HC Deb 30 March 1927 vol 204 cc1302-51

Order for Second Reading read.


I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The administration of Crown Lands is governed by a long series of Acts which in certain respects are out of date and need to be modernised. In recent years there has been a revolution in law affecting real estate from which Crown Lands have been generally speaking left out. Crown Lands are deprived of the facilities generally enjoyed in connection with land under the Settled Land Act of 1925, and it is necessary for the more efficient and profitable administration of these estates that these facilities should be extended. The Bill will amend the powers of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in a great many detailed particulars. I cannot pretend that there is any general principle running through the Measure. I can, therefore, only draw attention to a few of the more important Clauses. The Commissioners of Crown Lands are, for most, but not for all purposes, only able to act technically as individuals. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is a "corporation sole," the other Commissioner is an individual, and it is desirable to avoid certain difficulties in appointing new Commissioners by constituting the Commissioners a body corporate. That is the object of Clause 1. Clauses 2 and 3 codify the powers of sale and generally copy the provisions of the Settled Land Act. The only material extension of the powers of the Commissioners for the purposes of sale is the provision made that they may sell for a rent charge.

Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with leases, as to which the present powers of the Commissioners are restricted. The most important change is that it will enable them to grant leases for general purposes for terms up to 100 years. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 will enable the Commissioners to make grants of land for the improvement and general benefit of other Crown lands, and Clause 12 extends the powers of leasing certain houses in the Royal Parks which are now under the Commissioners of Works. The power of leasing these houses is now limited to certain cases provided under the Act of 1851. Houses left under the Office of Works in the Royal Parks cannot be leased because the Office of Works has no power and is not a Revenue Department, and it is proposed, with His Majesty's consent, that houses may be transferred from the Commissioner of Works to the Commissioners of Crown Lands and in exchange other houses may be transferred back subject to adjustment by the Treasury. Clause 15 would repeal the exemption from Stamp Duty which applies to transactions about Crown lands and which is of very doubtful value to the facilitating of such transactions. This exemption causes a considerable loss of revenue, and there seems to be no reason why those who buy or lease land from the Crown should be exempt from a normal charge. Clauses 19 and 20 would transfer to the diocesan fund concerned certain ecclesiastical funds for which the Commissioners of Crown Lands now act as trustees. I do not think I need trouble the House with any of the other Clauses. I fear that my unlearned mind is incapable of illuminating so technical a Bill, but the House will perhaps find compensation in the presence of my learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, who is quite willing to explain any legal points.


It appears to me that very little interest can be got out of a Debate upon this Bill, which is a business Bill, and although the history of the Crown lands is full of interest, and if we surveyed what led to past Acts of Parliament in connection with them it would bring us to extraordinarily thrilling periods of history, yet there is nothing in this Bill except what is rather dull business. But I would note that, whereas in regard to the last Bill before the House we were welcoming a new departure in Socialism, we are here dealing with a very old established form of Socialism. Crown lands are a model to me of the way that land should be dealt with, and this Bill, if it does nothing more, puts the administration of the Crown lands in order. I understand that the Bill is to go to a Select Committee, and therefore some of the highly technical points in it will be better dealt with there. But I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. In Clause 10 I notice that there is power to grant land for public and charitable purposes. That seems all to the good, but in lines 36 and 37 I see the expression; For the construction, enlargement or improvement of any railway, canal, road (public or private). I do not quite see why it is appropriate to put in the words "or private." Perhaps the Minister will give us a reason, which must, I think, be rather a special one. In the main the improved power given in the Bill seems to me to bring the administration of the Crown lands into harmony with the provisions prevailing in regard to other trust land, and to adapt the principal methods of the Settled Land Act, which is a voluminous Act of 120 Clauses, and the Law of Property Act, which has over 200 Clauses; and it has certainly been an inconvenience to the Commissioners of Crown Lands to have to deal with the anomalies which are removed by this Bill. In the main, of course, the Bill is an illustration of the peculiarities of legal language. For instance, some fun might be derived from such an expression as this in line 9 on page 3: Every sale shall be made for the best consideration in money that in the opinion of the Commissioners of Crown Lands can reasonably be obtained. It is very comic to suppose that any other principle has, up to now, been followed in administering the Crown lands. One might find one or two other parallel expressions peculiar to the lawyers. For instance, on page 5 it is laid down that a building lease shall be made in consideration of the lessee agreeing to erect buildings. That does not seem a very novel idea to apply when you are letting land. But these obvious expressions are perhaps to be expected in a lawyers' Bill like this. Clauses 9 to 11 embody very valuable principles—assistance to public bodies in regard to water supplies, and particularly to some modern developments such as village institutes, reading rooms, working men's clubs and so on. I confess that I was under the impression, when I had to do with woods and forests, that there were such powers, but I suppose in fact it has been difficult to act in accordance with modern land ownership in these respects, and, if so, it is certainly valuable to have these pro-visions made legal, because the Crown ought to be a model landowner.

All land-owning ought to be regarded as a trusteeship, and the Crown set an example some 20 years ago, particularly in model administration of land in connection with small holdings. This is carrying out a policy which was both economic and social and publicly beneficial under the new administration of Crown lands which began about 1907. When we come to Clauses 12 and 13 it seems a formal matter to provide for exchange of properties which involve no financial difference to the revenues of the estate; and in Clause 15 we have fortunately a case of improved revenue in respect of Stamp Duty. Clauses 19 and 20 remove an anomaly, and as I dislike anomalies very much I think it is certainly worth while, though business can be carried on without these Clauses, to put things in order and allot the administration of property where it ought to be allotted. I have nothing more to say, because there is no criticism to be made of a Bill which cannot be regarded as controversial in any way. It is a technical Bill and it is appropriate that it should go to a Select Committee. With that understanding I would like to support the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel V. HENDERSON

I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions about the Bill. The Estimates Committee, in the second Report which they made to the House last year on the question of the co-ordination of common services, drew the attention of the House to the fact that a Committee had been set up in 1921, known as the Howard Frank Committee, which was set up for the purpose of finding out whether it was possible to concentrate under one Department all work in connection with the sale and management and survey of Crown lands. That Committee reported in 1922, but no action of any kind has ever been taken on any of its recommendations. The Estimates Committee drew the attention of the House to that fact, and the Treasury in one of the minutes which they issued in reply, explained that the matter, so far as the State management of Crown lands was concerned, would remain as at present. What they said was: As the Committee were informed in a letter addressed to your Secretary on 11th June last, so far as the State management of Government lands and buildings is concerned, the existing arrangements, under which the various Departments are responsible for their own estate management, are to continue. So far as the other recommendations of the Committee are concerned no explanation has ever been given as to whether the Government propose to act on them or not. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain to me to what extent, if any, this Bill embodies certain of the recommendations of the Howard Frank Committee. It appeared to me that it did embody the recommendation' with regard to sales of Government land being concentrated in one Department; but there is one point to which the Estimates Committee attaches importance, and that is the possibility of all surveys being also concentrated in one Department. At present there is a separate survey department, which works quite apart from the Crown Lands Department, and if the Howard Frank Committee, who were to a large extent an expert and technical committee, were under the impression that you could economise and get greater efficiency by concentrating these departments and concentrating more of the work to be carried out by one department, I would like to know why the Government are not taking any action on the matter. It is possible, of course, that it may be concealed some where in the Bill and that I, having no technical knowledge, may not be able to find it; but as the Minister's statement was so brief I shall be grateful for some information on that point.


I wish to ask the Minister a question. I understand that the Bill gives power to the Commissioners of Crown Lands to dispose of their property, to sell it, to denationalise the land, or such land as they have. In Clause 21 it is stated that no such sale shall be permitted, unless with the assent of the Treasury, where the property is of a value over £1,000. The experience we have had of the disposal of publicly owned property under the present Government does not seem to warrant us in giving them any further power than that which they already have to dispose of property. In Clause 3 there is what appears to be of the nature of a safeguard: Save as hereinafter provided, every sale shall be made for the best consideration in money that in the opinion of the Commissioners of Crown Lands can reasonably be obtained. 6.0 p.m.

"The best consideration in money." We had a case discussed in this House within the past week of a property and stock bought for £43,000, and disposed of for £9,000,000. It was made the subject of Debate in this House. I refer to the estate of Erribol, and as this Bill applies to Scotland, we are entitled to have from the Minister in charge some further particulars as to what safeguards this House and the public are to have against the disposal of valuable public property for mere fictitious sums. I do not think the House ought to make it easier for this Government, or any Government, to dispose of national property through the agency of gentlemen called Commissioners of Crown. Lands. We should not allow those gentlemen to be the sole judges of what is the best consideration in money to be given for State property. Before this House confers on the Government any further powers or rights to dispose of publicly owned property, I trust we shall have adequate information as to what guarantees are being afforded in this respect.


