HC Deb 20 July 1923 vol 166 cc2766-82

(1) No Statute shall be made under any of the provisions of this Act for altering a trust, except with the consent of the trustees or governing body of the trust, unless sixty years have elapsed since the date on which the instrument creating the trust came into operation, but nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the making of a Statute increasing the endowment of any emolument or otherwise improving the position of the holder thereof.


I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words except with the consent of the trustees or governing body of the trust. I am encouraged to move this Amendment by the sympathetic consideration which the Minister showed in Committee on this question. If he is not in a position to accept the Amendment, I think that, if he would, as it would be only just to do, take off the Government Whips, it is quite likely that he himself would be leading the hon. Gentlemen with whom I generally have the honour to be associated, while I, in turn, should have great privilege of leading into the Lobby the Unionists on the other side of the House. This Clause enables a trust, after the lapse of 60 years, to be varied or changed. To that I do not object, but the words to which I do object carry it a step further, and enable a trust to be varied or changed immediately after its creation by will or deed of gift. The general provisions of the Clause, to which I do not object, follow—except that the period of 50 years has been changed to 60, which I think is an improvement—the Acts of 1854, 1856 and 1877, and, more important still, follow the wording of the recommendation of the Commission on whose Report this Bill is based. The Clause follows those three Acts, but departs from the terms of the recommendation by extending the power so that the trust may be varied at any time if the trustees are a consenting party.

I know it will be urged that there is sufficient protection, inasmuch as, presumably, the donor has considerable faith in the trustees appointed. That, I believe, is based upon a principle of law which does not go nearly as far as that. If a man dies either intestate or leaving a will without appointing an executor, the administrator, differing from a trustee, cannot appoint successors. Trustees, because of the confidence reposed in them by the testator, can appoint their successors, but there is no precedent, I think, which says that the trustee can enter into a conspiracy with the cestui que trust to vary the trust, which is a very different thing from appointing a successor. The only circumstance, so far as I know, except by the ordinary routine method of applying to the Court, in which a trust may be varied or changed, is that, after a long lapse of time, there may be a presumption that the testator or donor, if he could have foreseen that the circumstances would have been as they were after a lapse of, say, 100 years, would not have made the will or deed of gift in the terms in which he did. That, probably, is carried out, with some limitation, by the other part of the Clause, which limits the period to 60 years instead of what would, presumably, be a much longer period.

There are two objections to this. One is that it is a departure from principle, as I believe it will not be confined to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but will be cited in support of variations of other trusts. That is the first point, but a second point, and one which is, perhaps, more important to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, is that donors, in my opinion, will be deterred from making grants if they realise or recognise that their ideas, good or bad—and hitherto we have always paid respect to the wish of the donor, although it may have been the outcome of exceptional ideas—it will deter donors if they know that their will or wish may be varied or changed, even with the assent of their own trustees; for, while they may have faith in their trustees to carry out the terms of the trust, it does not follow that they will have the same faith in them to create an entirely new or different trust. Hon. Members above the Gangway are credited, rightly or wrongly, with wishing to do what they like with other people's money, in fact, to socialise the living; but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wants to do very much more. He wants to socialise the dead, and, in fact, under a conspiracy between the trustees and the cestuique trust to do precisely what they like with the money of the dead.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not hold in general with the breaking of trusts, though in some cases it is overwhelmingly desirable, but even if one did hold with making it easy to alter trusts, there are very good reasons why, in the case of these Universities, one ought to make it difficult, or leave it difficult, and I welcome the Amendment. I hope the Universities in the future, as in the past, will obtain their support chiefly from private benefactors and not from the State. It is obvious that if there is to be a ready method of varying trusts, benefactors will not be very willing to come forward. May I give an illustration? I should like to mention the attempt which the four women's colleges are making in Oxford to raise a modest endowment sum of £185,000. They are appealing to the general public. The money is coming in slowly and in small amounts. People who give small amounts do not, perhaps, mind very much for what purpose the money is applied or to what purposes it might, after or before their death, be diverted. What the four women's colleges need is larger benefactions, not hundreds or thousands, but tens and hundreds of thousands, and I doubt very much if possible donors of large amounts will be directed to the great claims of these colleges by finding such a proposal put forward in this Bill. I will go further and say with these four women's colleges in Oxford appealing thus to the public, it is extremely unfortunate that at the same moment the sympathisers with the women's cause have been attempting to get this House to impose concessions to women on Cambridge. It is not possible to run both things together. I hold that the attitude of those friends of women who have taken that line in Cambridge is much less straight than the attitude of the four women's colleges at Oxford who go straight to the public and ask for money, asking that it shall be given in larger amounts. Because I hope the financial future of the Universities depends far more upon the private giver than upon the State, I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.


