HC Deb 06 December 1928 vol 223 cc1523-49
The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment not covered by the previous discussion is that in page 4, line 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett).

Mr. GILLETT

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after "1924," to insert the words: at a price not less than four hundred thousand pounds. We now come to the second example of the sale of these cables, and the sum which we have put down is £400,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he did not know why we had put down a sum in an Amendment to the last Clause. If I had known what was the original expenditure upon this cable I should have followed up the plan we adopted in the last case, and put down that figure instead of the present figure of £400,000, but it is difficult from the report to make out how much money has actually been spent upon this cable. I understand its earlier life was not very satisfactory, and that at times it was aided by subsidies, and the final position to-day is that there is a debt of about £365,000 unpaid—what we call a debt, but what as a matter of fact might more correctly have been said to be the capital of the company.

I suppose the Financial Secretary will tell me that the figure they propose was arrived at on the same lines as in the previous case, that is that they asked one or two experts to value the cable! There is one point I did not make on the last case, and on which I should be glad to have a reply from the hon. Member. When they asked these experts to value the cables, did they ask for the figure that would have represented their value before any question of the amalgamation of the different cable interests had been brought about, or did they ask for the value taking into account the added value that must inevitably follow after the amalgamation has come into being? I was rather called to account by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) because I said that the quotations on the Stock Exchange were an indication of opinion of which one should take some notice. I do not know what are the qualifications of the hon. Member for Kidderminster to speak about the Stock Exchange, or whether he is a member of it or not, but I gathered from him that the opinion of the Stock Exchange is worthless. I am quite willing to take that view. I have often heard the opinion of the Stock Exchange quoted. When a Labour Government comes in and stocks fall, it is always quoted against the Government, and so I shall be content to take the view of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and shall feel in future that the opinion of the Stock Exchange against the Labour party is quite worthless.

The point upon which I wish now to lay stress is whether the effect of the amalgamation was taken into consideration by the experts, or whether they took the position as things were before the proposed amalgamation. If they considered the position as it was before the proposed amalgamation, then I wish to know whether the hon. Member, on behalf of the Government, added any figure in view of the fact that the concern was becoming much more valuable. In his speech on the last occasion—and the hon. Member will notice that I study his speeches with care and attention—the hon. Member seemed inclined to think that this was rather a bankrupt concern, because he spoke of the debt incurred, and said it was evidently far from being a revenue earning proposition. As a matter of fact, the figures are not nearly so bad as the hon. Member wanted to make out. In that speech he was trying to paint everything as black as he could. I think the deficiency in the accounts last year was only £12,000, and £6,000 of that was created by the repayment of capital and another £6,000 had gone to reserves. Now we find that this new company, with all its great resources, is not even being asked to wipe out the whole of the debt. Seeing that they seem to have plenty of money, I do not know why the hon. Member did not suggest that they should clear the whole thing. Why was £64,000 exempted? It could not have made much difference to these people if they had thrown that in, in view of the service that was being rendered to them, and the interest which the hon. Member was taking in what they were doing.

The thing to do now would be for the hon. Member to accept my figure. He will see that it is exceedingly reasonable. We are only suggesting a figure of £400,000. Really, I am rather amazed at how reasonable my proposition is—I should regret it if the hon. Member did accept my Amendment—but he might very well accept it, because then we should have cleared up and finished the thing, and I know the hon. Member would feel the transaction was a more satisfactory one. I very much regret that when we are making this fight against the sale of public property not one of the representatives of the Liberal party, who are so deeply interested in the wellbeing of the nation, is able to be present. I, myself, remember the days when they were the great supporters of municipalisation, and it is amazing to think that we cannot have any, or hardly any, support from that quarter on this occasion. But at any rate that has nothing to do with the hon. Member and myself, and in moving this Amendment I do hope that he will carefully consider whether it cannot be accepted. Really, though, I should be disappointed, because I am entirely opposed to the sale of this cable, and I cannot think it to be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

I will answer together the two questions which the hon. Member has put to me. The cost of the West Indian cable was, as I said, £393,552, since when there has been repaid a sum in annuities amounting to £14,654, leaving outstanding on the 31st March of this year £378,898.

Mr. GILLETT

Do I understand, then, that the total sum ever expended on this cable was about £400,000, apart from any subsidy?

Mr. SAMUEL

I think that is roughly what it was. Then the hon. Member asked me how the cable was valued for this purpose. The probable future prospects were taken into account. In an earlier part of the Debate the hon. Member accused me—I take it in a friendly spirit—of an unusual lapse into careless finance. Let us proceed more cautiously in dealing with this Amendment. The Amendment says that £400,000 ought to be the price for the West Indian cable, instead of the £300,000 recommended. Let us assume that the ruling value of money to-day is 5 per cent., that is, 20 years' purchase. I am going to take the hon. Member along step by step, to show him how cautiously we are proceeding. If £1 of our profits were capitalised on that basis it would be £20; and if the £1 profit grows the capitalisation would be more than £20. Let us take that to its logical conclusion. What is the capitalised value of an annual liability for a loss increasing after a period? It is nil, or worse.