This Bill was introduced by the Minister with a very brief summary of its contents. We on this side had hoped that a more careful explanation would have been given of a Bill of this nature, dealing with national property. Even one of the hon. Members opposite who put a question to the Minister explained that the Measure was so technical that more information was to be expected in regard to it. Running through the Bill is the phrase "the best rent that in the opinion of the Commissioners of Crown lands can reasonably be obtained." What is meant by "best rent"? Does that mean that the nation as the owner of Crown lands will allow unnatural conditions, which bring about high rents in adjacent localities to determine the rent of Crown lands? Is a false market to be a determining factor in settling what is the best rent, or are we going to have a reasonable method of assessing what the value is and of adopting that value, no matter what the rent may be on any other lands? Are we going to allow the individual who is taking the land to have it at a natural rent? Are we going to allow him to get the benefit of that rather than allow a market which may be false to determine the rent?

Clause 7, which deals with mining leases, raises a very important point and one which is more important to-day than it has even been, because of the recent coal stoppage. The Prime Minister promised that great changes were to be made in regard to mining, but the right hon. Gentleman in discussing this question has always told us that he has no power to deal with privately-owned mines. Now, presumably, we have Crown land containing coal, because provision is being made in this Bill concerning it. Why is it, since the Prime Minister has promised that there will be an improvement in relation to mines, both underground and above ground, that there is no provision in this Bill, in regard to mineral-bearing Crown lands, to carry out such improvements? What is to be the difference, in the case of the Crown lands, as regards such matters as the needless desecration of the surface? The nation, as the owner of these lands, ought to give a lead by saying that wherever minerals are sought or got upon Crown lands certain conditions shall be observed. Here is where the nation possesses that power, which the Prime Minister during the coal stoppage said he did not possess—the power of enforcing Regulations in regard to mining. Here we have our own mineral-bearing land and, in view of the enlightenment which has been shed during the last 25 years on the science of mining, why are we not taking a step in advance and away from conditions which we know to be thoroughly bad? Why is there nothing in the Bill to regulate the sinking of shafts on Crown land and to see that it is not done as it is ordinarily done in what we call mining to-day—though I do not call it mining at all? Why should we continue to have unsightly heaps and conditions as to atmosphere which make it unhealthy even to live near these mines? If there is any sincerity in the Prime Minister's expressed desire to see things improved, be is at the head of the Government and these lands are under the direct control of the Government, and he should take steps to have inserted in this Measure some provision for the improvements which I am now indicating.

Why should Crown lands, in connection with minerals, be saddled with the same difficulties as privately-owned lands? There should be some stipulation in connection with the leases proposed in Clause 7 ensuring that the person working minerals on Crown lands should not be subject to the conditions obtaining in the ordinary privately-owned coalfields. For instance, wherever it is necessary to remove water to the surface there should be a Regulation ensuring that all water so drawn to the surface by the primary power shall be properly dealt with when it is released on the surface, and shall not be allowed to flow into someone else's mineral workings. I can give cases where water has been pumped at a high cost out of one pit and allowed to go into another pit. The two pits belonged to different individuals, and there was neither comings nor goings between them. The owner of the other pit had to pump out all this water, in addition to dealing with the water-carrying strata in his own pit. We claim to be enlightened in this year of grace, and we ought to learn from what has taken place in the past. There ought to be something in this Bill which would be an index of the fact that as a nation we are moving forward in the light of known facts. But there is nothing in this Bill to show that there is going to be any difference as between mining on Crown lands and mining on other lands. I hope the Minister in charge will be able to get some more information on this point, and that he will be able to promise even yet that some provision can be inserted in the Bill to prevent the unsightly things which we find in the ordinary mining areas. What we are told about the rent is very interesting. The Bill states that the rent may be made to vary according to the quantities of any mineral or substance gotten. What is to be the determining factor? Is the price of this mineral to be the marketable price? If a man takes the land when the market is down to its lowest, is he to have it at a rent which will enable him to get all the benefit when the market rises again and deprives the nation of any of that benefit? Is it going to be fixed on market price or on the basis of the utility of the mineral itself? I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to get a fair basis in regard to ungotten minerals, he should take the advice of some of the Government Departments now engaged in business who will be able to tell him about the values of particular minerals. In that way we can get a proper basis but I object to the idea that the market price of any given mineral, coal, iron, pyrites or whatever it may be, ought to determine the rent of the land for the purpose of working the minerals. I had hoped that the Committee which was dealing with the technical side of the Bill, would have tried to find some basis for a workable agreement which would apply generally. We know that minerals do not all lie in the same way and are not all of the same value. You may travel a hundred yards across a fault in strata and find as much difference in the conditions as there is between daylight and darkness. What is to be the determining factor in conditions of that kind? I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are smiling at what I am saying or at something else; but I would point out that it is this circumstance which gives their best argument to certain mineowners who say their mines do not pay. There is not any mine in the country where the shaft is properly sunk, which under proper arrangements has not paid handsomely when it has been getting coal, but the system is bad, and the Government are falling into the same groove. Evidently they propose to fix the rent in regard to minerals on an outside basis.

These are the nation's minerals which are being dealt with in the Bill and in the interests of the nation and from a business point of view we ought to consider these points; We can give an impetus to trade by providing that these leases shall be given at the lowest possible rents and that we shall only take from the leases that which will meet the necessary costs of the administration of the land. But there we have to guard against the danger that those who take up the leases may take all the profit. How are you going to do that? How are you going to prevent the person who is taking out the minerals from running away with the benefits which you want for the whole community and for industry generally? I will suggest a way. Every ton of coal which he gets would carry a market value. In that market value there should not be included more than the average normal rate of getting coal. Then the market price rules the rest and beyond these two factors you could not add anything to what you had given him in the form of a cheap rate for working the minerals. The Minister might have saved a great deal of questioning had he given a fuller explanation of these Clauses. Take, for instance, a simple thing like the dedication of streets and open spaces. The Bill is full of legal phraseology, which to my lay mind may mean three or four different things, and I suppose to the legal mind may mean 300 or 400 different things. Clause 25 which refers to the application of the Measure to Scotland, states that The power to sell shall be construed to include power to grant a feu and the expression 'easement' shall mean 'servitude.' I notice a representative of Scotland on the Front Bench, and perhaps he will explain whether there is a complete balance as between these legal terms, or whether there is a difference which is against Scotland. I do not think that "feu" is meant by "easement." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] But then the Bill says that the power to sell is to be construed to include the power to grant a feu and that the expression "easement" shall mean "servitude." Does the word "servitude" equal "easement" as far as Scottish law is concerned? When it comes to the power to grant a feu, is this feu going to be outside the ordinary practice in relation to feus? I contend that national lands ought to give a lead in the right direction.


I was very disappointed at the opening statement of the Minister of Agriculture in explaining the main Clauses and features of this Bill. It is 'true that he confessed that he did not know anything about the legal aspects of the Bill, and many of us are in the same position, but it appears to me that the Bill affects not only Crown lands, such as land that may be suitable for agricultural or building purposes, but there are very important provisions dealing with the contents of the earth's crust, with minerals, all of which may be more or less valuable. I think this Bill is so important and so large in its scope and possibilities, and that it sets such a precedent for future action by any Government, that the first thing the Government should have done in introducing it to-day was at least to have shown the courtesy to the House of fully informing it as to what is the extent, the acreage, the nature, and the situation of the Crown lands which we now hold. For aught that this Bill says to the contrary, all the Crown lands which we own may not be worth a tinker's curse. On the other hand, they may be worth a great many millions of money, actual or potential, and I think the House is being treated with great discourtesy by the Government not having prepared a careful statement giving the extent of the Crown lands, where they are situated, in what counties they are to be found, and how much of the land is suitable for agricultural purposes and building purposes, and how far it is possible that some of it might be set aside for municipalities for town planning, housing, and other purposes.

We ought to have an expert estimate from the appropriate Government Department as to what is the possible extent of minerals under Crown lands in the country. I am not aware of any official papers which disclose this very necessary information, and we are asked practically to give this Tory Government, which is the stalwart of private landlordism, an absolutely blank cheque—to a landlord Government—to do as they like with the Crown lands of this country. There is complete power in this Bill either to lease or to sell any minerals which are owned as Crown property, and we have not been told what is the extent of the mineral reserves that may lie under or on the Crown lands. There is Crown land scattered up and down the country, much of which has been bought from time to time for Government purposes by various Governments, much of which is land that has remained in the Royal possession for centuries. Some of that land, we know, contains coal, and surely this House is entitled (to know the) approximate estimated coal reserves under these Crown lands.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present


When we were interrupted, I was trying to impress upon the Government that they ought, as a matter of courtesy, to let us know the value of the Crown lands, and if the Departments are not prepared to give us that information to-day, if this Bill is to be sent to a Select Committee, I seriously ask that they should prepare a statement which will be available for that Committee to consider, and, of course, for Members of the House also. I attach very great importance to that data, which can be supplied, and the Government ought to be well aware of what is required. I would like to draw attention to Clause 2, which deals with the powers of sale of Crown lands, and states: The Commissioners of Crown Lands—

  1. (i) May sell any Crown land or any easement, right or privilege of any kind over or in relation to Crown land; and
  2. (ii) Where any Crown land comprises a manor, may sell the seignory of any freehold land within. the manor, with or without any exception or reservation of all or any mines or minerals, or of any rights or powers relative to mining purposes, so as in every such case to effect an extinguishment of the manorial incidents."
That sounds to be a very legal Clause, but I think it is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, because it attempts to deal with the question of private or public ownership of land and minerals. Some of the lands we own to-day have come to the Crown in a peculiar way, and it would be a very interesting thing indeed to get a historical explanation of what lands are to-day Crown lands because of these things, and why most of the land of the country that once was Crown land has been stolen from the people and is now owned by private landlords. May I also point out that this power to sell the land and the minerals is one which we, on this side of the House, shall resist to the utmost?

