs to get on with the Bill at the earliest possible moment. The Moneylenders Bill, which was introduced a fortnight ago, contains a Clause under which moneylenders in future will have to take out an Excise License of £15a year, and

  1307
  that is the whole of the Money Resolution which the House is asked to pass on Report.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [28th June],
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of
  1308
  Clitheroe, which was presented on the 2nd June and published, he approved."
  Question again proposed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty - four Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  CHILD ASSAULT CASES.
  CHILD ASSAULT CASES.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  POST OFFICE STAFF (RECRUITMENT).
  POST OFFICE STAFF (RECRUITMENT).
  KINGSBRIDGE POOR LAW INFIRMARY.
  KINGSBRIDGE POOR LAW INFIRMARY.
  PROSECUTION, MANCHESTER.
  PROSECUTION, MANCHESTER.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RENTAID ALLOWANCE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RENTAID ALLOWANCE).
  WHITCHURCH (CARDIFF) POLICE COURT.
  WHITCHURCH (CARDIFF) POLICE COURT.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  BRITISH MINISTER, ADDIS ABABA.
  BRITISH MINISTER, ADDIS ABABA.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (DRAFT SLAVERY CONVENTION).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (DRAFT SLAVERY CONVENTION).
  CHINESE RAILWAY BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
  CHINESE RAILWAY BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
  GERMAN MUNITION FACTORIES.
  GERMAN MUNITION FACTORIES.
  RUSSIA (COAL EXPORTS).
  RUSSIA (COAL EXPORTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT D'ABERNON.
The Right Hon. Edgar Baron D'Abernon, G.C.M.G., having been created Viscount D'Abernon of Esher and of Stoke D'Abernon in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name in regard to this Bill, for which there are public reasons in justification.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th of June next," be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EAEL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I wish to ask a question about this Bill. It is a measure which contains provisions for dealing with Waterloo Bridge. Since the Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons the general position has changed. The Government has announced its intention of holding an inquiry into the general question of London bridges, which will clearly affect Waterloo Bridge among others. I should like to ask my noble friend Viscount Falmouth if he can make a statement on the position. I would ask that the County Council may pay heed to the Report of the Commission and that, unless any vital or urgent structural necessity should arise, the bridge shall not be destroyed until the Commission has had an opportunity of making a Report upon the subject.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will answer the noble Earl by reading the resolution which was passed by the London County Council when it became known that His Majesty's Government had decided to set up a Royal Commission on the Thames Bridges. The resolution is as follows:—
"That on the understanding (1) that the proposed Royal Commission on Thames Bridges will issue their Report within a reasonable period, and (2) that the Council retains full liberty in the event of an emergency to deal with the bridge as it thinks fit, action for the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge be deferred, but that in order to provide for an emergency such as is indicated in (2) the holding of the competition agreed to on 27th-28th April, 1920, be proceeded with."
I hope that the noble Earl will offer no opposition to this clause of the Bill, for if it is decided that the bridge must be reconstructed, or if the bridge should show dangerous signs of failure, it is most essential that the Council should be able to proceed at once. If no money powers are obtained in this year's Bill no action can be taken until next year's Bill is passed, and thus twelve months may be lost when no time can be spared. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will accept this statement. The County Council are willing to let the bridge stand as it is for the time being, while holding their competition, and nothing could possibly be done until towards the end of the year.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW EDUCATION AUTHORITY (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 2a accordingly.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill may be taken now through its remaining stages.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with to allow the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill to be taken, and to allow those stages of that Bill to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No, XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

IRAQ, ARABIA AND EGYPT.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I desire to ask if His Majesty's Government have considered the desirability of having the affairs of Iraq, Arabia and Egypt dealt with by one special Department. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, perhaps I can best make clear the intention of the Question that stands in my name on the Paper if I conduct a small geographical and literary excursion through Arabia. I have included in the scope of my Question the Kingdom of Iraq, which, though not geographically a part of Arabia, is immediately concerned with the object of the Question. As your Lordships are aware, we are the Mandatory Power in Iraq. By the Treaty of 1922, when we have secured

679
the admission of Iraq to the League of Nations our responsibility will be concluded. It is hoped that, now that the Mosul question has been so skilfully and happily adjusted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, our responsibility there may very soon be concluded. We have in Iraq a considerable, though I believe a diminishing, staff of officials to help in the general administration. We have also a military force, and notably the Air Force, to protect the country whilst Iraq is developing her own defensive resources. Iraq is, however, an independent country under a constitutional Monarch. Her frontiers border on Syria, Turkey, Kurdistan and Persia, but I believe that until now Persia has refused to recognise Iraq as a separate entity.
The questions that chiefly arise for determination by our High Commissioner on the spot naturally concern the Foreign Office rather than the Colonial Office, although the Colonial Office administer the Mandate. I believe I am right in saying that the High Commissioner corresponds both with the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office. With whom he corresponds about our troops I really do not know. Iraq stretches to the head of the Persian Gulf, where there is situated the small semi-independent State of Koweit. This State, along with the "Trucial" Chiefs on the Pirate Coast and the State of Oman, extending southwards along the western shore of the Persian Gulf, is in treaty with us, and the States are in some cases subsidised. The Bahrein Islands, which lie in the Persian Gulf, are under our protection, and all these places have Residents or are controlled by our Resident at Bushire, who is appointed by the Indian Government, as are also all the several agencies which are under his jurisdiction. I understand, although I may not be correctly informed, that these several agencies on certain matters do now correspond with the Colonial Office.
Rounding the south-east corner of Arabia, and extending our journey along the south-west and southern coast of Arabia, we come across the tribes of the Hadramaut, who, with the tribes in the Aden hinterland, have their affairs dealt with by our Resident at Aden. Last week my noble friend the Earl of Clarendon told us how the Resident at
680
Aden is responsible for its administration, both civil and military, to the Government of India—he is appointed by the Government of India—but that the Colonial Office is referred to with regard to political matters and all questions relating to our connection with the various tribes; but he did not mention that the personnel of the administration of Aden, other than the Resident, is appointed by the Bombay Political Service Department.
Turning the corner into the Red Sea we arrive at Hodeida, which is at present in the occupation of the Imam of Sanaa. We occupied this port until 1921, and then handed it over to the Idrisi. He was turned out by the present occupant, the Imam of Sanaa. I believe that we have no representative there, although the Italians are concerned in obtaining concessions and have a large trade in arms and ammunition. Going further north we come to the neighbouring tribe of the Idrisi of Asir and then, further north, we come to Jeddah in the Red Sea. The Port of Jeddah is now the port of the Hejaz, and I would call your Lordships' attention to the rather notable fact that from Jeddah down to Aden is, roughly, a distance of 200 miles and yet within that comparatively small stretch of territory you have connected with, or interested in, the administration not only the Government of India but the Government of Bombay and the Colonial Office, who deal with our relations with the tribes, and also particularly with the Imam of Sanaa, and the Idrisi of Asir, while the Foreign Office deals with the Hejaz. I think you will consider that that is a good number of authorities to deal with a comparatively small stretch of country. Pursuing our journey northward to the head of the Red Sea, we come to the Isthmus of Suez and there you have on the one hand the mandated territory of Palestine, which is dealt with by the Colonial Office, and to the left, with no natural frontier, Egypt, which is under the care of the Foreign Office. Going the length of Palestine we come to Syria, where you have the Foreign Office, which has its representatives, called consuls, at Beyrut and Damascus.
That completes my tour and I hope I have convinced your Lordships that we have a considerable number of different authorities dealing with this Arabian Peninsula. It is almost inconceivable