I hope the right hon. Gentleman will preserve the attitude he adopted when this question was very fully discussed in Committee. The Committee gave great attention to it and came to the conclusion that it was an Amendment that ought not to be accepted, for reasons which carried complete conviction to my own mind, reasons which were stated by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford and the President of the Board of Education. I should like to quote a few words from the speech of the Noble Lord— The donor may be presumed to have confidence in the persons who under his donation are made the trustees of his bene- faction. They are probably people he trusts and believes in. But if you do not allow any elasticity, you may be in the absurd position that, some contingency having arisen which the benefactor did not foresee, but which he would have wished to meet, there is no power to modify even the plainest case. If you allow a certain discretion to the trustees, they could modify the trust with the consent of the Commissioners, or whatever the body may be through whom the trust operates. This powerful and unanswerable argument was supported by the President of the Board of Education, who pointed out that before the trustees' action on these lines can become effective it has to run the gauntlet not only of Commissioners and the Privy Council, but also of Parliament. I consider that no case can be made out for this Amendment. If the Amendment is carried it will run counter to the plain interests of economy and efficiency and education. It runs counter to the interests of economy because it is within the common knowledge of everybody who is concerned with academic administration that there are from time to time academic benefactions which are doing no good whatever, and which everybody agrees are doing no good. Let us say that there was a benefactor who left money to endow education in a particular subject, and there are no pupils in that subject. Nobody comes forward, and the money is wasted. You may have, on the other hand, a case where the money could be most beneficially employed in another way. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge do not act hastily in such a matter as this. The trustees will not act hastily. There is very careful procedure to be gone through before action can be taken. Then the proposal of the Amendment runs counter to the interests of education. We are told that such a provision will deter benefactors from giving sums of money to the Universities. My view is entirely the opposite. I believe that the ordinary benefactor who gives money to a University desires to feel that his money will always be usefully applied. Such a provision does tend to give him that security, and on those grounds I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.


This matter was very carefully considered in Committee, and not accepted, nor can I accept it this afternoon. The attitude which secured the support of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) and my support is not likely to be unsympathetic to the sanctity of trusts. There is no question of any attack upon the sanctity of trusts, as such. In all this University legislation, in this Bill and in the Act of 1877, after a certain lapse of years the trusts can be altered, with proper safeguards, in order to be brought into conformity with the changed conditions of University life. What the Bill says is that in the term of 60 years it must be altered with the consent of the trustees.

I would like to give one example of the kind of difficulty that is created if you endeavour to propound the doctrine of the absolute inviolability of trusts too strictly. I believe that it is not a complete paradox to say that the best way to defeat the founders' intentions in many cases is to try to insist upon an absolutely strict interpretation of the trust. I have had a great many cases brought to my notice of men who have founded trusts and who, in a very few years, and sometimes a very few months, found that the trust conditions are not such as they anticipated, and it was difficult to alter the trusts. They could not do so except by carrying out a scheme under the Charitable Trust Acts or by going to the Court of Chancery, which is a very expensive business. I will give just one case to show the kind of thing that happens.

There was a man not very long ago who had a very brilliant son at one of the provincial Universities. That son lost his life in investigating the cause of yellow fever in South America for his University. The father wished to found a trust for people with equivalent academic attainments to work in the field in which his son had lost his life. But when he found that in a period of 15 years there were only two people found able to fulfil the conditions of this trust the first thing he wanted to do was to modify the trust in order to meet conditions which were never foreseen. That case is exactly typical of scores of similar cases that arise when there is the attempt to apply the doctrine of the strict inviolability. It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that there are several conditions which have to be satisfied under this Bill. The trustees can make no alteration with- out the consent of the Commissioners, and the Commissioners cannot sanction an alteration without provision being made for an appeal if need be to this House, and in addition the Commissioners in taking any action under the Bill are bound to have regard to the main design of the founder. With all respect, I would suggest, in view of these bunkers which have to be surmounted, that the alarm of hon. Gentlemen opposite is somewhat exaggerated. I would, if I might, appeal to the House to dispose of this matter now, in order that we may be enabled to get a Third Reading of this Bill.