I want some information with regard to the coal reserves that may be underneath some of these Crown lands in some of the coalfield areas of the country. I want to know what is the approximate reserve of such coal, because, if that coal is there in large quantities, I think it is time that the Government seriously considered getting at that coal, developing it, and running a few public mines as an experiment as against the private enter- prise mines in the country. The Prime Minister was good enough, during the coal dispute, to say that his Government stood for peace in industry. If we have large reserves of coal under some of these Crown lands, here is an excellent opportunity for the Prime Minister and his Government to sink shafts right away, to develop this coal, and to find out whether he cannot put the peace and good will about which he preaches into these few mines as an example to the coalowners of this country. I can assure him that, when he undertakes such a step, he will have no difficulty in finding miners to work such coal seams. There are figures to-day showing that some hundreds of thousands of miners are still unemployed, and many of them victimised men, who are not permitted to resume work in the pits in which they have hitherto been employed, not because they lack the skill to work as miners there, but because before the stoppage they were loyal to their fellows and have become marked men and been refused employment by these concerns.

If we can develop some of these coal reserves in this way, the Prime Minister will have a happy opportunity of employing some of these men. If he has any difficulty in getting miners from Scotland or England, I can give him enough, from my own Division alone, of victimised men to work every coal seam he can get. I can give him from the Llanelly Colliery in the Pontypridd Division about 120 men who have been employed for from 10 up to 40 years in that one colliery, working the coal seams in that mine, who are no longer employed. One of them has been a banksman of this one colliery for 37 years, and here are men with experience and skill and with knowledge prepared to work the Crown coal seams. I, therefore, hope the Government will seriously consider experimenting in this direction. I am well aware that it would be contrary to their ideals of private ownership and private enterprise, that it would be a departure for a Tory Government to do anything of the sort, but it would be a good experiment to make, and if the Prime Minister were present I know that, with his large-heartedness and broad-minded desire to do the right thing, he would boldly do this kind of thing.

There is another aspect of this Clause to which I wish to draw attention. The mining property that is in these Crown lands may, as I have said, be leased or sold outright under this Bill. We object to that as a fundamental principle, that any Crown lands with valuable minerals in them should be sold to private enterprise at all, because we think, on the other hand, that they ought to be publicly developed. In the absence of a statement showing the situation and extent of these Crown lands and minerals, we have no means of testing whether the statement would include all the lands that are really public property. Let me give an illustration, by what is known as the Herbert Grant. That was a grant of public land made by the father of King Edward VI in 1551 to the Earl of Pembroke. It is known, and the deed discloses, that this land covers six Royal manors in six English counties, and six Royal manors in six Welsh counties, and many of these Royal manors were given away in this document. It is still a moot point whether that was a legal Statute or not. There are many other parts of the country where it is a moot point whether the land is public or private property, and until we get a proper statement of the Crown lands we do own, and which this Government recognise as public property, we are not in a position to know how to proceed in the matter.

Then, we are told, that in the provisions of this Bill for the leasing of minerals, the royalty system is to obtain and, as in Clause 8, there is provision for "Separate dealing with surface and minerals, with or without wayleaves." Here, again, I think the Government have an excellent opportunity to try to improve upon the practice of private landlords in this direction. In the Sankey Commission's Report and in the Samuel Commission's Report a great deal of stress was laid upon the yield of the mineral royalty system. It has been frankly admitted by both those impartial Commissions, on the evidence submitted to them, that the royalty system is a serious burden upon the efficiency and productivity of the mining industry of this country. In this Bill, the Government are deliberately maintaining and perpetuating the evils of that system by imposing wayleaves on minerals worked underground. It may not be familiar to many Members of this House what way-leaves really mean in this connection. There are surface wayleaves and underground wayleaves. The surface wayleave is usually one of payment per ton of the mineral that is conveyed from the property of one landlord to that of another, with the necessary process of putting on the market the coal and other minerals. The underground wayleaves are a much greater burden than the surface way-leaves. Not only are tin, iron ore, coal and other minerals worked underground in this country in large quantities, but they are worked, of course, from different properties going into the same mine, and minerals that are gotten in one property underground and cat only be brought to the surface through the property where the mine is actually situated, have to pay a wayleave, not for anything done, but for mere permission for the coal or other mineral to pass from one property to the other underground.

We say that the Crown should not maintain that evil system. There are not only wayleaves for permission to convey minerals from one property to another. In all our coalmines, in many of our iron-ore and tin-mines, we have what is known as water wayleaves. Many mines are subject to huge quantities of water which are liable to flood the mines unless properly drained away, and it has been proved before the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission that this water problem, the proper drainage of mines, is a serious, hindrance to the efficiency of production, and increases the cost of the production of coal. We say, here is an opportunity in this Bill for the Government to set an example to the private landlords and private owners of wayleave rights, to insist that the wayleaves, as such, should be absolutely abolished, and that provision should be made for the proper drainage of the mines, and so on. But there are other wayleaves underground in addition to those I have mentioned. There are what are called "air wayleaves." Very often in coalmines it is necessary to cut a tunnel or passage merely for the passage of air to ventilate the mine. When that passage goes from the property of one landlord to that of another, the landlord, who has never seen the mine or been near it, and knows nothing about the water or air in the mine, has the power to compel that colliery company to pay him a royalty on every ton of coal that comes through that area, for permission to allow the air to pass through the rocks. I say that the whole system of wayleaves is an abomination, and for the Crown to perpetuate this abomination does not say much for their so-called efficiency and intelligence. I think this Clause will have to be amended in Committee upstairs.

Then I would ask for information as to how much the Crown now gets in royalties for minerals worked on Crown lands, how much of this is what is usually known as the royalty on the output tonnage and the acreage worked, and how much is in the form of wayleaves for water, air, and so on? Then I would like to ask the Government about one point on which I am not quite clear. I gathered from the few remarks of the Minister of Agriculture that the Crown lands in certain cases involve the public ownership of buildings on some of those lands. We are not given any indication as to what is the extent of those buildings, or where they are situated, but, in so far as buildings go with the land, I want to know from the Government why they have not made a provision in this Bill for the rating of Crown buildings on such Crown lands. We are well aware that Crown property is not rated in the way that private property is rated.


We cannot go into that now. The rating law raises a different question.


I certainly shall abide by your ruling, but I also want your guidance on this point. Before you came to the Chair, the Minister of Agriculture made a statement as to the main provisions of this Bill. I may be mistaken, but I understood him to say that on some of these Crown lands there are Crown buildings.


There are provisions for the Crown to lease land for building, and, as the hon. Member knows well, there are many Crown estates in London where there is very extensive house property.


But, in addition, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say there were in some cases on these Crown lands Crown buildings in the occupation of the Crown.


There are buildings on the Crown lands, and, of course, the occupier pays rates.


That is just the point I want to get at. I am not quite sure that the occupiers of Crown buildings on Crown land do pay rates in every case. My information is that there are a number of public buildings which are not paying rates. I think it is true to say that throughout England and Wales none of the Government buildings which are used by Ministers' Departments—


If the hon. Member is thinking of Government offices in the occupation of public Departments, they do not come under the Office of Crown Lands.


Shall I be a little more specific? There are Royal palaces in this country built and occupied upon Crown land. Do those Royal palaces pay the rates of the locality? My information is that they do not.


On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is possible for anything in this Bill, under the Title of the Bill, to do anything to affect the law realting to rating—cither to impose rates upon or relieve property owners?


Is it not possible that in regard to the Clause dealing with leasing, this may have a very material effect?


In my opinion the hon. Member is going now beyond the scope of the Bill. Rating law is quite a separate matter, and cannot come in under the present Bill.