681
that such a cumbersome, illogical system should not lead to inconvenience and, possibly, inefficiency. Time and labour must be wasted in inter-departmental correspondence. It follows, too, that officials belonging as they do to separate Departments, are not in direct touch with their colleagues and cannot be readily transferred from one Arab territory controlled by one Department to another controlled by a different Department; also officials are inevitably sent to represent His Majesty's Government in countries of which they have little, or no knowledge, with the result that, however able and willing they may be, their imperfect acquaintance with the language and conditions places them at a serious disadvantage.
In this case there is no reason for this diversity of administration. Perhaps in no part of the world is there such a compact, uniform stretch of country as is formed by the oblong Arabian Peninsula. Geographically it is a complete entity, and the 5,000,000 of people who are resident there are people of one race, one creed, and one language. They have their own differences and wars, but there is great basic uniformity of feeling permeating the whole of the Peninsula. Manifestations of this occurred when the declaration of a national home for the Jews was made. Immediately, although of course Palestine was the country affected, there were angry protests received from the far south Yemen. Again, last year, when Lord Balfour had a successful journey to Palestine, he no sooner crossed the border into French Syria than unpleasant incidents occurred, showing that the feeling, although perhaps originating in Palestine, had its outlet in another country.
Of course I cannot prove that the present situation in the Aden Protectorate is due to the medley of administration. Last week, when I raised the Question, Lord Clarendon said that I seemed to think that the Colonial Office was doing nothing. I cannot conceive that in the days when Bombay had control of Aden and the hinterland it would have been possible for the Imam of Sanaa to go into that country in 1921, sit down at D'thala, a place within sixty miles of Aden, and remain (here up to the present day, while the proper ruler was a refugee in our midst at Aden. I
682
cannot conceive a more ignominious position for our Empire than to suffer such a disagreeable situation. We failed thereby to make good our responsibilities to those tribes to whom we promised our favour and protection.
I cannot prove it, but I can only imagine that this position is to be ascribed to the fact that there are so many authorities dealing with this particular area of country. Without doubt, the present system is a source of perplexity both to King Feisal of Iraq and more particularly to Ibn Saud, the ruler of the Hejaz. This ruler has to deal with three separate Departments of the Government. As ruler of the Hejaz he communicates with the Foreign Office through our consul at Jeddah; as Sultan of Nejd, whose frontiers march with those of Transjordania and Iraq, he deals with the two High Commissioners, who are subordinates of the Colonial Office; while all matters affecting his eastern seaboard and its commerce in the Persian Gulf he refers to our Resident at Bushire; that is to say, to the Government of India.
Surely there should be a single Department to co-ordinate and centralise our relations with Arabic-speaking countries in the Near East. This should be staffed by officers whose knowledge of the Arab should be generally comprehensive. It should be their duty to collect information from all the countries affected, and to give each part its proper value in relation to the whole. Thus they would be in a position to inform and advise a central Department with greater efficacy than can be the case at present. Eventually they would help in the selection of officers for Arab countries and in the formation of a qualified Civil Service for those countries.
It may be said, if you are creating a separate Department, to which office is it to be allotted? We know the impetuous enthusiasm of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. When these Mandates for Palestine and Iraq were drawn up he was Secretary of State for the Colonies and he managed to get them put under the control of the Colonial Office. That was a most unfortunate blunder. Naturally enough, the people of those mandated territories resented being put under the Colonial Office, which, of course, implied direct submission to this country. No doubt the resentment

683
has been considerably allayed since that time, but nevertheless resentment is still entertained because they are under the supervision of the Colonial Office. With regard to the exercise of the responsibility in other parts of Arabia, Aden is the sole place which, under any pretence, could be properly allotted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office. It has certain elements that, partake of the nature of a colony, being akin to Malta or Gibraltar, and, though a small place, is of importance as a garrison on which our maritime supremacy is to a certain extent based. But in the whole vast peninsula of Arabia that is the only place which could be dealt with by the Colonial Department.
In saying this I do not wish for a moment to reflect individually or collectively either on the Colonial Office here or their subordinates in Arabia. My only regret is that they are so dis-advantageously placed to carry out their duties. And, on the whole, for what they have been able to do nobody can criticise them adversely. But it is impossible to say that it is right to place your responsible agents under such a haphazard system. The Foreign Office is probably the Department of State best qualified to have this sub-department placed under its control. In this connection I should mention that I altered the form of my Question two days ago because it seemed imperative that I should include Egypt within its scope. I had originally intended to direct your Lordships' attention to Arabia as being a compact territory, whose affairs, however, are dealt with by very heterogeneous authorities. But all the arguments that tend to support the claim to have a separate Department dealing with Arabia are really also applicable to Egypt.
It must be remembered that Egypt, the Isthmus of Suez and Palestine form the great international thoroughfare between the vast continents of Asia and Africa. From time immemorial there have been vast movements of people, friendly and unfriendly, either in the one direction or the other. You cannot really lay down a strict geographical frontier division between Egypt and Palestine. Again, creed and language are practically the same in Egypt and Arabia. It may be urged that the Foreign Office was not very successful some years ago in its
684
administration of Somaliland, but there is no analogy between Somaliland and these territories. One is quite rightly put under the Colonial Office, but, as regards the areas which I am describing, the questions are nearly all connected with foreign nations. Egypt is an independent country and yet we have military forces stationed there. The same may be said of Iraq and of Palestine. In Egypt you have a kind of international atmosphere, and all European races are represented there. In Palestine, and especially Jerusalem, nearly all the Christian creeds in the world are represented, with their bitter rivalry, and you have the same problem to deal with in both, cases.
I do not think that any one will gainsay that the Foreign Office have been very fairly successful in their conduct of the affairs of Egypt and the Sudan, and I see no reason why they should not be equally capable of overlooking and supervising the affairs of Iraq and Palestine. It should be remembered that a great portion of Arabia is already in direct connection with the Foreign Office, that is, the country of the Hejaz. It might be necessary for our representative at Bushire to have supervision over the Western littoral of the Persian Gulf, but that would not prevent your having a cadre of officials who would know Arabia, and who would be interchangeable, thereby tending to economy of administration.
I do not pretend that the problem is very easy. There must be some difficulties connected with it, otherwise, even with our methods of muddling through, we should have found a solution of this vexed problem before now. But I have not come into touch with anybody, who has had any experience, official, non-official or commercial, of Arabia and those other countries who is not fully alive to the importance of having one single Department to deal with these Near Eastern questions. Only this morning I met a gentleman, than whom perhaps nobody has a more intimate acquaintance, certainly with North-Eastern Arabia, and he told me that some years ago he sent in a memorandum to the Government dealing with this subject. He told me amongst other things that the author of the Athanasian Creed would himself be perplexed if he were asked to give a