It is a minus profit. Now the hon. Member opposite charges us with wishing to sell this profit too cheaply. I will concede all the points the hon. Member has made about the Reserve Fund. Let me point out that for 1928 the total estimated receipts are £40,000, and the working expenses £32,600, leaving £7,400 as profit on the working, without a penny for reserve or for interest. You will have this year a loss of £24,676, after payment of the annuity. If you capitalise a loss of £24,670 at 5 per cent., do hon. Members opposite suggest that you will get either £300,000 or £400,000? Really, instead of a capitalised loss, we have a recommendation to sell the West Indian Cable for £300,000, which will bring in £15,000 a year, and yet the hon. Member says we have made a bad bargain because we are not getting £400,000. May I point out that we are not the senior partners in this cable? We do not hold the whole of this property. We own 80/263. The other partners hold 180/263. The proportions are: United Kingdom, 80; Canada, 80; Trinidad and British Guiana, each 30; Barbados, 15; and other West Indian Colonies, 28. Yet the hon. Gentleman opposite is asking us to refuse to sell this cable which lost £15,000 in 1925, £13,000 in 1926, £12,000 in 1927, and is estimated to lose in 1928 £24,676. The hon. Member would have us refuse to sell that loss for £300,000 cash, and would have us override the wishes of our partners who are interested in the property Ns e are selling.

Mr. AMMON

What is the capitalised value given to the undertaking by throwing it into the pool?

Mr. SAMUEL

Those who made the estimate put a value upon it after considering what assistance it would give to the general earning power of the undertaking in the future.

Mr. W. BAKER

I thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have told us a little more about the reasons why this system was instituted. If the hon. Member will turn to the memorandum which was presented when the Financial Resolution relating to the West Indian Telegraphs Bill was introduced, I think he will find that the House was told that there would be a saving of many thousands of pounds then if the money was paid as a subsidy to a private company. Seeing that these subsidies were paid for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Islands and of British Guiana; seeing that subsidies hive been paid in order that communications might be more satisfactory and cheaper, it is not fair to regard these undertakings in the West Indies on a purely commercial basis. I believe that the West Indian system and the other systems we are dealing with, were instituted first by subsidy and then by the direct ownership of the cable and wireless services in order that our position in the West Indies might become more secure, satisfactory and stable.

This departure from the idea held as recently as 1924 that it was a good thing from the Colonial and Dominion point of view to see that these communications were possible as regards the highest state of efficiency at the lowest possible cost is a reversal of policy. The Imperial Exchequer was prepared to give contributions in the form of subsidies in order that these services might be maintained, and for the Financial Secretary to come here now and discuss this question as a purely commercial proposition is altogether unsatisfactory and misleading to the people who do not know the whole of the facts connected with this transfer. There is a strong case to be made out against the transfer of the West Indian Cable to the Communications Company, and I believe this case is possibly stronger than that of the other concerns, because I have been assured that there are alternatives to the Pacific Cable Board and to the Imperial route across the Atlantic. I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with this aspect of the case.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY

I have often met the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) in business circles in the city, and I can safely say that the views he has just expressed in the House are not those which he generally expresses elsewhere. I am sure if it ever falls to the hon. Member's lot to see whether a business is being bought at a proper valuation, he would be the last person to take as the basis the amount of money which during the career of that business had been spent upon it wisely and foolishly. Suppose in one case, £100,000 had been spent on machinery which subsequently had to be scrapped, would the hon. Member take that machinery into account in the valuation upon which the purchase price would be based? The hon. Member for Finsbury knows very well that the basis of the valuation of any business is its present earning power.

If the Financial Secretary's statement about the earning power is correct, then 20 years purchase is the proper price. If the earning power of the business is likely to increase then it is worth more and if it is likely to decrease, it would be worth less. If the earning power in this case is £7,500 then 20 years pur- chase would be 150,000, and on the top of that there is another £150 which represents the added value the merger is likely to give to this undertaking. On this side of the House we sincerely hope that when the time comes for the hon. Member for Finsbury to receive that promotion in his party rank which he so well deserves the place chosen for him will be at the Treasury; for if when at the Treasury he consummates the ideas of purchase valuation he has shown today, he will find among the property owners of this country many rapid converts to the principles of Socialism with compensation.

Mr. SHINWELL

I thought the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) was going to strengthen the case presented by the Financial Secretary, but, instead of doing that, he has made it worse. The hon. Member argued that these transactions should be based on the earning power of the existing machinery, but the Financial Secretary pointed out that the factor of the future prospects ought to be taken into consideration. That is a factor that does enter into transactions of this kind. The potentialities of a busniess are always taken into consideration in such transactions, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member should have intervened in the manner he has done.