I certainly submit to that ruling quite readily, but I was under the impression that when the leases were to be considered it would necessarily involve that subject. But if it cannot be raised, of course we must leave it at that. I would again stress as a final point, that the Government Departments which are concerned in this matter ought to supply this House with a very full statement of the Crown lands we do own. I would like to know what is the total acreage of that land, whether it is agricultural land, whether suitable for building, or whether mineral land, or anything else; whether it is inland or on the shore, or wherever it may be. We are entitled to know what are the minerals contained in that Crown land, whether there is gold, and whether that gold can he got at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in time for the next Budget. We have, at any rate, gold in the land of Wales, and quantities have been produced. Some of it has been placed on the Table of this House by a Member of this House. Where it has gone I do not know. Certainly there is a great deal of tin in the Crown lands of this country, a great deal of iron-ore, a number of minor minerals, and I have reason to believe there is a great deal of coal in some of the Crown lands. We are entitled to know, therefore, the value of this land as far as it can be ascertained by the experts in the Government Departments, and I hope that a full statement will he prepared right away, and made available to the members of the Committee the first day they sit, and to all the Members of this House. When we reach that stage, we may then be in a position to see how far these Clauses affect Crown property, and I hope the Tory Government will turn completely round, get away from their concern for private rights, and start to protect the public rights in public property.


I feel it is impossible to begin my remarks without a few words of protest, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency, that we have been treated in this fashion by the Scottish Office. There is a Bill coming before this House for the reorganisation of Scottish Departments, and it seems, from the way we are treated in this House, that it is more necessary to get a Bill for the reorganisation of the Government representatives of Scotland, because it seems impossible to get them to attend to their business here. Everyone will agree that this is a very important Measure, and yet we have got no representative of the Scottish Office present. I see there is a Junior Lord of the Treasury who represents a Scottish division, and I notice that he also seems to be given the duties of a scullery maid. He had to go out and get a quorum for the House when attention was called to its absence a little while ago. I do not think it is treating Scottish representatives here properly, that there is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench.

I am sorry, as the hon. Member who preceded me said that the Minister of Agriculture cannot be congratulated on the way in which he introduced this Measure. It is quite obvious he did not know anything about it. He fumbled about, jumping from Clause to Clause, reading a few words out of the Bill. It is not good enough that a Minister introducing a Measure like this should fumble in the way he did, and then say to hon. Members, "You cannot expect an unlearned man to say anything about this Bill." That is not in keeping with the dignity of the Government or the House of Commons. The hon. Member who preceded me suggested that we ought to have a Memorandum showing the extent of these Crown Lands, and that it ought to be ready for the Select Committee on the first day on which it meets. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to withdraw this Bill to-day. If he is going to be responsible for conducting this Measure through Parliament it is only fair to the great office he holds and to the agricultural industry that he should be himself informed about its provisions. I know he has said we are to have the assistance of the learned Solicitor-General, but this is my first experience of a Minister openly and blatantly confessing that he is ignorant of a Bill which he is submitting to the House. I do not think that will conduce to the efficient carrying on of business here. If he had prefaced the Bill with a brief Memorandum it would have been to his own advantage as well as to the advantage of the House. The Government are ready to economise in small things, though not in the things that really matter, but the few pieces of paper required for a Memorandum and the printing involved would not be very expensive. Certainly, such a Memorandum would have been very helpful to His Majesty's Government, and God knows they need all the help they can get.

As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to arrange for the Commissioners of Crown Lands to be put into the posi- tion of a Corporation. The Minister of Agriculture, when making his non-illuminating statement said with a good deal of pride that he would be the Corporation sole. I am glad it is only that, and not a Dover sole, or anything else fishy, such as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries might be supposed to be. If anyone wishes to interrogate the Corporation about any transactions will the right hon. Gentleman be the Minister responsible to the House of Commons? In Clause 21 it is stated that there will require to be Treasury authorisation for all purchases or sales where the purchase money exceeds £1,000, and consequently I am a little doubtful whether the Treasury or the Ministry of Agriculture will answer for the Corporation in the House. Perhaps the Minister could let me know that now.


The Bill does not make any change in the present system. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that there are two Commissioners—a permanent Commissioner, and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in virtue of his office. The Bill does not alter that. It merely provides for incorporation.


I think I have got it a little more clearly now. This Measure would afford the Minister a good opportunity of carrying through the centralisation we would like to see, making one Minister responsible for the whole of the Crown lands. I suggest to the Minister it would be a great advantage all round if that were the case.

Having made these complaints I would like to ask whether it is not the case that one purpose of this Measure is to make the sale of Crown lands more easy? What exactly is it that the Government hope to get out of this business? What are going to be the advantages to the community if this Measure be placed on the Statute Book? Will it mean that the Crown lands, the property of the community, are going to pass more readily into the hands of other people and become private lands? If that be so, I suggest to the Government they might have arranged to hand them over to the Disposal Board, which has disposed of so much public property on advantageous terms to anybody except to the people of this country.

In Clause 10, under the heading Power to grant land for public and charitable purposes, I see that among the charitable and public purposes for which land may be granted are the construction, enlargement or improvement of any railway, canal, road (public or private), dock, sea wall, embankment, drain or watercourse. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be surprised when we say we are suspicious about words like that and what they may cover. The land is to be granted at a "nominal price or rent." Why should Crown lands be granted at a nominal price or rent to a private railway company? It is quite true that people interested in a railway company may have a good deal of political influence, but why should they be granted land at a nominal price? They ought to pay a proper price, if they are a private company. I am sorry we are not going to divide against this Measure. [Interruption.]


Speak for your own party.


I gathered from the statement from our Front Bench, when our own representative was explaining the Measure, that we do not regard it as a controversial Measure, that it is simply a technical Measure; but things which are regarded as technical by this House may afterwards work out very much to the detriment of the working class. I do not like this Measure at all. I do not want to do the Minister of Agriculture any injustice, but surely before the House agrees to give a Second reading to this Bill we should have some indication of the extent of these Crown lands or some indication of what is regarded as the possible area of lands transferred either by purchase or by lease. So far there has been only an attempt to wrap the whole subject in mystery, to tell us it is a technical business and that only the Solicitor-General for England has any knowledge about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "And he will not speak."] I think the Solicitor-General for England will speak. What annoys me is that neither the Solicitor-General for Scotland nor the Lord Advocate will speak, and much as may be the knowledge of the Solicitor-General for England about English law I do not 7.0 p.m.

think he will claim to be an authority on Scottish law. As far as this discussion has gone and as far as the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for it, I think that the only decent, straightforward thing for the Minister to do is to move the Adjournment of the Debate and bring forward this memorandum giving the House some idea of the amount of land that may be put into the charge of those corporations and also much more clearly indicating what the powers of those corporations will be.


I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

May I ask if I would be permitted now to move the Adjournment of the Debate to call attention to an important matter that affects Scotland? We have no representative of the Scottish Office or of the Scottish legal system present in the House, and, in view of this important fact, may I move the Adjournment of the Debate in order that some representative should be present?


I will put the Motion under the Standing Orders forthwith.

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

The House divided Ayes, 135; Noes, 262.

Division No. 66.] AYES. [7.4 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Sexton, James
Alexander, A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Harris, Percy A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Amnion, Charles George Hayday, Arthur Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hayes, John Henry Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barr, J. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smillie, Robert
Briant, Frank Hirst, G. H. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Broad, F. A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snell, Harry
Bromfield, William Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stamford, T. W.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Strauss, E. A.
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Sullivan, J.
Clowes, S. Kennedy, T. Sutton, J. E.
Cluse, W. S. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Taylor, R. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood, D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Thomson, Trevelvan (Middlesbro. W.)
Connolly, M. Lawrence, Susan Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cove. W. G. Lawson, John James Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh Lee, F. Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lindley, F. W. Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Townend, A. E.
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Duncan, c. Mackinder. W. Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. MacLaren, Andrew Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Webb, Rt Hon. Sidney
Fenby, T. D. Maxton, James Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Forrest, W. Montague, Frederick Wellock, Wilfred
Gardner, J. P. Morris. R. H. Welsh, J. C.
Gibbins, Joseph Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Wheat[...]ey, Rt. Hon. J.
Gosling, Harry Owen, Major G. Wiggins. William Martin
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Paling. W. Wilkinson Ellen C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenall, T. Pethick-Lawrence. F. W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Windsor, Walter
Groves, T. Riley, Ben Wright, W.
Grundy, T. W. Ritson, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rose, Frank H. Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Atholl, Duchess of Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Atkinson, C. Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Barclay-Harvey, C. M, Berry, Sir George
Betterton, Henry B. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Blundeil, F. N. Greene, W. P. Crawford Nuttall, Ellis
Boothby, S. J. G. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Oakley, T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grotrian, H. Brent O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Penny, Frederick George
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Gunston, Captain D. W. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Brass, Captain W. Harland, A. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hartington, Marquess of Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Briggs, J. Harold Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pitcher, G.
Briscoe, Richard George Haslam, Henry C. Pilditch, Sir Philip
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hawke, John Anthony Price, Major C. W. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Radford, E. A.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham) Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) Raine, W.
Buckingham, Sir H. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Ramsden, E.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonal Sir Alan Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Burman, J. B. Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y.ch'ts'y)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hills, Major John Waller Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Calne, Gordon Hall Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ropner, Major L.
Campbell, E. T. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Holland, Sir Arthur Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cassels, J. D. Holt, Captain H. P. Salmon, Major I.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sandeman, N. Stewart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hopkins, J. W. W. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Sandon, Lord
Chapman, Sir S. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hume, Sir G. H. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Shepperson, E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George Huntingfield, Lord Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)
Clayton, G. C. Hurd, Percy A. Skelton, A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midi'n & Peebles) Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Smithers, Waldron
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Jacob. A. E. Somerville, A, A. (Windsor)
Cope, Major William Jephcott, A. R. Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cooper, J. B. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Kindersley, Major Guy M. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) King Captain Henry Douglas Storry-Deans, R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Lamb, J. Q. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cunliffe. Sir Herbert Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Little. Dr. E. Graham Styles, Captain H. Walter
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Loder, J. de V. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Looker, Herbert William Tinne. J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lougher, Lewis Titchfield. Major the Marquess of
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Lumley. L. R. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Duckworth, John MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)
Eden. Captain Anthony Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Maclntyre, Ian Warrender, Sir Victor
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) McLean, Major A. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E. Macmillan, Captain H. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
England, Colonl A. Macnaghten, Hon, Sir Malcolm Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Watts, Dr. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay Macqulsten, F. A. Wells, S. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. MacRobert, Alexander M. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Faile, Sir Bertram G. Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Williams, Com. G. (Devon, Torquay)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Malone, Major P. B. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Fermoy, Lord Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Fielden, E. B. Margesson, Captain D. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)
Finburgh, S. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Winby, Colonel L. P.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Meller, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wise, Sir Fredric
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wolmer, Viscount
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Moore, Sir Newton J. Womersley, W. J.
Ganzonl, Sir John Moreing, Captain A. H. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gates, Percy Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Nelson, Sir Frank Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Goff, Sir Park Neville, R. J. Lord Stanley.
Grace, John Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Commander WILLIAMS