685
succinct and distinct account of the varied forms of our administration in Arabia. I know the question has been considered before now, but I hope that it will receive the prompt attention of His Majesty's Government so that a form of administration may be set up suitable to a country which is almost entirely homogeneous instead of the present mixed up and heterogeneous system.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF CLARENDON): My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend into the historical and geographical survey which he has given your Lordships this afternoon except in so far as to call his attention to some observations which I made last week in reply to a Question which he addressed to me regarding the Imam of Sanaa. I would remind him that I told him on that occasion that Sir Gilbert Clayton, a very distinguished officer, had been negotiating with the Imam of Sanaa on many points on which the noble Lord has touched this afternoon, that Sir Gilbert Clayton had returned to this country and had presented a Report to the Colonial Office which is at present under consideration and on which, obviously, I cannot make any comments at the moment.
Turning to the subject matter of my noble friend's Question, I am bound to admit that we were somewhat puzzled at the Colonial Office as to what actually the noble Lord was seeking information upon. I would say, in reply to my noble friend's Question, that I propose to answer it in two parts, dealing in the first part with the subject; of Iraq and Arabia and in the second with Egypt. I am not quite clear in my mind as to what it is the noble Lord suggests in his Question. If he suggests that all these matters connected with Iraq and Arabia should be conducted by a special Department over which a special Minister should preside, together with a special staff, I think it is perfectly obvious that that is impossible to contemplate at the present moment in view of the necessity for practising rigid economy. If, on the other hand, my noble friend desires to suggest that these affairs should be dealt with by a special Department I would remind him that that is already being done. The Middle East Department of the Colonial Office was set up in the year
686
1921 and has conducted all the affairs connected with Arabia and Iraq since that date.
With reference to the subject of Egypt, this was only added to my noble frierd's Question, I think, twenty-four hours ago. I have been in touch with the Foreign Office regarding the matter and I am afraid the noble Lord has hardly given me enough Lime to give the consideration to his Question which it deserves; but I am authorised to say in so far as Egypt is concerned that it is not considered desirable to change the practice under which the Foreign Office has conducted all matters and affairs connected with Egypt.

MOTOR VEHTCLKS COMPULSORY INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for the rather frequent postponements of this measure, but I can assure you that I am not personally responsible for more than one of them. Most of the others were made in response to requests from the other side of the House. This is a Bill similar to the one that I introduced last year, and I propose this year to carry it to a Division in order to ascertain the feeling of your Lordships upon the principle of compulsory insurance for motor vehicles—subject, of course, to anything that the noble Viscount opposite may say. The reason for the measure is that which I gave your Lordships last year when I took it to a First Reading only. It is that there are a great many motor vehicles uninsured driven by persons who are not solvent when it comes to a question of paying damages and which inflict damage in regard to which those damaged have no recovery. Last year that statement was challenged in the debate by, among others, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. Curiously enough very soon after the debate I received a letter, which I think might interest your Lordships, from a solicitor practising in Derby.
He said that this was his experience as a country solicitor as to actions which did not succeed owing to the non-solvency of the driver of the car and the non-insurance of the car itself. His first

687
instance is that of a motor driver who is a small shopkeeper, in which £700 damages were awarded and the man went bankrupt. His second instance is that of a motor cyclist, the son of a wealthy farmer, who refused to have anything to do with the matter and allowed the son to be made bankrupt. The third case is that of a taxi-driver who ran down and killed a foot passenger who left a dependent wife. No action was taken in view of the driver's impecuniosity. Then he instances the case of an undischarged bankrupt, who goes joy-riding in his father-in-law's car. And he also refers to a junior clerk who borrowed a Ford car from a friend and ran down a working man, who was unable to work for six months and who has no hope of obtaining damages. The solicitor gives case after case and sums them up by saying: "This makes thirteen cases in one ordinary country solicitor's office in six months." I think that if one ordinary country solicitor has thirteen cases in six months in which people have been injured and have not recovered damages, it does look as if there was come reason and some necessity for this Bill if the public are to be protected.
Since I introduced it there has been a good deal of comment in the public Press upon it, and I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the notices I have seen have been almost uniformly in favour of some principle of this kind. I doubt if there are five per cent, on the other side. In addition to that resolutions have been passed by special bodies, including chambers of commerce. I received one only the other day from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, who unanimously adopted a resolution that no licence should be issued except on the production of an unlimited third-party risk insurance policy. So that the Bill has not been without support from the public. There was a well-informed article, written some time ago, in the Post magazine in which this matter was dealt with by a writer who is far better informed on insurance matters than I could claim to be and who pointed out some facts to which I would like to call your Lordships' attention. For instance, that in Denmark compulsory insurance is now in existence; that in Switzerland there is a project for the same thing; and that in Belgium the
688
I principle has been adopted, but there is no Act. I confess that I do not know what that means, but possibly the noble Viscount Lord Peel does. In Massachusetts, also, there is a compulsory insurance Bill.
The same writer, dealing with later illustrations points out that two days after the Bill of last year was before us damages of £12,000 were awarded for the death of a third party. It does appear that damages are sometimes awarded of a considerable sum. In this Bill I have put a compulsory minimum of £5,000. It may be that some of your Lordships who have not carefully examined your own insurance policies may think that is a large sum, but I believe I am right in saying that practically every motor insurance policy now gives unlimited third-party insurance; therefore, £5,000 is less than the ordinary policy gives now.
There is another question and that is the question which was raised last year as to whether the insurance should be of the vehicle or of the driver. Probably no one knows better than the noble Viscount opposite, if he has discussed this with the Ministry of Transport, how difficult these questions are. Those who write about this matter in the Press think it is very easy, but anyone who attempts to frame a measure to apply to it discovers at once that there are very considerable difficulties. One of the difficulties is whether you should insure the vehicle or the driver. I adopted what may be called, in popular language, the vehicle, because that is rather the form of the present policy. Actually, what the present policy does is to insure the driver, Mr. A., while he is driving vehicle B. That is actually what it does—it insures both the person and the vehicle he is driving. Very often it goes further than that and insures that particular person, Mr. A., while he is driving any vehicle. Therefore this form of insurance is one that is already known. I think your Lordships would find that there is not, as a rule, a case where a man would be insured himself irrespective of the vehicle he was driving, although, if he is insured in respect of a particular vehicle, the insurance sometimes is extended to another vehicle. That is a very difficult question, but it seems to me that probably it will be found that the vehicle