Mr. O. STANLEY

May I explain? The reason why the hon. Member does not understand it is because he did not listen to my speech. I said that 20 years purchase was a fair purchase for a stabilised industry yielding £150,000, and that in this case the extra £150,000 represents the likely increase.

Mr. SHINWELL

You are not dealing here with an isolated transaction, and the whole assumption upon which the Financial Secretary went was that this was an isolated transaction. It is nothing of the sort, and no one need pretend that it is. It is a transaction irretrievably bound up with a much wider issue, and it is that issue which must be kept steadily in our minds when considering this sale. As I understood the Financial Secretary, he was arguing that £300,000 was better than having £400,000, which was worse. Putting it in another way, the hon. Gentleman said that it was better to have £300,000, and then he proceeded to argue that this would mean a certain amount of interest in future years, all of which would accrue to the Treasury, and therefore it was a decided advantage, but that if we were to demand £400,000 we would be in a much worse state. For the life of me I cannot understand it. Surely £400,000 is better than £300,000, unless the argument be that if we demanded £400,000 there would be no transaction. If that is the point, then it is for the Financial Secretary to adduce evidence in support of it. No such evidence has been forthcoming. I put it to him quite categorically, and perhaps he will be good enough to give me a reply. Does he suggest to the Committee that if we insisted on a purchase payment of £400,000 then the transaction would come to an end, and the scheme would not be proceeded with? Is that his contention? I think we are entitled to know.

I do not propose to argue at this stage the wider issues involved in this transaction, and I content myself with asking for further information. I submit that the Financial Secretary cannot prove to the Committee that the proposal would be rendered abortive as a result of a specific demand for a legitimately higher payment. The Financial Secretary has not argued against the justice of such a demand. Then he should withdraw his own schemes and accept the Amendment. There can be no doubt that the Financial Secretary is simply juggling with this question. He had manipulated the figures, not with any great success, and even fortified by the rhetoric of the hon. Member behind him, that manipulation is insufficient to justify us in accepting the proposal.

Mr. MALONE

There is one point I want to put to the Financial Secretary. He justified the amount by saying it had been arrived at by taking into consideration all the facts of the case—the beam wireless and revenue to be obtained from various subsidiary services. I assume that that means taking into consideration messages charged for on these cables from countries other than those which are the termini of these cables, that is to say, countries at no greater distance than Europe. What is going to happen and what is the Government's policy with regard to the European services? These, obviously, must have been part of the consideration taken into account. You have to-day competing services between the Post Office and the Marconi Company. The Company will go into the merger of the Communications Company. The Post Office controls 84 cables to the Continent of Europe and also runs wireless services. I am not dealing with that now, but with certain of the European countries. The Marconi Company runs other wireless services. Obviously, when you are putting one half of these two competing forces into a great international merger company you are going to cut down the Post Office profits and make their competition in future—

The CHAIRMAN

How can the hon. Member connect this with the proper price to be paid for the West India Cables?

Mr. MALONE

I assume that when you are fixing a price to be paid for a cable which is going to be part of a great international concern, you must take into consideration what is going to be the state of affairs in Europe. I want to know the policy as regards Post Office control of telegraphs and wireless with Europe. There are two competing systems, the Marconi Company and the Post Office, and is that going to continue?

The CHAIRMAN

How does that affect messages to the West Indies?

Mr. MALONE

Because many of the messages to the West Indies come from Europe, and they are passed on to these lines from Great Britain to the West Indies. The West Indies are in constant touch with many countries in Europe and we have a right to know what the policy is going to be. The Government decided that the policy of British wireless was the policy of the All-lied Route, and we decided as a sop to the Marconi Company that they should have the traffic in Europe. We have abandoned the All-Red Route policy and sold part of that route already to the Marconi Company. They have the station at Abu Zabal entirely. Is it not right that the Post Office should take back all communications with Europe? I ask the Government to take that into consideration. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been attacked by his own party for repetition during this Debate. That is absolutely unfounded. I have been in the House ever since 4 o'clock—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must realise that this is an entirely new Debate, and that we are not continuing the former one.

Mr. MALONE

Before you took the Chair, Mr. Hope, the Financial Secretary was unjustly attacked, and I wanted to express my appreciation of his courtesy in answering the questions which we put to him.