One of the reasons given by the Minister of Agriculture why this Bill should be given a Second Reading will not really help some of us to look at the Bill with any more favourable eyes. There are some good parts in the Bill, but,, when we are told that this Measure is necessary because some years ago an unfortunate Government passed the Law of Property Bill, which was one of the worst Measures brought into this House and has added an enormous burden on many people and on industry, I do not think it is any recommendation of the present Bill. But I would like to draw the Minister's attention and the attention of the House to what I believe is one very good Clause, namely, Clause 9 of the Bill. Under that Clause powers are given to those who have authority to deal with Crown lands to lease to the local authorities land to enable them to develop their various water schemes. I think everyone in the House will agree that it is up to the Crown authorities not only to carry out the letter and the spirit of this particular Clause but also to do everything humanly in their power to see that they really encourage this development by the local authorities. There is one thing that it is necessary to do. Anyone who has any dealings in connection with the land, and more particularly the Crown authorities, should do everything in their power to encourage local authorities to give the very best water supply they can for the health of the community they rule. I hope the Minister in his dealings with this matter will urge those who have this power to use it in the spirit of the Clause.

My hon. and gallant Friend the hon. Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) raised a point in connection with selling land and co-operation between the various Government Departments. I would like to point out that it is over four years since we have had a report with a recommendation, as I understand it, that you should amalgamate in one Department the selling of various Crown lands and the dealing with these lands. That was d6ne as an economy. Over four years have gone by, and since that time there have been good Governments and a very bad one, but that does not really justify this most important economy being held up all this time. I should like some assurance that this is going to be done in the immediate future if it is possible.


The Minister of Agriculture, when he brought in this Bill, stated that it bristled with legal technicalities, and, being a suspicious Socialist, as far as the Tory Government is concerned, I at once cast my eyes over this Measure. I am afraid the idea is to create an atmosphere in the House. We are told what is in this Bill does not matter very much, that it is a question that will require to be hammered out by the legal fraternity, and that it is not a question for the lay mind at all. That is simply a smoke screen thrown up in order that the Government may get away again with some of its mean tactics to steal the land of Scotland from the people. There are reasons why we should have those suspicions, because I noted at the beginning of this Debate that the Secretary to the Treasury was on the Treasury Bench, and he is the representative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of all men in the world. I have a suspicion he was there looking after the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in balancing his Budget. No doubt the Chancellor thinks that this is a chance of raising money by selling the land of Scotland, which I am sure he would be ready to do in order to balance his Budget. We do not stand for that on these benches.

We do not believe that this is a simple Bill, and we do not believe, as we have been told, that it does not mean anything. I am pleased to see that a representative of the Scottish Office has arrived, and I am sure he will back me up in telling the Minister of Agriculture that Scotland is not for sale. I feel sure that if the Germans understood their business they could have negotiated with the Tory Government, and hon. Members opposite would have been ready to sell our country to Germany. We have further evidence that this Government is not to be trusted with the land of our forefathers, and our country is not safe as long as the present Tory Government is in power. Not only the people of Scotland but the people of England and Wales are up in revolt against this robber Government, This band of robbers has seized our land and they would fain make us exiles, but we are not going to have it. We can give instances showing that the Scottish Office is not to be trusted in this matter because they are Tories, and they are not the friends of the working class in Scotland. We have had an example recently in the sale of the Erribol estate in the Highlands by the Government. What did the Government do in that case?


The estate referred to by the hon. Member does not come under Crown lands and it is not affected by this Bill at all.


Surely I am entitled to use that as an illustration. I appeal to your sense of justice, Mr. Speaker. I said to my colleagues before I rose that on this question I should not be allowed to travel as far as other speakers. I merely gave an illustration of how the Government acted not last year but within the last week or two. The Scottish Office disposed of that estate and sold it at much less than its proper value. It was shown by the Government valuers that the estate was worth £17,000 and it was sold by the Government at a private sale for £9,000. I have given that illustration because I fear that that is what they may do in regard to all the Crown lands. I understand that it is only a figure of speech to call them Crown lands because it really means the land belonging to the people. As a matter of fact all the land of Britain belongs to the people, and you cannot sell the land in the ultimate because it really belongs to the King who represents the people.

It is evident that something has happened to cause the Government to bring in this Bill. I am not one of those who believe that the Tories are a lot of stupids. I believe the present Government is able to tap the best brains in this country, but they use those brains to the disadvantage of the people of Great Britain for the aggrandisement of the few and the rich whom the Tories represent. I know this Bill is not introduced simply for fun, but in order to enable the Government to carry on for a certain length of time. There is beneath all this a deep sinister movement, and I know this because I am closely watching their actions. All these Bills are being brought forward with a view to counteracting the possibility of a Labour Government coming into power, and this Bill has been intro- duced simply for that purpose. To-day the power behind the throne is advising them to put Bills through quietly so that the Labour party will not notice what they are doing. This Bill bristles with legal technicalities and they say to themselves, "The Labour party mean well and they will accept this Measure because they are so generous." I think we are too generous in dealing with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to know exactly what is behind this Bill.

If the Government are so anxious about the land why do they not give it to the unemployed? In this country at the present moment we are faced with the terrible problem of unemployment, and it is bound to get worse, and there is no power on earth can change that state of things as long as the Tories are in power. My opinion is that under the present Government we shall have more unemployed, and all the reorganisation of industry that is going on really means more unemployment. If the Government were really concerned about the interest of the people of Britain, and if they were really honest in their endeavours to make ours an Imperial race, then they would not ask for power to sell the land that still belongs to the State. There is an agitation to send our people abroad across the wild Atlantic to foreign shores, and for this purpose the Government are ready to provide the shipping companies with subsidies to help our people to obtain free land anywhere else except in their own country. If they were in earnest, seeing that we are faced with the unemployment problem, which is going to be worsened by the reorganisation of industry, why do not the Government organise these Crown lands and put the unemployed on our own land—our native land? Instead of that, the actions of this Government are depleting the population in our rural districts all over Britain. In Scotland we find in the last census that the only industry that has increased in population has been that of the game-keepers. Game was the only thing in which there was any increase on the last census.


I think I have been very patient with the hon. Member. He really must come to the Bill we are discussing. We cannot discuss subjects in general on a Bill of this kind.


I have got to bow to your ruling, and will do so. I am still at the Bill. I am anxious that those Crown lands will be retained in the hands of the people. On the last Bill that we discussed here to-day the plea was against private ownership. The plea then was that the State should take over the Pacific cable; and here we have the same Government, on the same day, coming with a Bill to do away with the State owning the most essential thing for the people—the land. That is proof that this Government has no principles whatever other than profit—selfish gain. Why were they in favour of the cable being taken over by the State? Because there was no profit in it for them. How they want this Bill in order that they may sell the land to individuals to make profit out of it. The Crown lands are still in our hands—


The hon. Member is now repeating himself and those who preceded him. There is a Standing Order, No. 19, which says that Members must not repeat their own or one another's arguments.