689
is the best way to deal with it, because the vehicle is what is licensed and the vehicle us what does the damage. If any of your Lordships like, at any subsequent stage, to add a clause such as was suggested last year, that the use of the vehicle, to whomsoever it belongs, should be forfeit until the damages are paid, I confess I should have no objection to that.
There is also a question of the duration of the policy. There is one difference which I ought to mention between the Bill this year and the Bill of last year. Last year I provided that the policy should be a policy taken from the insurance office, that the licence should expire when the policy expired, and that it should be marked on the licence what the date was. There are obvious difficulties in that. Your Lordships know that licences are issued for periods expiring on quarter days. You cannot have them expiring on odd days. This year, therefore, I have left it that the policy should be co-terminous with the licence. I am glad to say that the writer from whom I have quoted before does not think there will be any difficulty about that. He thinks that the insurance companies will at once fall in with what is required, as, after all, they always do. You tell your insurance company what the duration of the cover is that you want; you settle it with them; and there will be no difficulty in saying to them: "I shall take a licence from such a day to such a day and my third-party cover must agree exactly with those days." I do not think that will present any difficulty.
What I should have proposed to do myself would have been, if your Lordships thought fit, to agree to the principle and to give a Second Reading to this Bill—because I do not suggest that it carries more than the principle—and that the Bill should then be referred to a Select Committee to consider the details. The details are very difficult. But that, of course, is subject to anything that the noble Viscount may have to say. I do not suggest that the details can be settled offhand, or that there has not been a good deal of controversy. Nor do I suggest that this Bill is necessarily the best way of settling the difficulties, though I am a little emboldened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has put down a Motion for the rejection of this Bill. Although, I am sorry to say, the omens
690
of the last Motion he put down for rejection are not entirely favourable to me, I notice that, as a general rule, if he puts down a Motion for rejection, it does not have a disastrous effect upon the fate of the Bill. Therefore I am not altogether discouraged by the fact that he has put down a Motion for rejection. I think I have explained the object of the Bill and the principle to which I am asking your Lordships' assent. I will simply, therefore, move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Earl Russell.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think everyone of your Lordships will agree that there have been and are at the present moment a very large number of accidents which might be prevented and ought to be prevented. I find that in the week-end from the 12th to the 14th of this month there were no fewer than sixty cases of injury and nine deaths. Therefore, I think we are probably unanimous in desiring that some legislation should be passed or some means adopted to lessen the dangers which are incurred whenever you go upon a public road or upon a street, cither in this City or in any other part of the kingdom. But the question is: Would the principle which the noble Earl desires to introduce in his Bill have the effect which we all desire?
The noble Earl says that motorists are in favour of it. Of course they are. What the Bill means is that if the noble Earl runs over me and kills me he does not suffer in the least, for some third person pays my heirs a sum of anything up to £5,000. What consolation is it to me, when I am in another place, that not the noble Earl himself but some third party pays? It does not affect the noble Earl at all. If the noble Earl himself had put his hand into his own pocket and paid my heirs something it might possibly console me for having been run over, but it can be no consolation to me that some other person pays for the faults committed by the noble Earl. It is quite natural that all motorists, and certainly all reckless motorists, should be in favour of this Bill. After all, what does it amount to for them to have to pay a sum

691
to the insurance company? Whatever happens they have to pay that sum and, having paid it, they are free to do what they like. They may go at any pace over dangerous or non-dangerous roads. They may, when they see a pedestrian, content themselves with blowing their horn and expecting the pedestrian to get out of the way; and if he does not get out of the way and they run over him, somebody else will pay for the damage which they have done. Therefore I am not at all surprised to hear that motorists are in favour of this Bill
I would suggest to the noble, Earl that a month's hard labour is much more likely to be effective than this compulsory insurance. It would give me much greater pleasure if I were killed to know that the noble Earl was spending twenty-eight days in prison with hard labour for having run over me than that, somebody else had paid a certain sum of money to my heirs. I do not for a moment suggest that when a motorist who is insured goes out on a journey he goes out with the determination of doing damage to any person or property. But the fact remains that if he is, perhaps, going to catch a train and is a little late, or he is going to do something and wants to get to the station at a particular time, he says: "Well, I must go at so many miles an hour"—some excessive speed. And he may also say to himself: "If there is an accident, after all it does not matter, because the insurance company pays." I think it is probably well known to your Lordships that under compulsory health insurance and under the various insurances which we suffer from owing to our having had the misfortune to have Mr. Lloyd George as Prime Minister, there is a tendency amongst people to say: "Oh! well, I have had an accident. The insurance company pays. Let us see how much we can get out of them." That is one of the things which is sure to arise if you have this compulsory insurance.
The noble Earl has great knowledge of the law, which I have not, and I would ask him what he means by "use." Perhaps that is rather a Committee point. The Bill says "in the sum of not less than £5,000 of any damage caused by the use of such vehicle." What does he mean by the word "use"? Suppose his chauffeur takes out his car one evening without his knowledge and without his
692
consent and does damage to some person, does the insurance operate then? Or suppose there is a race at Brooklands, does the insurance operate then? What is the meaning of the word "use" in this connection? I think we ought to be very careful in all this sort of legislation that we put in words which are easily understood by the people. I read in the newspapers a day or two ago some observations, I forget whether by a County Court Judge or another Judge, who described a Bill—a Bill brought in, I believe, in deference to the wishes of various women's associations—as being so complicated that it was quite impossible to understand it. We want to avoid that sort of thing.
I do not know whether the noble Earl can explain how we are to determine what is the meaning of the word "use." Viscount Ullswater, who is not able to be here to-day, has given me one or two notes of a speech he was going to make Among other things I see that he asks: Does the word "use" include pace-making, speed-testing, a stolen car? It is well known that many dangerous accidents are caused by stolen cars. There was one reported in the newspapers the other day of four youths who stole a car, knocked over a girl and left the car. I think one of them was caught. What happens in such a case? If all these various accidents are covered by an insurance is it not likely that the insurance companies will put up their premiums? If they put up their premiums to a more or less prohibitive degree is the noble Earl going to recommend that there should be a national insurance company to insure motorists? I am rather afraid from the quarter in which he sits that it is possible that something might be nationalised if this Bill ever becomes law. Then, what will be the position if the insurance companies refuse to insure a person? I am informed on the authority of Viscount Ullswater that that is not altogether an uncommon occurrence, that occasionally insurance companies do refuse to insure. In those circumstances what is going to happen?
Finally, there are a great many careful drivers, a great many people who use motor cars in a proper way, who have never had an accident. Are they to be compelled to pay a high insurance premium because there are certain careless

693
people who do drive recklessly and do have accidents? Surely, the proper course to pursue is to put the penalty on the right person; that is, the person who causes the accident. Do not let him got out of it by saying: "I will render myself immune from any liability for damage to person or property by insurance." Let him know—or let her know, if it is a woman—that he or she will have to go to prison and have a very unpleasant time of it, and then you will find these motor accidents will diminish.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, in listening to the noble Lord who has just sat down I was very much amused by his speech, but, if I may say so respectfully, I do not think it had very much to do with the subject you are asked to consider this afternoon. The subject we have to consider—and I dare say many noble Lords appreciate the point brought forward by Earl Russell—is this: At the present moment, I am sorry to say, there is an increasing number of accidents in which people are knocked down or injured by motor cycles or small cars, owned in very many cases by people who have not much means, and the people injured are therefore unable to get any compensation from those owners as would be the ease if the owner of the car was comparatively well off, or if the car was valuable. Anybody who watches the roads to-day can see that the smaller class of ear, owned by people of small means, is very largely on the increase and they are just the sort of people—I do not wish to speak with the least prejudice—who are not very skilled in conducting a vehicle. These are the people who take more risks than the owners of valuable cars, represented very largely by your Lordships in this House. I think it is quite right that there should be some provision made so that people knocked down and injured by this class of vehicle should have some compensation.
With regard to the question whether the fact that a person is insured or not makes any difference to his care on the road, I would remind my noble friend behind me that 60 to 70 per cent, at least, I should say, of the vehicles on the road are insured against third-party risks, and
694
quite rightly so. No man who owns a motor vehicle and either drives it himself or is driven in it should omit to take out an insurance to cover accidents which may not be due in any way to any lack of skill or precaution on the part of the driver but entirely to a risk which comes from something outside. We all know that the number of accidents that occur is terrible, but is the greater number of cases where these are caused by moderate sized or large cars there is an insurance company who has insured the risk. I think that is an important point and I have not heard it answered in to-day's debate. I can assure the noble Lord behind me that I have never seen the least evidence of an insured person driving a car more recklessly than an uninsured person. Would it be said that because a man has insured his house against fire he would leave matches lying about or do nothing to prevent the fire falling on to the floor?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Some burn the house down.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That would be a general argument against all insurance. It might be said that people should not insure ships because those who insure ships are careless of the lives of the sailors. It is an argument that has been disproved in the history of insurance for many years past. Every kind of risk should be insured against because then justice can be obtained by the aggrieved person with greater ease. There are one or two points in the Bill which I will not consider just now because they are more or less Committee points. With regard to the sum of £5,000, I am informed that that is a thing unknown in the insurance world. What happens in the ordinary way is that a man takes out a policy on a car to insure him against damage, third-party risks and so on. If no claim is made by the end of the year it is in many cases the practice of the insurance company to give a rebate of 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, of the premium, or oven more, and if the owner is also the driver a reduction is sometimes made, as also in cases when the car is driven by only two persons. In other words, the careful driver has an advantage over the man who is not careful. It is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that one or two well-known