It appears to me that this is a Clause which will allow a trust to be varied not within 60 years but within 60 minutes, if you got the permission of the trustees and the governing body. Unless more difficult bunkers can be constructed it may be easy to have the will of a deceased person upset. Notwithstanding all that my right hon. Friend opposite has said I feel somewhat nervous about what may happen as to the possibility of the variation of trusts. I do not think that the Minister of Education has given us the assurance that we ought to have in this matter. It is a very bad principle to allow trusts to be broken except in conditions of the most urgent necessity.


May I point out to the hon. Member that the Commissioners are bound to have regard to the design of the founder? That is a governing condition.


If my right hon. Friend can satisfy the hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point, I have nothing more to say; but, as it stands at the present moment, it looks to me as though grave abuses might crop up.


I do not often agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but when some of them do take a wise and proper line I think they ought to be supported. My right hon. Friend has brought forward an instance where a certain man made a trust, and then discovered he had made a foolish trust; but you cannot legislate on isolated cases of that sort. If you wish to legislate for cases of that sort, you should put in words that, where a settlor himself is alive and desires to vary it, he may do so, but to say that, within a few months, or within two or three years after the death of the settlor, his trust may be altered, seems to me to strike a great blow at trusts generally. There are, of course, in this world a great many foolish people—more foolish than there are wise—and it is very likely that a settlor may make a foolish trust; but, after all, it is his money, and he made what he thought was a wise trust, and disposed of it in what he thought was a wise way. I quite admit that after a certain number of years there might be a change, but I do not admit, because certain people desire to take the money, and apply it in a way which the trust does not allow, that this House should interfere and say that the trust should be altered.


I think the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) requires some reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "None."] I know that the pious founders who founded these trusts nearly always directed their benefactions towards providing education for poor children. There are countless cases in which those trusts have been so founded. In the course of time, without any legislation of this sort, indeed, those trusts have been deflected to the education of middle class and other classes of children, but the days of that type of pious founders are rather past. If, nowadays, people endow education, it is not so much by way of charity for poor children, as is in order to direct education into certain channels, so as to teach certain specific vocational training. If it were the old trusts that we were considering, and if we were being asked now by the Government to provide machinery whereby the Statutory Commission could upset those old trusts, I should be entirely with my hon. Friend below the Gangway in supporting this particular Amendment, but that is not the question to-day. The question to-day is, are the Commissioners, keeping in mind presumably, in the first place, the interests of education itself, and if those educational interests demand it, able to vary or modify the aim of those founders who wished to twist education in certain particular directions? There, I think, we on these benches must support the Government. We want education to be efficient, and therefore we want the educational experts on this Statutory Commission to be given a certain amount of latitude in dealing with these trusts.

It has been urged, in the first place, that this question was discussed adequately in Committee. I wish to enter my protest, as a Member of this House, against attempting to suppress discussion on the Floor of the House because a question has been discussed by certain selected Members in Committee. On the Report stage it is our duty to consider these questions independently of the discussions in Committee. The argument put forward in favour of this Amendment is that if it is not carried, the pious founders would be deflected from their benefactions, and would hesitate to leave money to Universities because their intentions might be frustrated. That may be true to a certain extent, but the real future of education in this country does not depend on the benefactions of pious founders. We have had too many examples, particularly from America, of what can be done when millionaires endow colleges. We want the education at Oxford and Cambridge to be that education which is desirable for the community as a whole, not for any particular class. Therefore, I shall not be shocked or terrified by the idea that in future private benefactors will not desire so keenly to give benefactions to University education. Education should be of public utility and should be made a public charge, and there should not be opportunities for private persons to get the doctrines in which they are interested taught at the Universities. I am not persuaded by hon. Members opposite to vote with them in order to assist future private benefactions, but on the grounds I have stated I shall vote with the Government in increasing the powers of the Commission to modify these trusts, because I believe in that way you are likely to have more efficiency and less particularism in education.


I intervene in the hope of persuading the Mover of the Amendment that it may not be necessary to divide the House. The substantial point involved in the Amendment is the possibility of overruling the founders or spoiling their benefactions, but in that respect the trustees may be relied upon to be guided by the intentions of the benefactor for many years after his death. It may be that in regard to the 60 years there are grave criticisms to be made, but within the 60 years the trustees are to be relied upon to see there is no real departure from the intentions of the founders. No one would desire that the purposes of the founder should not be carried out, and the trustees will act under the control of the Commissioners and under the injunction of the Schedule that the main design of the founder is to be carried out. There is no danger of the founder being overruled, but there is a danger that his wishes may miscarry through some oversight or mistake.