I am very anxious to safeguard my native land, and I do not want this Government to get the power to sell any more of it. Not so very long ago we had a ball in Inverness of the rich individuals who have bought off large parts of the Highlands, and at that ball was an Indian Rajah—


This time the hon. Member must resume his seat.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, and some hon. Members, I am afraid, have taken the opportunity of discoursing about a number of things which are apparently but indirectly connected with the main purpose of this Bill. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked a question which I will pay him the compliment of saying was a very relevant one —more relevant, perhaps, than some that he raised. The question that he asked was, What are the advantages which the Government hope to bring about by this Bill The answer is, the better administration of Crown lands, more facilities for the public in connection with the administration of Crown lands, and, incidentally, possibly, an increased revenue owing to the improved administration of the lands about which we are speaking. I hope that that will answer the hon. Member's very relevant question.


Which Clause is that?


The whole Bill. I should like also to correct a misapprehension under which I think some hon. Members have been labouring, that this is a Bill which deals with what may be called Government lands or Government buildings. Crown lands are not the same thing as Government lands. I am sure hon. Members opposite are aware of that, and perhaps, if they had borne it in mind, some of the questions that have been asked would not have been raised.


Can you give us any idea where these Crown lands are?


I can give the hon. Member some indication where these Crown lands are. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the 104th Report on Crown lands and their administration was recently published, and I should have thought, judging from the industry and interest which hon. Members have shown in connection with this Bill, that they would have resorted to the Library when the Bill was introduced on the 14th March, and would have ascertained from this most interesting Report that the Crown lands are situated in England, Scotland and Ireland, that the number of acres of Crown lands in England is 69,500, of which so much is agricultural land and so ranch urban land, and the rest of it. I am sure that, if I were to detail at greater length the extent and character of the lands, hon. Members opposite would have less patience than I am sure they will extend to me.


Is there any of that land in Wales?


Yes, there is some of that land in Wales. Inasmuch as the 104th Report of the Commissioners of Crown Lands will give hon. gentlemen all this information which they are so anxious to obtain, I think economy of time will make it necessary for me to refer them to this most absorbing document. [Interruption.] It is not a Command Paper. I will replace this particular copy in the Library, and the hon. Member shall have an opportunity of seeing it in about half an hour's time—or even now, if he wishes.


Hear, hear! Pass it now.


By all means. Perhaps I might answer one or two of the more relevant questions that have been raised. I should like to explain, first of all, however, that the Bill is an amending Bill, but to some extent it may be described as a codifying Bill, that is to say, it brings up to date a great deal of legislation, some of which is repealed in the Schedule to the Bill. It amends the old law by giving new powers more in accordance-with the modern practice, and a great many of the GIause:3, as my right hon. Friend explained in introducing the Bill, arc modelled, if not exactly copied, from the Settled Lands Act, 1925, which is the latest embodiment of the proper practice relating to settled land. I think the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Agriculture in the late Government recognises that to that extent the Bill is no doubt worthy of examination before a Committee, but is not proper for detailed discussion in this House, in the sense that it covers a very large range of proposals of a very technical character.

Some criticism has been directed against my right hon. Friend on account of the brevity with which he introduced the Bill. I am bound to say there is no pleasing some hon. Members. I think that if my right hon. Friend had spent time in a detailed and technical exposition of the various Clauses of the Bill, hon. Members would have been just as dissatisfied as they are now. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] In reference to the exposition of the Bill, which hon. Members will enjoy, it will, if the necessary Motion be agreed to by the House, be referred to a Select Committee, where there will be ample opportunity of examining it Clause by Clause; and it will then come back to a Committee of this House after its examination by the Select Committee. Therefore, if possible, the opportunities of understanding this Bill are greater than is usually the case with most legislation introduced into this House.

I should like to answer one question which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) and I think also by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams). The question was whether the recommendation of Sir Howard Frank's Committee on Crown and Government Lands had been carried into effect. The only recommendation that I have found relating to Crown lands is that the division of the management of Crown lands between two Commissioners should cease. That has been carried into effect, and there is now no division between the powers of the two Commissioners. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay was under a misapprehension when he spoke about the amalgamation of all the Departments concerned with the sale of departmental or Government lands. Sir Howard Frank's Committee dealt, not only with Crown lands, but with Government lands, and the amalgamation of the Departments for the sale of Government lands has nothing to do with this Bill. Other questions were raised of, if I may say so with respect, less relevance. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) asked some questions relating to Crown lands that have minerals beneath them. It could hardly have been expected that this Bill, dealing with Crown lands, should have contained an up-to-date mining code. That is a subject for another Bill altogether, if it be necessary, but I may call attention to the fact that last Session we spent considerable time in, I hope, improving the opportunities for avoiding some of the evils to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.


May I point out that, whenever a lease is made, that is the point at which you put forward the con ditions under which that lease is to be held?


That is quite true, and when there is legislation dealing with mining leases then will be the proper time to consider questions of that sort.


You are absolutely wrong there.


I know the hon. Member thinks everyone is wrong except himself.


How can the hon. Gentleman expect us to accept the statement that they look after their interests when we know that is the same Government that imposed an extra hour a day on the miners?


This Bill might just as conveniently embody a great many Regulations for the building of small houses as for the management of mines. It is not intended for that purpose. Although I quite recognise that there are many admirable proposals hon. Members might be able to put forward in connection with the management of mines, and the granting of leases of minerals, this is not the occasion on which it is convenient to deal with them.

The late Minister for Agriculture asked a very small question on. Clause 10 as to why private roads were included within a Clause which creates a power to grant lands for certain purposes. When a private road is going to be taken over by a local authority, very often a condition is made that it shall be put into proper condition, shall be made up and widened, and have its corners taken off. It is quite likely that the only way to make a private road into a condition in which it is fit to be taken over would be by the grant of some portion of adjoining Crown lands. I am suggesting that as merely one illustration of an occasion on which it would be proper for the Commissioners of Crown lands to make a grant for the purpose of making a private road suitable for taking over by the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to what he thought was the very legal phraseology of Clause 3, where it is provided that every sale shall be made for the best consideration in money. Of course, it is necessary to have a provision of this sort. If hon. Members opposite had lived 300 years ago, they would possibly have known that a sale was not made for the best consideration. This Government, which is responsible for what is happening in this year of grace, thinks it desirable to put in a Clause that every sale shall be made for the best consideration possible. Even if the Commissioners of Crown lands did think of selling part of Scotland, the proceeds of the sale would not go into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but would be invested in stocks which would repre- sent, I quite agree very inadequately, the part of Scotland which had been sold. The hon. Member may, however, reassure himself that there is no likelihood of any part of the Crown lands in his country being parted with unless there is a very good public interest requiring that to be done.


Will it be brought before the House before it is done?


I cannot give that undertaking. This House has a great many labours to perform, and, if it was to be asked to consider and approve every transaction relating to the sale of a half an acre or an acre of land, which happens to be Grown land, I am afraid the other business of the House would suffer.

I have not referred to some questions which have been raised, as for instance in connection with what are more probably described as Government lands, because they do not come within the scope of the Bill. The Crown lands are the hereditary possession of the Crown which were long ago surrendered in return for the grant of the Civil List. It is no good entering into a discussion of questions which relate not to Crown lands but to wholly different lands which we generally speak of as Government land. I have been asked whether "servitude" is the same as "easement." Hon. Members from Scotland thought a Scottish law officer should be here to answer that question. I do not know that there is any more reason why a Scottish law officer should be able to say that "servitude" is the same as "easement" than that an English law officer should be able to say "easement" is the same as "servitude." We are neither of us acquainted with both legal systems, but I have asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland. He and I, have put our heads together and have come to the conclusion that "servitude" is the same as "easement." I hope now the House will give us the Bill on which we have had a long and detailed discussion.


I take it that Clause 8 makes provision for the way-leaves that may be charged on the working of minerals for Crown lands. The hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us that these Crown lands are what is left of the hereditary lands of our Royal system. That being so, is this not an opportunity for the Government to depart from the system—


The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.


We are discussing a very important Bill which requires more discussion than it has yet received. I was hoping, when the Solicitor-General rose, that we should have had a much fuller explanation of the Measure than he has given us. It is a very technical Bill and one that I think the legal mind is better qualified to deal with than a layman like myself and others who have taken part in the discussion-There is a considerable amount of misapprehension in the minds of Members in this part of the House. I have been disappointed with the brief way in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Clauses of the Bill. Apart from answering some questions which have been put to him, all he has told us is that it is an amending and codifying Bill for the better administration of Crown lands. As I understand it, it deals with the lands which have been handed over by the Crown to the State in respect of which a certain payment is annually made and that these lands are under the administration of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The Bill proposes to continue to give the powers of administration to these Commissioners, and those powers include the power to "sell, exchange, lease or make other authorised disposition." It proposes to give the Commissioners the same full powers with regard to the mines and minerals contained therein. Clause 8 says: With or without an exception or reservation of all or any of the mines and minerals therein or of any mines and minerals, and in any such case with or without a grant or reservation of powers of working, wayleaves or rights of way, rights of water and drainage and other powers. That is continuing in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests a very great power indeed.