695
black sheep in the motoring world cannot insure their cars at any ordinary rate and suffer accordingly. But the bulk of the motorists on the road to-day are insured at reasonable rates and, considering the millions of miles per day that are run and the risks that, I must say, are very recklessly incurred by motor cyclists and pedestrians—I am not running them down in any way, but we must all have known cases of recklessness on their part—I think that the number of accidents is not really greater than the development of motor transport leads one to expect.
The argument of the noble Lord who opposes the Bill is that if you imprison and give hard labour to people who cause accidents you are following a better plan than that suggested by the noble Earl opposite. But that is the business of the criminal law. If recklessness is proved, either under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, or in regard to the speed limit, the Courts to which the noble Lord refers can deal with the matter, which is a criminal and not a civil one. I am concerned to see that the poor man who is knocked down and whose wife is deprived of her husband's salary and earnings for a considerable period owing to an accident incurred on the road should have some means of redress against those who are not able themselves to give it, and though, as I have said, there are many Committee points on which I may differ from the noble Earl, I agree with the general principle of the Bill. I think that it will lead to more careful driving and to a greater measure of compensation to those injured and, on those grounds, I support the Bill as moved by the noble Earl.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, that there is some principle underlying this Bill we have been told by the noble Earl opposite, but what that principle is I have been unable to gather. That it is introduced with the very best intentions, that it will be welcomed by many motorists for the reasons already given and still more by many insurance companies for the sake of the flood of new premiums that will accrue, I can quite understand. But what its principle is and how the Bill is to fulfil the excellent intentions of its promoters I am still entirely at a loss to appreciate. It is a perfectly practical
696
proposal to make compulsory the taking out of a particular form of insurance with which we are all at present familiar, and it is hoped that by that means persons who are run over by bankrupts will be able to get money out of somebody else. If that result is not achieved the Bill is quite useless; and I greatly deprecate your Lordships being asked to pass in the name of a principle a short and sketchy measure which is to be remodelled afterwards by a Select Committee or some other kind of Committee.
The question is whether we ought to give any sanction to the proposal to make it compulsory that persons who take out a licence for the use of a mechanically-propelled vehicle shall be obliged at the same time to produce a particular kind of third-party risk insurance policy. I will not stop to inquire whether this is not, in a slightly disguised form, a tax additional to the motor licence tax imposed upon persons who seek to drive cars, or whether it might not raise questions which it would be desirable to avoid between this House and another place. Perhaps the noble Earl has considered that point. It is quite plain, I think, that the person really hit by this Bill will be the ordinary owner-driver, and particularly the poor owner-driver. As a matter of common sense everybody who has a car and can afford to do so takes out a third-party risk insurance along with the general insurance upon the car itself. Why does he do that? He does it for his own protection. He does not care twopence about the victim, but he does it because, under that form of insurance, if anyone makes a claim against him, he is entitled to say to the insurance company: "You have contracted to indemnify me against any claim that is made and can be proved against me. Fight the case, or do not fight the case, as you like. I am in your hands. If the claim is pursued, and you do not ask me to defend it, you will have to pay me the sum recovered on the judgment. If, on the other hand, you think that there is a case to fight, I am at your disposal as a witness, and if you can win the case you will pay the costs, the claimant will not get anything and I shall be content." That is the basis of the third-party risk policy.
As a matter of fact, as I think my noble friend said, sixty or seventy per

697
cent. of drivers take out such an insurance already, and it seems to me quite clear that any one who can afford to employ a servant to drive him probably has the sense and the money to take out such a policy. His servant, having his place to think about as well as his own driving licence, is not disposed to be reckless and, even if he is reckless, a person who can own a car, employ a chauffeur and insure himself against all risks is probably fairly good for the money in case a claim is made against him. But as soon as you take the people who are not in that position, who, as I say, are the owner-drivers, the only people really material to this issue, you will observe that they are called upon to take out this policy precisely for the reason that it is not supposed that they have any money of their own. How much better off will the victim be when this compulsory policy has been taken out? I suppose—it is not a model of drafting—that when the Bill says that it is to be an insurance against "any damage caused by the use of such vehicle" it does not mean to interfere with the ordinary law concerning negligence. It does not mean, I suppose, that if my motor car runs over somebody entirely owing to his fault then, because my motor car has been used, I have to pay for it. I suppose it does not mean that, if the person injured is to blame, he should be relieved of the consequence of what is called contributory negligence, and allowed to recover damages if his leg has been broken though, if my leg is broken, it would be he who would have to pay for it.
If this kind of claim is to be asserted in the ordinary way in which such claims are asserted now, the first result is that, instead of having an uninsured owner to face, the injured person has to face an insurance company. So far as I know, insurance companies behave very sensibly arid reasonably in these matters, but, of course, it is their business not to be victimised and the odium of defending the case does not hurt them. I can quite understand the careless owner or driver rather hesitating about going into the box and disputing that he ran over the widow or orphan carelessly, but the insurance company need have no scruple about saying that the orphan did not look where he was going or that the widow
698
was in liquor. Accordingly it is very much more likely that the claims will be resisted and defended by legal assistance of the best kind, accustomed to this sort of case, than if no such insurance had been taken out. Every time you can defeat a claim, either by saying that the defendant was not to blame or by saying that the plaintiff was to blame, the insurance company does not pay anything except the costs, and the victim, whose tragic case has been pictured to us already, gets nothing. The person who is killed would be no better off whether £5,000 is paid or not—he would just be killed—and I do not see how the injured person is going to be any better off. He would have a more skilled antagonist against whom to assert his claim, an antagonist who would have no scruple about taking all the points that can be taken, instead of being amenable to some feelings of shame.
It is quite clear from the language cited, and I understand it to be the view of the noble Earl opposite, that the intention of the policy is to make a fund to which the injured person could have recourse where the real culprit, the careless driver, was impecunious or bankrupt, or so situated that he could be made bankrupt at any time. If the notion is that this kind of third-party insurance will be one in which an injured man can bring an action under the policy against the insurance company in his own name, then it is an entirely new kind of third-party insurance, and I should like to know whether any insurance company has been approached with a view of ascertaining whether it would accept a large risk of that kind, and if so at what price. The person you would sue is the person who ran you down, and he brings in the insurance company to defend him. He has a contract between himself and the insurance company, and if it comes to be a conflict the injured person is the plaintiff, the defendant is the assured or the owner of the car, and the insurance company cannot be brought in as defendants in that action at all. If the defendant, the assured, is reasonably well-to-do he puts his hand into his pocket and pays on the judgment, whether his pocket has already been filled for him by the insurance company or not. The injured person gets his damages by any form of execution he likes to employ. If however, the defendant is not well-to-do,