Mr. HARDIE

The Secretary of State for Scotland is the salesman in this matter, and I should have thought from his experience of the last two months, and from the fact that we are dealing with a Bill which is making a sale of various individual things, that we might have had a formula. Things might have been simplified if, instead of our having to try to find out what was principal, what was capital and what was not, we had had a formula with a load factor weighted for capital and a datum line which would have enabled us to understand the calculation. It was the statement made by the Financial Secretary that brought me to my feet. He was speaking about values and how we were to arrive at values; and another hon. Gentleman behind him also talked about values; but it is in relation to his statement about future prospects that I want to speak. He said that he was dealing with all future prospects. If the beam service had been held by a private company instead of by the Government, and if it had been competing with these private companies, what would be the future values, in view of the fact that you are transmitting 400 words as against 45? Is that an element of future value? To give an instance of the ordinary methods of competition when a multiple shop is set up by the side of a private trader, that competition sends him to the wall, but in these sales there is the element of prevention, because it happens to be the big men who are in it, and they are not to be subjected to the ordinary competition on the basis of value.

If we desire honestly to value a business, how do we begin? We begin by taking what is there, and valuing that. The next point is whether that machinery, or whatever it is, is up-to-date, and when you have taken that into account you can assess its value. Then we take the capacity for production, and measure it with the up-to-date production in the same business. That is the method of valuing. 1f this valuation were conducted on that, basis, the figures would be different. I should like the Financial Secretary to explain just what he meant by "all future prospects." Was his mind running on the future prospects of the beam wireless, or on the continually depreciating asset of the cables in competition with the beam wireless? The next question is this: Supposing that our part of this sum of money which is being paid For this cable were wiped out, how long would it take for the profits that have been or can be made on the beam service in the hands of the nation—

The CHAIRMAN

These matters can have nothing to do with the profits or otherwise made by the West Indian Cable.

Mr. HARDIE

Supposing that we were able to say that the beam wireless was making good profits and we could do without the West Indian Cable, how long would it take to make up the amount that it is supposed would be lost? I know that tile Financial Secretary is very good at figures, and that he does not want a mathematical formula to answer a simple question like this. What would be the number of years, or months or weeks, taking the earnings as shown by the beam as against the cables, the one sending 42 words and the other 400—what would be the ratio of increase in business, and what number of years would be required in order to make up the money that we are supposed to be losing now?

Mr. BENN

I want to press this point a little further. The Financial Secretary opened the argument with the usual formula setting forth that we are not the masters in this matter, that we have all our partners to consult. In this case it is perfectly true that Trinidad, British Guiana and other places are partners, but they were all represented at the Conference by Sir Samuel Wilson, who is a permanent official of the Government, and it is ridiculous to say that, if the British Government wish to do a certain thing, they are only a partner and cannot have their own way. I do not think it is very wise or effective to say, "Canada wants this, and we had better not sell it," instead of defending it on its merits. As my hon. Friend has said, you have naturally to consider the future profits of the beam wireless. What is the value that is set on these profits by the Financial Secretary? I understand that he wishes to answer, but that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not let him. Of course, we have had a tremendous addition to the Debate to-night in the person of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley). If he will tell us what they are saying in the City, we shall be very glad. He knows all about the Communications Company, and who are going to be the directors. He knows what value is set upon it in the City, but the City has not told them. Therefore, it would be a tremendous advantage if he would, in his charming manner, make a fuller contribution to the Debate. So far as the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is concerned, it is not necessary to ask the Financial Secretary, because, while the Postmaster-General was absent from the Debate, a certain piece of information was given to the House, either by the Assistant Postmaster-General or by one of the other Ministers, and now we find for the first time that the Postmaster-General gave evidence before this Conference. We had not known that, for his name is not mentioned in the Report, but when we asked the question we were given to understand that the Assistant Postmaster-General supplied what information was required, which I suppose meant papers and things of that kind; but we now understand that the Postmaster-General was present as a Privy Councillor. For some reason, however—perhaps because he was a Privy Councillor—it was not considered necessary to include his name in the list of witnesses. We now ask, and we must press for a reply, what was the value that the Postmaster-General set on the future of the beam service?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the hon. Member can go into that, either on the question of the West Indian cable or of the £400,000.

Mr. BENN

We are, of course, in a great difficulty, but the fact of the matter is that the price that we receive for every one of these cables is governed directly by the improving value of the beam service. It is perfectly true that the beam service is only mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill, but it has a material effect in deciding the value of all these things. Therefore, I would ask the Postmaster-General, since we have only discovered, at nine o'clock at night, that he ever appeared in this Conference at all, what was his advice about the value of the beam wireless? I am well aware that, as a member of the Cabinet, he accepts the decision, and that is, of course, quite right, but I am not speaking to him as a member of the Cabinet, preserving the solidarity of the Government, but as a technical witness who was present in the Conference, and I am asking him what value he sets upon the future of the beam wireless, and what he considers to be the usefulness of these particular cables. I think that that is a perfectly fair question to put to him, and I trust that he will give us some reply.