The Bill also applies to Scotland. As I understand it, it applies only to what are known as the Crown lands of Scotland, which are under the administration of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and a large amount of agricultural land which has been purchased by 8.0 p.m.

the Scottish Office for small holdings and for purposes of that kind is not included in the Bill. The reason my hon. Friends were so anxious that a representative of the Scottish Office should be present was that our minds should be perfectly clear on the matter. We had doubts as to whether it was purely what are known as Crown lands, or if it included the power to sell the agricultural land which in the course of years has come into the possession of the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office is one of the biggest landowners in Scotland, and in the course of the years we have been purchasing large quantities of lands and letting them out in small holdings to a large number of small holders, though not as large a number as many of us would like to see. Consequently we were very anxious to know whether these lands which are in the possession of the Scottish Office were included in the provisions of the Bill. Personally, I do not think they are, but I have no legal training and I do not profess legal knowledge. Consequently, I would like to be assured that I am right in assuming that they are not included in the terms of this Bill. If I understood the learned Solicitor-General aright, and if he will give me his attention for a moment—


I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. May I say to him that what I previously said was right, that this Bill only deals with Crown lands. The right hon. Gentleman, for the last five minutes, has been dealing with something quite outside that.


I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance and I am satisfied. But the point I wanted to put to the learned Solicitor-General was this. If I understood him aright, this Bill contains no new principle. Already the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have practically the same powers as this Bill continues to confer upon them.


It is quite true, as I have already explained, that the Bill gives the Commissioners the powers which, according to modern practice, are accorded to owners of settled lands. To that extent it increases their powers. It gives them greater powers for using the land for the public advantage and for administering it in the public interest. In principle it con- tains nothing new, that is to say, the Commissioners have always had powers of selling or leasing, but they have not had the facilities for leasing which it is deemed proper to give them in order to use the lands more profitably and more beneficially.


I thank the learned Solicitor-General for his additional information. But if the Bill gives the Commissioners of Woods and Forests more power, then, so far as I am concerned, as an individual, that increases my opposition to the Bill. I thought that it laid down no new principle, but the learned Solicitor-General has told me that it increases the powers of the Commissioners and, consequently, I want to say quite frankly that it increases my dislike of the Bill and my opposition to it. I have already explained to the House that I thought it laid down no new principle, but even if it lays down no new principle it gives this House the opportunity of discussing anew the powers that are in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The powers that are in the hands of Commissioners of Woods and Forests are to sell, exchange, lease, or to dispose of any of the lands in their care and keeping. As an individual, I take the view that land is far too valuable to the nation for any Commissioners such as the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to have it in their power to sell that land. We have frequently discussed within recent weeks in this House our industrial difficulties, and Member after Member from various parts of the House has risen and has pointed out that we were not likely in the future to be able to take the same share of the world's trade and commerce as we have been accustomed to do in the past. Personally, I am inclined to agree with that view. If that is the case, it makes the value of the land at our disposal far greater in the future than has been the case in the past. In the past we have been accustomed to grow our corn in the mine and our wheat in the factory. But evidently we are not going to be able to do that in the future. We shall have to grow our corn and our wheat on the land. From the land we snail have to produce the wherewithal for our people to live.

If we are not going to be able to take as big a share of the world's trade and commerce in the future as we have done in the past, I say quite frankly to the Members of the Government that that increases my determination as an individual to see that neither these Commissioners for Woods and Forests nor any other Commissioners shall have the power to sell any parts of that land. I know that, in laying down a principle like that, I am laying down a principle with which my hon. Friends opposite entirely disagree. They believe in the private ownership of land. We on these benches are convinced that the public ownership of land is a safe and sound principle for our people or for the people of any nation. Hon. Members opposite, on the other hand, take the view that the private ownership of land is the thing. I want to say quite frankly to the learned Solicitor-General that, knowing that there is this profound difference between him and myself and my colleagues on the principle that is contained in this Bill, I am very suspicious that this Bill is really for the better administration of the Crown Lands and that it is for the amending and codifying of the present law in relation to Crown Lands. I think the learned Solicitor-General could have afforded to have spent more time in explaining really what he meant by the two bits of information that he gave us regarding this very important Bill. I can assure both him and the Government that it would have been a saving of time if he had done it. As I have already explained to him, we are suspicious about the whole thing. Evidently, it was the intention of the Government to get this Measure through the House with a very brief explanation from the Minister of Agriculture. I have a high respect for the Minister of Agriculture, but I want to say to him quite frankly that this Bill contains far too many technicalities for him to be able to explain it satisfactorily to the House. The only mind that can grasp the many technicalities that are contained in this Bill is the legal mind, and consequently I am very much disappointed that when the learned Solicitor-General rose we got such a meagre explanation from him. Not only does this Bill give to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the power to sell or to lease or to dispose of the land—


I must remind the hon. Member of the fact that that has been repeated several times over. I must warn him on that point.


I was simply using that phrase to pass on to my next point. I was passing over that phrase by saying that not only is the power to deal with these lands and to sell and to lease these lands reserved in this Measure to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but the same power is given to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in respect of minerals and mines.


That, also, has been repeated a dozen times.


It may be that other Members have dealt with the question of mines and minerals to a certain extent, but I do not think they have dealt exactly with the point that I wanted to bring in here in regard to mines and minerals. My point is simply this. The powers to sell and to lease and to dispose of these minerals are also reserved in the hands

of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. What I wanted to say regarding that is that I think that these minerals and mines are far too valuable to the people in this country to have the administration of a part of them remaining in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. I think they are far too valuable an asset to the nation. We know very well that we from our mining industry have been able to balance imports with exports. I do not know any phase of our industrial system where we have been able to make larger contributions towards balancing our imports with our exports than from the mining industry.


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, 236; Noes, 123.

Division No. 67.] AYES. [8.15 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir james T. Clarry, Reginald George Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Clayton, G. C. Grotrlan, H. Brent
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cobb, Sir Cyril Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Harland, A.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hartington, Marquess of
Atholl, Duchess of Cope, Major William Hawke, John Anthony
Atkinson, C. Couper, J. B. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Barclay-Harvey. C. M. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Curzon, Captain Viscount Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Davidson. Major-General Sir John H. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hills. Major John Waller
Bennett, A. J. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Dawson, Sir Philip Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Blundell, F. N. Dixey, A, C. Holland, Sir Arthur
Boothby, R. J. G. Duckworth, John Holt, Capt. H. P.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Eden, Captain Anthony Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Elliot, Major Walter E. Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brass, Captain W. England, Colonel A. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Everard, W. Lindsay Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Briggs, J. Harold Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Briscoe, Richard George Falie, Sir Bertram G. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Fermoy, Lord Hume, Sir G. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Finburgh, S. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) Forrest, W. Huntingfield, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Foster, Sir Harry S. Hurd, Percy A.
Buckingham, Sir H. Fraser, Captain Ian Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl'S)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Jacob, A. E.
Burman, J. B. Ganzonl, Sir John Jephcott, A. R.
Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William
Burton, Colonel H. W. Gates, Percy Jephcott, A. R.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Calne, Gordon Hall Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham King, Captain Henry Douglas
Campbell. E. T. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement
Carver, Major W. H. Goff, Sir Park Lamb, J. Q.
Charteris, Brigadier-General. I. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Lister, Cunlifie-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Little, Dr. E. Graham Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Styles, Captain H. Walter
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Tasker, R. Inigo.
Looker, Herbert William Plicher, G. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J, G. (Dumbarton)
Lougher, Lewis Price, Major C. W. M. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Radford, E. A. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Raine, W. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lumley, L. R. Ramsden, E. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Rawson, Sir Cooper Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.) Rees, Sir Beddoe Wallace, Captain D. E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on. Hull)
Macintyre, Ian Rice, Sir Frederick Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
McLean, Major A. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Str'y, Ch'ts'y) Warrender, Sir Victor
Macmillan, Captain H. Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) Waterhouse Captain Charles
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Ropner, Major L. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otrey)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Macquisten, F. A. Rye, F. G. Watts, Dr. T.
MacRobert, Alexander M. Salmon, Major I. Wells, S. R.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Sandeman, N. Stewart White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dalrymple-
Malone, Major P. B. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sanderson, Sir Frank Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. Sandon, Lord Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Shepperson, E. W. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Moreing, Captain A. H. Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst) Winby, Colonel L. P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Skelton, A. N. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Smith, R.w. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Winterton. Rt. Hon. Eart
Nelson, Sir Frank Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Neville, R. J. Smithers, Waldron Womersley, W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Sprot, Sir Alexander Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Nuttall, Ellis Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Oakley, T. Storry-Deans, R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Captain Lord Stanley and Captain
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Streatfelld, Captain S. R. Margesson.
Penny, Frederick George Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grundy, T. W. Sexton, James
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Amnion, Charles George Hardie, George D. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Baker, Walter Hayday, Arthur Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Smillie, Robert
Barnes A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Bondfield, Margaret Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromfield, William Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Bromley, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, J.
Buchanan, G. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Cape, Thomas Kennedy, T. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
charleton, H. C. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Clowes, S. Kirkwood, D Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury. George Thurtle, Ernest
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M. Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G. Lowth, T. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mackinder, W. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Day, Colonel Harry MacLaren, Andrew Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dennison, R. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wellock, Wilfred
Duncan, C. Maxton, James Welsh, J. C.
Dunnico, H. Montague, Frederick Westwood, J.
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morris, R. H. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Fenby, T. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Whiteley, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Mosley, Oswald Wiggins, William Martin
Gardner, J. P. Naylor, T. E. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gillett, George M. Owen, Major G. Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gosling, Harry Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenall. T. Potts, John S. Windsor. Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Riley, Ben
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Groves, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes-

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided; Ayes, 241; Noes, 114.