699
but has nothing but the policy, and also plenty of debts to other people, his right under the policy is one of the assets of his estate. What are the other creditors to do? Are they to be left out in the cold? Are there any means in the Bill, or any which can be readily introduced, by which an asset of a bankrupt person can be made to assure 20 s. in the £ to one creditor, although there are no other assets and numbers of other creditors are left out in the cold?
Have your Lordships conceived the case of an owner-driver who has nothing in the world except his clothes and the car that he owns, and the magnificent spirits which he enjoys? He is sued to judgment. The insurance company may take the risk of paying direct to the injured person if it likes to take the risk, but in so doing it runs a risk. Of course it must pay the right person. You have to make the debtor bankrupt on your judgment, and then the trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to collect from the insurance company, and if there is only one creditor the trustee will pay the money to the plaintiff. If, however, there is more than one creditor the widow and orphan may only get 6d. in the £. That is the way in which this scheme will work. Then we have not been told whether any insurance company has been approached to see whether any different kind of insurance policy can be devised which would be acceptable to them, and to what extent the risks would have to be represented in the premium.
The limit of £5,000 is mentioned. I thought it was the maximum, but the noble Earl called it the minimum. I do not know whether he means that it should be a policy insuring the payment of £5,000 as an indemnity to the wrongdoer in respect of any one accident, or £5,000 in respect of all the accidents occurring in the course of a year. If it is to be £5,000 in respect of any one accident, it might not be too much if one considers the importance and dignity of some of the potential victims suggested to us, but the first accident may exhaust the policy and in that case the other victims who suffer during the remainder of the twelve months get nothing. If, on the other hand, it is to be a payment in respect of any one accident, then the premium which would have to be paid for a risk potentially so large as that
700
would, it seems to me, be very formidable. And there is another little difficulty. The insurance is on the car. I do not know whether the noble Earl means that the policy is what lawyers call a policy to run the car, or not. If it means that the person who has taken out the policy, having sold the car, will be able in some way or other to substitute the buyer in his own shoes as the person insured, then, of course, that process can be done over and over again in the course of the twelve months, and the insurance companies would have to say what is to be the premium for persons of whom they have never heard driving this abominable vehicle to the danger of His Majesty's lieges.
A person applying for a policy would be bound to answer all questions put to him as to previous convictions and accidents, and his disclosures would be the basis of the contract; but how is it going to be in the case of the man who buys the car? The insurance companies would have to calculate the premiums on the assumption that any other person to whom the car may pass by purchase will be a person of, perhaps, rather more than average heinousness, and the person who takes out the policy in the first instance would have to pay for all that. It is suggested that we need not be afraid that British enterprise will fail to discover a form of policy which will cover all these risks. That sounds all very well in a hopeful company such as your Lordships are, but any one who knows anything about insurance will realise that it is not so easy a matter. The old companies are well set and it is not so easy for a new company to get a look in. If it is a new business as well as a new company, see what will happen. If you begin by taking a benevolent view of the risks and fix your premiums low, you become bankrupt, and then what becomes of the widow and orphan? If, on the other hand, you are prudent and have a quorum of Scottish directors and so forth, and take rather a high view of the risk until you have gathered experience, these people who already pay a tax for a motor licence will, it seems to me, pay a double or treble tax for an insurance policy.
I could say more, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships. May I, however, ask you this? The thing we are aiming at is the iniquitous recklessness of drivers—drivers who have one defence

701
which they constantly urge in their favour, and that is that cyclists and pedestrians and other drivers are also very reckless. There is always the risk of the load. I think it is a perfect miracle, on the roads that we drive along night and day, with hundreds and hundreds of motor cars proceeding at a speed which, when I was a boy, would have been excessive for a railway train, that there are so few accidents. But still there are quite enough to make it a national scandal, and whether imprisonment with hard labour, or a rope to the nearest lamp-post, or merely social condemnation and ostracism, and a trust that they will experience a change of heart, is the right line that we should pursue, I am sure I cannot tell.
But I should have thought it was quite clear that you must get at the reckless driver in one of two ways. Either you should make it so dangerous for him to be careless that you would inculcate some sort of care in him, or you should prevent the sale to him of vehicles that are capable of being driven at the high rates of speed of which we complain. To think that by constructing a newfangled instrument of ordinary commerce in the hope that it may solve the problem, and that, if it will not, some Committee may solve it for you, seems to me not to be reasonable legislation. Having said this—I hope the noble Earl will not think in a carping spirit—I must add that I cannot see that there is any principle in this Bill which will ever lead to anything but disappointment, and I would suggest to him that, as the Bill is only introduced now for the second time, and is perhaps not certain to pass this year, it might be as well for him to constitute his own special committee, to withdraw the Bill, reconsider it and take further advice, and possibly get some solution of the whole problem which will really meet with universal approval.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, there is one point which leads me to support the noble Earl's Bill, and it is a matter which has hardly been alluded to to-day. While I fully feel that the road-hog should be made to pay for all damages done to other cars, what I am concerned with is the case of the working man who is going to and from his work either on a bicycle or on foot. If he is knocked
702
down and seriously hurt so that he may be in hospital for some weeks, or even months, and in consequence loses his work for all that time, then the road-hog who has done the damage pleads impecuniosity. As I understand, this Bill is intended by the noble Earl to meet that case, but we should make it clear that the working man would get the compensation due to him, either from the insurance company or from the motorist himself. I do not pretend to enter into the legal details of the matter, but surely it is only right and fair that steps should be taken to protect. the working man in such circumstances. I sincerely hope that I am right in surmising that that is one of the objects of this Bill, and on that understanding I shall certainly cordially support the Second Reading.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, has subjected the provisions of this Bill to a penetrating analysis, which must have convinced most of your Lordships that the Bill is perfectly unworkable. The truth is that you are trying by this Bill to force a man by Act of Parliament, against his will, to enter into a contract, the nature of which is not laid down in the Bill, the conditions of which are not laid down, the terms of which are not prescribed, and which, as I think, could not possibly be specified in any Act of Parliament. Because, after all, these contracts of insurance are matters of agreement between the insurance company on the one side and the person who proposes to be insured on the other, and you are going to say, without laying down—and you cannot lay down—what the terms and conditions of the contract are to be, that every man who obtains a licence to drive a motor car shall be forced by Act of Parliament to enter into this unknown contract.
I propose to say one or two words upon another aspect of the question. The really important matter in regard to motor cars at the present moment is not so much getting money out of bankrupts as the safety of the subject, the prevention of accident. As my noble friend Lord Montagu has very truly said, the number of accidents caused by motor ears on the road now is absolutely deplorable. You cannot open a paper without seeing