Mr. TINKER

I gathered from the Financial Secretary that in his opinion we had made a very good bargain, and that was backed up by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley). Surely they must know that the people they were bargaining with could also realise the bargain. I do not think we have made a very good bargain if all the relevant facts are taken into consideration. I am not quite satisfied with the Amendment. I am dead against the principle of selling out State property, and even if you got £400,000 I should strenuously object to any transaction taking place. I do not know why the Amendment has been put down. It may he only to give information, but if it is with a view to getting a higher price, I, for one, would not agree.

Mr. W. BAKER

I am quite accustomed to asking questions and failing to secure a reply, but I would respectfully ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not reasonable to ask him to tell us the facts with regard to the subsidy that was paid in relation to the West Indian communications before this particular method was adopted. I do not see why an answer should not be given. It is necessary for the information to be given if the Committee is to be in possession of the whole of the facts. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) in his request that the Postmaster-General should make a statement. It is too much to expect that he will resign his place in the Government in order to make clear to the world exactly where he stands on the matter, but I am certain that, if he would stand in the House and take the line that he and his Department have taken on the question, he would earn a very much higher position in history than he can possibly secure by making a very bad bargain of this description. I hope we shall have a statement From the Financial Secretary on the question of the subsidy.

Mr. SHINWELL

I am anxious not to cast my vote in the wrong Lobby, and so that I may make up my mind I want to press this question. Can the Financial Secretary tell us what he had in mind when he spoke of all future prospects? Everything depends upon that. Had he in view the linking up of the beam wireless with the cable system, and so on? If he can furnish information on that point we shall know exactly where we stand. I observe that the great three are now in earnest consultation and, presumably, from their sotto voce deliberations, there will emerge something from which we can come to a rational conclusion. The Postmaster-General left his seat for a moment, presumably to obtain some information. Cannot we have the benefit of that information now? May we not know what item of information he was seeking, and what are the conclusions? Surely we are entitled to know exactly what is in the mind of the three right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.

You, Sir, indicated that certain observations on this side with respect to the wider issue appeared to be slightly out of order. But the Financial Secretary himself, in referring to all future prospects, must also have been out of order, and if he was not called down, really he ought to explain what he meant by that observation. Will he, in such language as he can use, with the figures at his disposal and with a command of finance such as we all know he possesses, give us what in the circumstances I think we are entitled to. I do not know whether he now proposes to respond to that appeal. Apparently he does. I am certain if it were not for the Secretary for Scotland there would be no difficulty at all in eliciting this information. I should have imagined, after the right hon. Gentleman's misdeeds in the last three days, he would have been content without interfering at this time.

The CHAIRMAN

Do I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing something wrong in connection with this Bill?

Mr. SHINWELL

I must not be tempted by such a consideration. It is a far cry from Scottish local government to the West Indies. As for the right hon. Gentleman's misdeeds there is not sufficient time between now and eleven o'clock to speak of them, therefore I forbear. One can understand gentlemen from the city being anxious to arrive at a useful commercial transaction. This is one. Here they are selling something which has very great prospects, according to the hon. Gentleman, for £300,000 It is clearly not sufficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you said a long time ago."] Yes, and it requires to be said more often. The fact that the hon. Member does not say it does not indicate surprising intelligence on his part. It merely reveals that he knows nothing about the subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like you!"] I agree. It is precisely because I am not acquainted with all the facts that I am asking the Financial Secretary to give me the information; I press upon him to give us a reasonable answer.

Mr. THURTLE

I want to express my disappointment that the Financial Secretary has not seen fit to respond to the many appeals from this side to reply to the point that has been made, and I want to put this further point to him. The point at issue with us is whether or not the potential earnings of this cable are such as to warrant a higher price than £300,000. We would not press the point if we were satisfied, for instance, that in no case arc the earnings likely to exceed something like £30,000 a year. That would provide for replacement, renewals and a fairly adequate return on the capital invested. I should like to ask whether the purchasing companies have given any proof that they regarded this as a fair and equitable price for State property. Did they ever suggest, in the course of the negotiations, that, if the earnings exceeded a certain figure, after they had received 6, 7 or 8 per cent. return upon their capital, after they had made provision for renewals and replacements, any sum over and above that should go into the coffers of the State? If they made a proposal like that, we should have some proof that they did not regard this sum as excessive. The present earning capacity of the cable is no indication whatever of what its potential earnings may be.