Guided by the question of time, and not by the arguments of the last speaker, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."


I should like to make one observation upon a point that arises in connection with the general scheme, and the arrangement of which this Bill forms part. The Royal Commission recommended that a sum of at least £100,000 should be devoted to each of the two Universities. I understood from the President of the Board of Education that the Government was prepared to increase the grant of £20,000 which for the last two years has been made to Oxford and Cambridge, but that, in order to avoid the inconvenience of a Supplementary Estimate, the Government proposed to draw upon the balance at the disposal of the Universities Grants Committee. I think that is a bad precedent. The Universities Grants Committee should be encouraged to have a balance, because in the course of its administration, occasions have frequently occurred in which it is desirable for the Committee to meet some non-recurring need. A benefactor, for instance, comes forward and offers an endowment of £15,000. £15,000 is not enough. If you got another £10,000, a Chair could be founded, and consequently I think it is in the interests of education and of an economical administration of the moneys voted by Parliament and placed under the control of the University Grants Committee that that Committee should be encouraged to have an unexpended balance. I know the Treasury have an objection to an unexpended balance, but I think that in this case it is very desirable that there should be such a balance, and consequently I do regret any course being pursued which will discourage the University Grants Committee from accumulating a balance, and will incite them to spend all the money that Parliament votes for them during the current year. While I see no great objection to the course which the Government proposes to pursue this year, I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that the sum which has been obtained from the provision already voted by Parliament for the other Universities and University colleges will be replaced next year, so that the others will not be the losers by reason of the benefactions which, under the recommendation of the Royal Commission, are to be made to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.


I venture to sympathise with what the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) has just said as to the source from which this money is to be found. I do not in the least grudge an additional grant to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I am very glad that the Government are going to make it, but I think there is something to be said by way of criticism of the decision of the Government to take this extra grant for Oxford and Cambridge, not by means of a Supplementary Estimate, but to abstract it from the sums already voted for the benefit of the other Universities and University colleges in the Kingdom. That sum was voted, firstly, for distribution among these very Universities and University colleges. They have been suffering very severely during this year and last year from the fact that the grant was cut down very seriously—I think, by £300,000—and some of these Universities and University colleges are financially in a very bad state indeed and are, in fact, accumulating large overdrafts which will have to be met somehow, and consequently education in these institutions is suffering. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that he did not want to object to the Government taking this sum out of the accumulated balances for the present year, but I do not see why we should not criticise the action of the Government in proposing to do that.

The money was granted and voted by this House for those particular Universities and University colleges. It is true they are allocated by the University Grants Committee, but that Committee has been proceeding during the past year upon the most rigorous lines, refusing necessary extensions and cutting down the annual grants to these Universities and colleges, to the very great detriment of education in those Universities and colleges. Oxford and Cambridge, after all, do not want to benefit at the expense of the other Universities, and I cannot help feeling surprised that the Government, in assenting to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, should have attempted to rob Peter to pay Paul by depriving the other Universities and colleges of the sums which have been voted by this House for their benefit. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education to reconsider this decision, and to take the sums necessary for Oxford and Cambridge by a Supplementary Estimate, and allow the University Grants Committee to deal with the funds which have been allocated for the purpose of the other Universities and colleges in order to supply their pressing needs.

There is a technical consideration in the matter. I think the Vote of this House was expressly for these other colleges and Universities, and I would ask whether it is in order to divert a sum which has been voted specifically in the Estimates for the benefit of these other colleges. I asked a question earlier in the Session, out of what source the Government intended to obtain these sums for Oxford and Cambridge, and whether there was to be any diminution of the sum voted for the other colleges? If I remember, the answer was that there would be no diminution of the sum available for the other colleges. It may be that, technically, there is no diminution of the sum, because there are accumulated balances which will be taken for these purposes, but I venture to think it was not quite the spirit of that which was conveyed in the answer. What was conveyed in the answer, and what the colleges themselves certainly realised, was that they were not going to be injured financially by the additional grant to Oxford and Cambridge. If the Government propose to lay hands on the money voted to these other colleges to the detriment of their education, I cannot help thinking that these other colleges will have a very serious grievance against the Government. I do, therefore, want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand up for these other colleges, and see that the money that was voted for them in past years shall not be diverted, even if they are accumulated balances.