703
records of them. Is the Bill of the noble Earl likely to diminish the number of these accidents or not? I venture to say, agreeing as I do with my noble friend Lord Banbury on the subject, that if it were possible for a man to protect himself against the results of these accidents in the way suggested by the Bill the number of accidents would be largely increased. You would have more and more recklessness, and Heaven knows there is enough of it on the road already.
I think that the only mode of solving this very serious problem is a stricter administration of the law. It has been forced upon the observation of everybody who has occasion to go upon the roads on foot or in a motor car that almost every car exceeds the legal limit, even when the road is considerably congested. When the road is clear it does not so much matter, but every day your Lordships, like myself, probably see drivers going at thirty or forty miles an hour on the road when it is considerably congested. And as for motor cyclists, I have never seen one going at a less speed than about fifty miles an hour. Therefore I am not very greatly surprised when I read in the papers day by day of fatal accidents, both to the motor cyclists themselves and to those who accompany them, as well as to people on the road. In view of that state of things I suggest that the only way of improving matters is that the law should be more strictly administered. You never see a motor cyclist brought up, and yet we see them breaking the law every day and riding to the danger of the public. If any representative of the Home Office is here I should be very glad if he would let me know—what I have never been able to find out—why these motor cyclists are not prosecuted. For all these reasons I sincerely hope that this Bill will not receive a Second Reading.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate, and I agree that the Bill is properly open to adverse criticism. It is not well thought out, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Earl who has introduced it, and it would probably lead to difficulty in working. But there is one commonsense point. At the present time the roads are being used by a number of motorists who have not large incomes and who, if an accident takes place, are
704
not worth powder and shot, with the result that if the person who is injured takes proceedings he cannot recover anything. That is a condition of affairs that ought not to be allowed to continue if it can possibly be avoided. It is stated that in Denmark this difficulty has been overcome by insisting on third-party insurance. I do not know whether it is possible or not to frame a policy which would meet the adverse criticisms put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. Very likely not; but, practically speaking, nobody would be any the worse if such policies were taken out and a great many people who are injured by those in impecunious circumstances would be very much better placed. That is how it occurs to me, and I think we should never legislate on any subject or try to remedy any great public grievance if we allowed ourselves to be seduced from doing anything by the possible and sometimes the impossible contingencies which it is suggested might arise by ingenious persons who want to do nothing. I do not think that the Bill as drafted would work, but I earnestly suggest that the main common-sense principle behind it is one that your Lordships' House ought to endorse. For that reason I shall certainly vote for the Bill, although I do not think it is likely as a practical measure ever to get much beyond Second Reading.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL):My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he justly observed, introduced this Bill, or a Bill on the same lines, last year and he asks us this time to give it a Second Reading. There seems to be a good deal of difference of opinion among your Lordships as to the value or non-value of insurance. My noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) took, I think, a completely different view on that point from the noble Earl opposite. I did not entirely follow the argument of my noble friend behind me because he seemed to suggest that if he was run over by the noble Earl opposite through his negligence and was killed he would be very dissatisfied if a sum of money was paid by an insurance company to his executors. If, on the other hand, I, not being insured, ran over him and paid out of my own pocket a substantial sum to his

705
executors, then my noble friend would feel that the case had been properly dealt with. That seemed to be his argument.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should be more satisfied if I felt that the man who had killed me was penalised than if I felt he had got off by penalising someone else who was not responsible.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course, I should be overwhelmed with grief if I were to cause such a fatality to the noble Lord, but I am glad to find that I should gratify him in other ways. I was not quite clear from the statement made by the noble Earl and from the evidence he put before us as to the necessity for this Bill whether he really meant, as the noble and learned Lord behind me suggested, to deal or not to deal with the law of negligence.
EARL RUSSELL: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am glad to have that from the noble Earl. I was not sure from the evidence he brought before us and the cases he cited whether they were simply cases of people who had been injured by motor car accidents or whether they were people who had sued bankrupts and so on and had probably recovered in the courts of law from those negligent bankrupts.
EARL RUSSELL: I am sorry that I did not make that clear; but with one exception, in which it was not thought worth while to sue, they were all cases in which judgment had been recovered at law in the usual way.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not quite clear from the statement of the noble Earl whether that was so or not. I would like to say a word as to the area covered by the noble Earls Bill, because the question has been raised as to the percentage of persons or cars or of persons driving cars who are insured and are not insured. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu gave the percentage as between 70 and 80, I think.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Sixty and seventy per cent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The official figures I have are much higher than that and they show that no less than ninety per cent have been insured. Therefore, on the analogy of his argument my noble friend
706
Lord Banbury runs a serious risk from at least nine-tenths of those who are using motor cars. The problem, therefore, is narrowed down to those ten per cent. who do not insure. In regard to the number of accidents due to negligence, which I do not say are inconsiderable—although I think many statements made by noble Lords have included in one figure accidents due to negligence for which damages are recoverable and accidents which are, as it were, accidents in regard to which no negligence has been disclosed—it will be obvious that whatever the number may be they are probably pretty widely distributed over the 100 per cent., and that only a comparatively small proportion, though it may be a larger proportion than it ought to be, falls within the ambit of the ten per cent. who are not insured. Let me give your Lordships the figures of the vehicles now plying upon the roads. We have, I understand, for the year 1927, vehicles taxed on horse, power, private cars, 700,000.
EARL RUSSELL: 1927?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; that is the estimate, and they would be more than this year obviously. Motor cycles, 650,000; goods vehicles, 250,000; omnibuses, chars-a-banes and hackney carriages, 100,000—I hope your Lordships will note that figure—and other vehicles, 65,000; making in all 1,765,000. Those are the general figures, and I have given also the percentage of those who are uninsured.
The next point raised, I think, by the noble Earl was as to what the insurance should be; that is to say, whether the driver or the vehicle should be insured. By "vehicle" I suppose he means the owner of the vehicle. Whichever system you took there would be considerable administrative difficulties and also, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, considerable legal difficulties. But taking the vehicle insurance I should like to point out one or two of the difficulties that confront a Government who might desire to take it up. First of all, it would effect a considerable alteration in the whole system of the insurance of motor vehicles. In order to ensure, of course, that damages were paid when negligence was established you would have, first of all, to secure that the policy was