Let me give an illustration. In South Wales there are numbers of colliery companies which have gone into liquidation because week by week they have been losing £100 or £200. One would think that mines of that kind which have to go into liquidation and stop working because of considerable losses would not have any capital value at all. Yet the fact of the matter is that the liquidator is able to dispose of these collieries, which have been steadily losing money week after week, for £20,000, £30,000, and £50,000 because of the potential earning capacity of those collieries. We have this West Indian Cable admittedly already earning £10,000 a year. If it has been able to earn £10,000 a year there is no telling what it, may earn in the future. I think that we have a case for asking the Financial Secretary to give us more information, to be more candid with the Committee, to give more information as to what the potential earnings of this West Indian Cable are likely to be.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. BAKER

I am sorry to press myself on the attention of the Committee again, but I do regard it as being more than amazing that the Financial Secretary should persist in refusing to

give the Committee the information for which I ask. It has been made perfectly clear to-day that the Government in the present Bill are reversing the very sound decision which was come to by their predecessors with regard to the beam. The same thing is true with regard to the West Indian Cable, and if the Financial Secretary does not know the facts I will tell them to him. In February, 1924, the Treasury came to the House of Commons with the Financial Resolution on which they produced a Memorandum, and they said that this Resolution was proposed in order to enable a Bill to be introduced providing that a sum not exceeding £40,000 might be isued from the Consolidated Fund for the construction of a new submarine cable. They told the House of Commons—and this is what I regard as so important—that if they would agree to this expenditure they would save an annual sum of £8,000 which was being paid as a subsidy to the West Indian and Panama Telegraph Company; that on the passage of that Financial Resolution and the consequent legislation the State would save £8,000 a year as against an expenditure being incurred of £40,000. If anyone cares to do the mental arithmetic he will find that instead of this being a very serious financial loss to the State—as our friends might lead us to believe—in actual fact the State by saving that subsidy of £8,000 over the intervening years is not far from being absolutely level as far as finance is concerned. What I am complaining of is that the whole truth is not being given to the Committee in regard to this matter, and I have to protest once more at the refusal to answer questions on really substantial inquiries.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 194.

Division No. 30.] AYES. [10.0 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Briant, Frank Day, Harry
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Broad, F. A. Duncan, C.
Ammon, Charles George Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Dunnico, H.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Buchanan, G. Gardner, J, P.
Baker, Walter Cape, Thomas Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Charleton, H. C. Gibbins, Joseph
Barnes, A. Cluse, W. S. Gillett, George M.
Barr, J. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Gosling, Harry
Batey, Joseph Compton, Joseph Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Bellamy, A. Connolly, M. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Benn, Wedgwood Cove, W. G. Greenall, T.
Bondfield, Margaret Dalton, Hugh Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Naylor, T. E. Taylor, R. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley Oliver, George Harold Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Palin, John Henry Thurtle, Ernest
Grundy, T. W. Paling, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Tomlinson, R. P.
Hardie, George D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Townend, A. E.
Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Purcell, A. A. Viant, S. P.
Hirst, G. H. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Riley, Bea Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Ritson, J. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
John, William (Rhondda, West) Salter, Dr. Alfred Wellock, Wilfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Scrymgeour, E. Welsh, J. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (pontypridd) Scurr, John Westwood, J.
Kelly, W. T. Sexton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Kennedy, T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Whiteley, W.
Kirkwood, D. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lawrence, Susan Shiels, Dr. Drummond Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lawson, John James Shinwell, E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lee, F. Slesser, Sir Henry H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lunn, William Smillie, Robert Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mackinder, W. Snell, Harry Windsor, Walter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Wright, W.
March, S. Stamford, T. W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Maxton, James Stephen, Campbell
Montague, Frederick Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Sullivan, J. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.
Murnin, H. Sutton, J. E. Henderson.
NOES.
Albery, Irving James Drewe, C. Knox, Sir Alfred
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Edge, Sir William Lamb, J. Q.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Edmondson, Major A. J. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Ellis, R. G. Livingstone, A. M.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Loder, J. da V.
Balniel, Lord Everard, W. Lindsay Long, Major Eric
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Falls, Sir Bertram G. Looker, Herbert William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fenby, T. D. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Fermoy, Lord MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Berry, Sir George Ford, Sir P. J. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Forrest, W. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Foster, Sir Harry S. MacIntyre, Ian
Boothby, R. J. G. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. McLean, Major A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Galbraith, J. F. W. Margesson, Captain D.
Brass, Captain W. Ganzoni, Sir John Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Gates, Percy Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Briscoe, Richard George Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Gower, Sir Robert Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Grace, John Moore, Sir Newton J.
Bullock, Captain M. Grant, Sir J. A. Moreing, Captain A. H.
Burman, J. B. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Cassels, J. D. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Nelson, Sir Frank
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Grotrian, H. Brent Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hacking, Douglas H. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hammersley, S. S. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Harland, A. Owen, Major G.
Christie, J. A. Hartington, Marquess of Penny, Frederick George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Haslam, Henry C. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Clayton, G. C. Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Power, Sir John Cecil
Cobb, Sir Cyril Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Price, Major C. W. M.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Raine, Sir Walter
Colman, N. C. D. Hills, Major John Waller Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cooper, A. Duff Hilton, Cecil Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cope, Major Sir William Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Remer, J. R.
Couper, J. B. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Ropner, Major L.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Rye, F. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Salmon, Major I.
Dawson, Sir Philip Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Dean, Arthur Welleslay King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sandeman, N. Stewart
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dalrymple-
Savery, S. S. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Shaw, Lt.-Col A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Tasker, R. Inigo Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Skelton, A. N. Templeton, W. P. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Smithers, Waldron Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South) Wolmer, Viscount
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Womersley, W. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wallace, Captain D. E. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Strauss, E. A. Watts, Sir Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Streatfelld, Captain S. R. Wayland, Sir William A. Major The Marquess of Titchfield.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Wells, S. R. and Sir Victor Warrender.
Mr. W. BAKER