I do not think the House will expect me to answer in more than a sentence what is rather a technical question. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that the considerations which they urged are not at all absent from the minds of the Treasury and the Government. There is no intention of robbing the newer Universities, and I can assure them that whatever has been said on that point will not be lost sight of.


From where will the money come?


If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consult the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 17th July last, he will see that he said that he was hoping that such grants as it might be possible to give to the Universities might be taken temporarily, at all events, out of the accumulation of unexpended balances, and the obvious intention of that is that there is no desire to deplete the resources which have been voted and allotted to the Universities.


Will that mean that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question on Supplementary Estimates? Is this temporary borrowing from these balances to save the Government the necessity of having Supplementary Estimates, or shall we have the opportunity, to which we are entitled in this House, of discussing this supplementary expenditure?


The House, of course, always has the opportunity of discussing any money it votes. There is no question of avoiding Supplementary Estimates so as to avoid discussion. The only object is to avoid inviting this House to vote more money than is required.


Then this Third Reading is the only opportunity of discussing this increased grant of public money to the Universities? It is perfectly true that for the time being it may be taken from existing balances, but in the long run we shall have to find from public money this additional grant. On this point, is it not obvious that we ought to have the opportunity of discussing whether this additional grant of public money should be made?

Captain A. EVANS

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker with-

held his assent and declined then to put the Question.


There seems to me to be no doubt whatever that the expenditure of this money—


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 79.

Division No. 303.] AYES. [4.3 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Furness, G. J. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gardiner, James Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin Gilbert, James Daniel Nield, Sir Herbert
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Goff, Sir R. Park Paget, T. G.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Gould, James C. Pease, William Edwin
Barnston, Major Harry Gray, Frank (Oxford) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Becker, Harry Gretton, Colonel John Perring, William George
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Peto, Basil E.
Berry, Sir George Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Pielou, D. P.
Blundell, F. N. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Bonwick, A. Halstead, Major D. Privett, F. J.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Brass, Captain W. Harney, E. A. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Harrison, F. C. Remer, J. R.
Brittain, Sir Harry Hawke, John Anthony Rentoul, G. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Bruton, Sir James Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Hiley, Sir Ernest Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Butcher, Sir John George Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Russell, William (Bolton)
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Cadogan, Major Edward Hopkins, John W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cautley, Henry Strother Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Shipwright, Captain D.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hudson, Capt. A. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hume, G. H. Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hurd, Percy A. Singleton, J. E.
Clarry, Reginald George Hurst, Gerald B. Skelton, A. N.
Clayton, G. C. Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Steel, Major S. Strang
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A. Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin King, Captain Henry Douglas Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Cope, Major William Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell Lever, Sir Arthur L. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Titchfield, Marquess of
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Curzon, Captain Viscount Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Tubbs, S. W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Lorden, John William Turton, Edmund Russborough
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lorimer, H. D. Wallace, Captain E.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lort-Williams, J. Wells, S. R.
Doyle, N. Grattan Lyle-Samuel, Alexander White, Lt.-Cot. G. D. (Southport)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Edmondson, Major A. J. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ednam, Viscount Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Winterton, Earl
Entwistle, Major C. F. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wise, Frederick
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Wolmer, Viscount
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Manville, Edward Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Fawkes, Major F. H. Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Millar, J. D. Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Foreman, Sir Henry Molloy, Major L. G. S. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel
Forestier-Walker, L. Murchison, C. K. The Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Adams, D. Harris, Percy A. Pringle, W. M. R.
Ammon, Charles George Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, C. R. Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) Scrymgeour, E.
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sexton, James
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hinds, John Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Broad, F. A. Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Shinwell, Emanuel
Brotherton, J. Irving, Dan Snell, Harry
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) John, William (Rhondda, West) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cape, Thomas Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Charleton, H. C. Kirkwood, D. Tout, W. J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lawson, John James Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leach, W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Linfield, F. C. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lowth, T. Webb, Sidney
Duffy, T. Gavan MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Duncan, C. M'Entee, V. L. Weir, L. M.
Dunnico, H. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Ede, James Chuter March, S. Whiteley, W.
Edmonds, G. Middleton, G. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Gosling, Harry Mosley, Oswald Wright, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Muir, John W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murnin, H.
Groves, T. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Phillipps, Vivian Mr. Spoor and Mr. Albert Alexander.
Hancock, John George Ponsonby, Arthur
Hardie, George D. Potts, John S.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Four o'Clock, till Monday next (23rd July).