707
always in force, and you would have to secure also that the financial position of the insurance company was satisfactory. Regarding the point that the policy ought always to be in force, these policies at present are restricted to particular matters, such, for instance, as the purposes for which the vehicle is used, whether for pleasure or business or both. The policies become void if the vehicle is used for purposes not disclosed, or if the holder of the policy has failed to disclose material facts, such, for example, as a bad accident record or that the vehicle is driven by an unauthorised person.
As regards that point, it would appear to be necessary, therefore, to have a standard form of insurance and to exercise some control over the policies issued by the insurance companies to see that there was capacity in the insurance companies to meet all possible claims. If that were not done you would, I think, have to fall back on the suggestion made by my noble friend opposite—that is to say, on a system of State insurance—and I understand that the noble Lords behind me who support this Bill are not in favour of such a system. If you follow the line that I have suggested you would have, of course, to allow contracting out. You would have to allow responsible firms and undertakings who are to-day their own insurers, like railway companies, large omnibus undertakings and municipalities, to contract out in respect of vehicles operated by them. The question of determining whether there should or should not be contracting out is one of some difficulty. Those are some general difficulties in the way of a complete insurance system such as the noble Earl has suggested, but there are one or two additional difficulties connected with the Bill in the form in which it has been placed before us.
Under the Bill it would appear to be necessary for the issuing officer to give an excise licence if the insurance policy against third-party risk for the amount named were produced, irrespective of the fact that the policy might be one of a restricted nature and, apparently, without. regard to the financial stability of the company or person with whom the insurance is taken out. But on t hose points probably the noble Earl intends to introduce some Amendments. There is, however, a general administrative diffi-
708
culty which has to be considered and that is this. There are 184 excise licensing authorities and it would be a considerable work to place upon these authorities the duty of examining all these different insurance policies in addition to their other work. The large majority of vehicle licences are renewed on January 1 and, presumably, the insurance policies in respect of these vehicles would be renewed at this time. The licensing authority officials, I understand, are at the present time overworked at this period of the year and to throw on them the additional work of checking these policies would be rather a serious matter. I have no doubt the insurance companies, who would have to issue their policies at the same time, would find means for meeting that difficulty so far as they themselves were concerned. The scheme put forward by the noble Earl is a very comprehensive one and it raises a considerable number of administrative and other technical difficulties which certainly, on the large scale he suggests, would be very hard to meet. I admit that many of the difficulties that I have suggested, and many of those that have been referred to by my noble and learned friend behind me, would be met with, though in a less degree, in a restricted system of insurance.
I understand that the Minister of Transport hopes to introduce, when Parliamentary time allows him, a Bill dealing comprehensively with the licensing and registration of hackney vehicles and that that Bill will contain provisions to ensure that the licensees are either sufficiently substantial to be their own insurers or that they are adequately insured in respect of their vehicles against third-party risk. The view of the Minister, I understand, is that the case for the compulsory insurance of public service vehicles is stronger than the case for universal insurance. The owners and proprietors of these vehicles are licensed to exercise a special and exclusive privilege and it should be the duty of the licensing authorities when licensing vehicles to ply for public hire, to see that there is every measure of safety for the public using them—in other words, the licence to ply for hire should be a certificate that the vehicle is satisfactory mechanically and that the public, in case of accident due to negligence, should be able satisfactorily to enforce their remedies. The Ministry

709
hope that they may get experience from this limited form of insurance and then they will be able to consider whether any alteration should be made, or, possibly, whether the system of insurance should be carried any further.
That is what, for the moment, the Ministry propose to do when there is a gap in Parliamentary time that will allow of its being done. I agree that is a long way from the proposal that has been made by the noble Earl, but I suggest to him that practical experiment of that kind, even on a small scale, would possibly be of more value than even the best investigation by a Select Committee of this or the other House. I therefore trust, having brought this Bill forward, that he will see his way not to press it to a Second Reading. I could hardly accept the Bill as it is and I should not like, by accepting the Second Reading, to commit the Government to this general system of insurance. I should be compelled, as far as the Government is concerned, to challenge a Division if the noble Earl presses the Second Reading. I hope, therefore, that he may be willing to withdraw the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I can never understand why, when this subject of compulsory insurance is discussed, a large number of your Lordships always run off upon the question of reckless driving. The question of reckless driving and the best punishment for reckless driving is an absolutely separate matter. I am in as thorough agreement, as I think the House knows from the Amendment that I carried to the Bill dealing with drunken motorists, with any measure to pat down reckless driving as any member of your Lordships' House can be. But that is a totally different and separate question. The criminal law is there now. The very Act for which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, asks is on the Statute Book. A man who drives recklessly and negligently and causes damage can be given his month's hard labour now, and I shall be the first person to approve of the action of any magistrate who gives it to him. But that has nothing whatever to do with the subject of insurance.
The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Sumner, went into a great many details and ingenious speculations. With that ingenuity for which he is well known
710
he found a great many insuperable objections to this scheme. I confess, in regard to the receipt of the actual payment, that almost the only case to which his argument applied was the case of the man who was already bankrupt. The man who is nineteen or twenty years old and has only about £10 worth of this world's goods is not bankrupt. His case is that of a person who can be sued in the ordinary way and against whom judgment may be recovered in the ordinary way. judgment having been recovered in the ordinary way against him, the company will pay the amount of it. That is precisely what my intention was. The noble Lord said he could not for the life of him see what the principle was. The principle seems to me a fairly simple one. It is that any person who is injured on the road by a motor car, if he recovers damages in a court of law, should be sure of getting those damages, or as sure as it can reasonably be made. That is the principle to which I ask your Lordships' assent.
Then the noble Lord, towards the end of his speech, said that this Bill was proposing to put upon the world of insurance an entirely new commercial device or commercial scheme. It is not anything of the sort. It is simply proposed that an insurance policy which 90 per cent. of motorists now take out should be compulsorily extended to the other 10 per cent. who are too careless or reckless to do it. Whether it would have the effect of making them more reckless I cannot say. My own impression on that particular point is that it would have no effect at all, and really it is not relevant to the subject we are considering. It may well be that I have not adopted the most complete language and that the administrative difficulties may be considerable, but the principle to which I ask your Lordships' assent is perfectly clear and I am inclined to think the majority of your Lordships would assent to that principle.
But when the noble Viscount tells me that the Government themselves intend to adopt this principle and try it on a limited scale—I understand to the extent of 100,000 vehicles—I accept that willingly because it seems to me that nothing can be better than practical experiment. You will find out in that way whether the thing is practicable and whether difficulties do

711
arise. I would like, however, to say to the noble Viscount, and I am sure he will convey it to the Minister of Transport, that I do not think these commercial vehicles cause the accidents. Commercial vehicles are owned by responsible people who want to keep them running and to give a regular service and who do not want to go about driving recklessly. As Lord Montagu of Beaulieu said, the people who do cause the accidents are motor cyclists, practically all young men, and people who own small cars and have no means beyond the car. These are the people I should like to see drawn into the ambit of the scheme, but I should welcome some experiment and personally I will agree to withdraw the Bill. That, however, depends on the noble Lord opposite.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If the noble Earl desires to withdraw the Bill then I should not do anything to prevent him carrying out such a very laudable object.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

PASSMORE EDWARDS (TILBURY) COTTAGE HOSPITAL CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ALLHALLOWS AND MARWOOD (HON ITON) CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER'S HOS PITAL CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
BRIGHTON (LONDON ROAD) CON GREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICK SHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]

  TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amend-meats considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Unemployment Insurance,

Criminal Justice (Amendment),

Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3),

Edinburgh Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation,

Passmore Edwards (Tilbury) Cottage Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Allhallows and Marwood (Honiton) Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Robert Earl of Leicester's Hospital Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Brighton (London Road) Congregational Chapel Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Doncaster Corporation,

Medway Conservancy,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway,

Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles),

Ramsbottom Urban District Council,

Halifax Corporation,

Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power,

Taf Fechan Water Supply.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (STAFF SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Thursday, July 8, next.
LONDON ELECTRIC AND METRO POLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COM PANIES BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [H.L.] (Scarborough Order) and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against; the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
GLASGOW EDUCATION AUTHORITY (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Bill deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next
PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.
Select Committee to meet on Wednesday, July 7, at eleven o'clock.