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out the word "undertaking," and to insert instead thereof the word "cables."

In listening very carefully to the discussion I have heard nothing which would lead me to believe that anything is being transferred beyond the cables in the area of the West Indian Islands. On turning to the Report, on page l7, recommendation 3, "Terms of transfer of the Government's Cable and Beam Assets," we find no suggestion of transfer from Government ownership of anything more than the West Indian cables. I do not think I shall be misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman if I say that the Postmaster-General in his speech to-day specially referred to cables. If I understood him right, it is neither the policy of the Imperial Conference nor is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to sell beam wireless or any other form of wireless to the Communications Company.

In these circumstances, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I draw attention to the extent to which wireless is being used in the West Indies. There are wireless stations at Barbados, St. Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. I would ask the Postmaster-General to explain exactly why it is that, without special reference being made to the point, the Government are proposing to lease the Beam service, while in the case of the wireless service in the West Indies, which is of first-class importance to the people of the islands, it is proposed to sell these undertakings and get rid of them once for all. I find it difficult to reconcile these conflicting policies, and I trust the Postmaster-General will make the point clear.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

The Amendment in the form suggested by the hon. Member would make complete nonsense of the proposal in the Bill. The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried in the form he suggests, would be that the only thing that could be transferred would be the actual physical cables, leaving out, for instance, such things as the terminal stations, which are necessary to work the stations. I recognise that in moving the Amendment the hon. Member desires some information as to the position. I happen to know the West Indies, having lived there, and I remember the days when I used to be extremely interested in this question. The cables run between Tinks Island and Barbados, between Barbados and Trinidad and between Barbados and Georgetown in British Guiana. In between the inter-island services are linked up by a system of small wireless service, not beam wireless service, but ordinary small point-to-point wireless service. These services, in themselves, although of great value and great utility, are of no capital value. They are only of value as feeders of the main system of communication carried by the cables. They are an integral and inseparable part of the cable undertaking, and when you are transferring the cable undertaking you have to transfer the cable services as a whole, together with the wireless service. As the wireless service is an integral and inseparable part of the service there, you cannot transfer the cable service and keep the wireless service.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BENN

All these Clauses have the same common purpose, that is that they offer for disposal different parts of Government property, and it is as well at the end of one Clause to get some idea as to exactly where we stand in regard to the general transaction. For the information of hon. Members who have not been able to be present all the evening let me tell them exactly what information is really missing. The first thing we know is that there is no such thing as the Communications Company in existence. Nobody knows what it is; and the Government does not even know its personnel. The second thing we know is that a contract is not in existence, and that even if it were it would not be laid before the House of Commons for approval. The third thing we know, and which we never knew before, is that the Postmaster-General gave evidence before the Committee of which the Secretary of State for Scotland was Chairman, and we cannot have any information as to the nature of his evidence. The reason, of course, is perfectly obvious. As a member of the Cabinet the Postmaster-General loyally accepts the decision of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not in the Cabinet!"] As a member of the Government he naturally accepts the decision of the Government, but he is in another capacity. He is the trustee of public property in the Post Office and the technical adviser to this House on these matters. It was in the first capacity that he appeared to give evidence before the Committee and it is not unreasonable to ask that we should know what that evidence was.

The Noble Lord who witnesses with great approval all these transactions supplied the information, or revealed the fact, that it was the Postmaster-General who actually gave evidence. Is it unreasonable or essentially improper politically, and from a party point of view, to ask that the House of Commons should be informed of the nature of the evidence given by the Postmaster-General in regard to these matters? The essence of all these contracts is not the price you are getting for an obsolete cable company, but the prospective value of your beam services, and upon that nobody is so well qualified to speak as the head of the branch which controls the present beam services. That is as far as we have got, and it proves that the

efforts of some hon. Members in this House have not been wasted during the Debate. If they have not elicited any information, they have at least drawn attention to a good deal of dangerous concealment on the part of members of the Government.