Division No. 68.] AYES. [8.24 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Ganzonl, Sir John Neville, R. J.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Gates, Percy. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nuttall, Ellis
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gaff, Sir Park Oakley, T.
Atholl, Duchess of Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Atkinson, C. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Greene. W. P. Crawford Owen, Major G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Ponay, Frederick George
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Grotrian, H. Brent Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Harland, A. Pilcher, G.
Bennett, A. J. Hartington, Marquess of Price, Major C. W. M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hawke, John Anthony Radford, E. A.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Raine, W.
Blundell, F. N. Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Ramsden, E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Rice, Sir Frederick
Brass, Captain W. Hills, Major John Waller Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Briggs, J. Harold Hogg, fit. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ropner, Major L.
Briscoe, Richard George Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Holland, Sir Arthur Rye, F. G.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Holt, Captain H. p. Salmon, Major I.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Buckingham, Sir H. Hopkins, J. W. W. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Sandon, Lord
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)
Burman, J. B. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shepperson, E. W.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hume, Sir G. H. Skelton, A. N.
Caine, Gordon Hall Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Campbell, E. T. Huntingfield, Lord Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Carver, Major W. H. Hurd. Percy A. Smithers, Waldron
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bt's) Somervlile, A. A. (Windsor)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Spencer, G. A.(Broxtowe)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Jacob, A. E. Sprot. Sir Alexander
Clarry, Reginald George Jephcott, A. R. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'eden, E.)
Clayton, G. C. Joynson-Hicks, fit. Hon. Sir William Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Kindersley, Major G. M. Storry-Deans, A.
Cockerilf, Brig.-General Sir G. K. King, Captain Henry Douglas Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Cope, Major William Lamb, J.O. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Couper, J. B. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey Gainsbro) Little, Dr. E. Graham Tasker, R. Inigo.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Looker, Herbert William Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Lougher, Lewis Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somersef, Yeovil) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lumley, L. R, Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dawson, sir Philip MacAndrew Major Charles Glen Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dean. Arthur Wellesley Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Dixey, A. C. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cat heart) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kington-on-Hull)
Duckworth, John Maclntyre, Ian Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony McLean. Major A. Warrender, Sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J. Macmillan, Captain H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
England, Colonel A. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Everard, W. Lindsay Macquisten, F. A. Watts, Dr. T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Mac Robert, Alexander M, Wells, S. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Fenby, T. D. Malone. Major P. B. Wiggins, William Martin
Fermoy, Lord Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Finburgh, S. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Forrest, 'W. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wilson, Sir C. H. ((Leeds, Central)
Foster, Sir Harry S. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T, Moreing, Captain A. H. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fraser, Captain Ian Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Winby, Colonel L, p.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wise, Sir Fredric Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L. Major Sir George Hennessy and
Womersley, W. J. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) Captain Margesson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grundy, T. W, Sexton, James
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hardie, George D. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Ammon, Charles George Hayday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Baker, Walter Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smillie, Robert
Barnes, A. Hint, G. H. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snell, Harry
Bondfield, Margaret Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfietd) Snowden, Rt, Hon. Philip
Bromfleld, William Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Bromley, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Cape, Thomas Kennedy, T. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Charleton, H. C. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M Thurtle, Ernest
Clowes, S. Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Townend, A. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lawrence, Susan Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen
Connolly, M. Lindley, F. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Cove, W. G. Lowth, T. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mackinder, W. Wellock, Wilfred
Day, Colonel Harry MacLaren, Andrew Welsh, J. C.
Dennison, R. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Duncan, C. Maxton, James Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.
Dunnico, H. Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morris, R. H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jories, Captain G. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams. David (Swansea, E.)
Gardner, J. P. Mosley, Oswald Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Naylor, T. E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gillett, George M. Oliver, George Harold Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, Harry Paling, W. Windsor, Walter
Graham, O. M. [Lanark, Hamilton) Pothick-Lawrence, F. W. Wright. W.
Greenall, T. Potts, John S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Riley, Ben Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Ritson, J.
Groves, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R.,Elland)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection: That all Petitions against the Bill, presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to

be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

That Three be the quorum of the Committee."—[Mr. Guinness.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 114.

Division No. 69.1 AYES. [8.32 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Blundell, F. N. Campbell, E. T.
Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Boothby, R. J. G. Carver, Major W. H.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Braithwaite, Major A. N. Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Clarry, Reginald George
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Briggs, J. Harold Clayton, G. C.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Briscoe, Richard George Cobb. Sir Cyril
Atholl, Duchess of Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Cockeril, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Atkinson, C. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Cope, Major William
Barclay-Harvey C. M. Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks. Newb'y) Couper, J. B.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Buckingham, Sir H. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Bamston, Major Sir Harry Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Burman, J. B. Cunlifie, Sir Herbert
Bennett, A, J, Burton, Colonel H. W. Curzon. Captain viscount
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R Skipton) Caine, Gordon Hell Davies, maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Jacob A. E. Rye, F. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Jephcott, A. R. Salmon, Major I.
Dawson, Sir Philip Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Sandeman, N. Stewart
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dixey, A. C. King, Captain Henry Douglas Sanderson, Sir Frank
Duckworth, John Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sandon, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony Lamb, J. Q. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Shepperson, E. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
England, Colonel A. Little. Dr. E. Graham Skelton, A. N.
Everard, w. Lindsay Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Looker, Herbert William Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lougher, Lewis Smithers, Waldron
Fermoy, Lord Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Finburgh, S. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sprot, Sir Alexander
Forrest, W. Lumley. L. R. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Foster, Sir Harry S. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Fraser, Captain Ian Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Storry-Deans, R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Maclntyre, Ian Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony McLean, Major A. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Gates, Percy Macmillan, Captain H. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Styles, Captain H. Walter
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macquisten, F. A. Tasker, R. Inigo
Goff, Sir Park Mac Robert Alexander M. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Glaham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Malone, Major P. B. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Grenlell, Edward C. (City of London) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Grotrian, H. Brent Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wallace, Captain D, E.
Harland, A. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Hartington, Marquess of Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hawke, John Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank Warrender, Sir Victor
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Neville, R. J. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Heneage, Lieut.- Col. Arthur P. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'd.) Watts, Dr. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nuttall, Ellis Wells. S. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Oakley, T. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Hills, Major John Waller O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wiggins, William Martin
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Penny, Frederick George Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Holland, Sir Arthur Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wilson, Sir C, H. (Leeds, Central)
Holt, Captain H. P. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.) Pilcher, G. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Price, Major C. W. M. Windy, Colonel L. P.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Radford, E. A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hopkinton, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Raine. W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Ramsden, E. Wise, Sir Fredric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rawson, sir Cooper Womersley, W. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Rees, Sir Beddoe Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hume, Sir G. H. Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rice, Sir Frederick Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Huntingfield, Lord Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Hurd, Percy A. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's) Ropner, Major L. Captain Margesson and Captain
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Ruggles-Brist, Major E. A. Bowyer.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Day, Colonel Harry Hirst, G. H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilsbro') Dennison, R. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ammon. Charles George Duncan, C. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Raker, Walter Dunnico, H. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Barnes, A. Fenby, T. D. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Bondfield, Margaret Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Bromfield, William Gardner, J. P. Kelly, W. T.
Bromley, J. Gibbint, Joseph Kennedy, T.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gillett, George M. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gosling, Harry Kirkwood. D.
Buchanan, G. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, George
Cape, Thomas Groenall, T. Lawrence, Susan
Chariston, H. C. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) Lee. F.
Clowes, S. Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan) Lindley, F. W.
Cluse, W. S. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lowth, T.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Groves, T. Lunn, William
Compton, Joseph Grundy, T. W. Mackinder, w.
Connolly, M. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Cove, W. G. Hardie, George D. Maxton, James
Dalton, Hugh Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Burnley) Montague, Frederick
Morris, R. H. Slesser, Sir Henry H. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Smillie, Robert Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Mosley, Oswald Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wellock, Wilfred
Naylor, T. E. Snell, Harry Welsh, J. C.
Oliver, George Harold Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Westwood, J.
Owen, Major G. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Paling, W. Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles Whiteley, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w. Stephen, Campbell Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Potts, John S. Sullivan, J. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Sutton, J. E. Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)
Riley, Ben Taylor, R. A. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Ritson, J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) Thurtle, Ernest Windsor, Walter
Sexton, James Tinker, John Joseph Wright, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Watson, W. M. (Duntermline) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

Question put, and agreed to.