Mr. W. BAKER

With regard to what the Postmaster-General has said in reference to the wireless stations in the West Indies, if it is true that they are of no great capital value, that would seem to me to be the most excellent reason why they should be repaid and not transferred. In the absence of specific information it is difficult to specify the amount of revenue derived from these wireless stations, but it seems to me to be fairly clear that if the capital is small, then the revenue must be almost pure gain to the person or community owning these stations. I am sorry the Government have broken what I understood to be their policy; that wireless stations were not to be transferred, and I could wish that even now they would change their minds. If that is impossible we may just as well get on to some of the matters on which it may be hoped it is still possible to convert hon. Members opposite to our point of view. Our opposition is quite reasonable. I hardly like to be so bold but I feel that my position is in some way only a reflection of the position of the Postmaster-General himself. He does not seem to be prepared to stand firmly for the position which I have tried to uphold, but he is not prepared to deny that it is the position; and I must leave it to the Committee to decide whether I am right or not in thinking that this decision has been taken in defiance not only of the Postmaster-General and his experts but in defiance of all the evidence. It is hopeless in the present circumstances to hope for a favourable verdict on this Clause, but I have no doubt as to what the ultimate verdict will be.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 126.

Division No. 31.] AYES. [10.20 p.m.
Albery, Irving James Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Balniel, Lord
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Atholl, Duchess of Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Owen, Major G.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Gower, Sir Robert Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Grace, John Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Grant, Sir J. A. Power, Sir John Cecil
Boothby, R. J. G. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Price, Major C. W. M.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Grotrian, H. Brent Raine, Sir Walter
Brass, Captain W. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hacking, Douglas H. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Briscoe, Richard George Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Remer, J. R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hammersley, S. S. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harland, A. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y) Hartington, Marquess of Ropner, Major L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Haslam, Henry C. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bullock, Captain M. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Burman, J. B. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Rye, F. G.
Cassels, J. D. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Salmon, Major I.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hills, Major John Waller Sandeman, N. Stewart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, C.) Hilton, Cecil Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Savory, S. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Skelton, A. N.
Christie, J. A. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hume, Sir G. H. Smithers, Waldron
Clayton, G. C. Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cobb, Sir Cyril James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jones, Sir G. W.H. (Stoke New'gton) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Colfox, Major William Phillips Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Colman, N. C. D. Kindersley, Major G. M. Strauss, E. A.
Cooper, A. Duff King, Commodore Henry Douglas Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Cope, Major Sir William Knox, Sir Alfred Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Couper, J. B. Lamb, J. Q. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Little, Dr. E. Graham Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Livingstone, A. M. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Templeton, W. P.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Loder, J. de V. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Long, Major Eric Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Looker, Herbert William Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Tomlinson, R. P.
Drewe, C. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Edge, Sir William Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) warrender, sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J. MacIntyre, Ian Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ellis, R. G. McLean, Major A. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Watts, Sir Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel- Wayland, Sir William A.
Everard, W. Lindsay Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wells, S. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Margesson, Captain D. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Fenby, T. D. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fermoy, Lord Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ford, Sir P. J. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Forrest, W. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Foster, Sir Harry S. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Moore, Sir Newton J. Wolmer, Viscount
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Moreing, Captain A. H. Womersley, W. J
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Nelson, Sir Frank Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Gates, Percy Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Graham, D M (Lanark, Hamilton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Cape, Thomas Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Charleton, H. C. Greenall, T.
Ammon, Charles George Cluse, W. S. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Compton, Joseph Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Baker, Walter Connolly, M. Griffith, F. Kingsley
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abtrtillery) Cove, W. G. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Barnes, A. Dalton, Hugh Grundy, T. W.
Barr, J. Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Batey, Joseph Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hardie, George D.
Bellamy, A. Day, Harry Hayday, Arthur
Benn, Wedgwood Duncan, C. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Bondfield, Margaret Dunnico, H. Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gardner, J. P. Hirst, G. H.
Briant, Frank Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Broad, F. A. Gibbins, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gillett, George M. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Buchanan, G. Gosling, Harry John, William (Rhondda, West)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Thurtle, Ernest
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Riley, Ben Tinker, John Joseph
Kelly, W. T. Ritson, J. Townend, A. E.
Kennedy, T. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Kirkwood, D. Salter, Dr. Alfred Viant, S. P.
Lawrence, Susan Scrymgeour, E. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Lawson, John James Scurr, John Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lee, F. Sexton, James Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Longbottom, A. W. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Lunn, William Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wellock, Wilfred
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Welsh, J. C.
Mackinder, W. Shinwell, E. westwood, J.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Slesser, Sir Henry H. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
March, S. Smillie, Robert Whiteley, W.
Maxton, James Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Montague, Frederick Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Snell, Harry Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Murnin, H. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Naylor, T. E. Stamford, T. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Oliver, George Harold Stephen, Campbell Windsor, Walter
Palin, John Henry Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wright, W.
Paling, W. Sullivan, J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Sutton, J. K.
Ponsonby, Arthur Taylor, R. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Potts, John S. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.