HC Deb 09 July 1930 vol 241 cc546-57

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).

Lords Reason:

The Lords insist on their amendment in page 9, line 6, for the following Reason:

Because the district levy proposed would operate inequitably between districts and would entail an unjustifiable burden on the home consumer of coal.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell)

I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist on its- disagreement to the said Amendment."


I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his first appearance in his new office, and still further to congratulate him on having proposed such an admirable course to the House.


I beg to move as a consequential Amendment to the Bill in page 9, line 43, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that in the case of any draft order providing that a district scheme may be amended so as to provide for empowering the executive board for the district subject to the consent of the central council, to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the reference therein to a period of twenty days there were substituted a reference to a period of twenty-five days. Perhaps I may be permitted a few observations in explanation of the course which we now propose to pursue. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind commendation, and I hope to be worthy of it. It will be noted that the decision we have just reached removes the specific provision for the imposition of district levies. Therefore, the district levy proposal as such follows the national levy proposal. Whatever views we may have as to the wisdom of such a proceeding, we are bound to face the facts and to accept whatever may be the consequences of such a course being pursued. At the same time, I am bound to say, speaking for my right hon. Friend, for myself, and for those behind me, that we consider that within the general framework of this Measure the provision for district levies was very wise.

We now propose, in this consequential Amendment, that the district levy proposal should not appear in the original scheme propounded for the districts, but when an amended scheme presented by the executive board of a particular district is presented to the Board of Trade for its consideration, it may be within the power of the executive board to recommend the provision of a district levy subject to the consent of the central council. The safeguard proposed, in our judgment, is ample, and there is an additional safeguard in the fact that no such levy could possibly be imposed on the submission of such an amended scheme without the consent of the Board of Trade, and moreover without the consent, although it appears in the form of a negative Resolution, of both Houses or Parliament. It has been alleged that the imposition of a district levy might be unfair in its operation as between districts, and there is some substance in that contention, but if it is within the purview of this House and another place to pronounce judgment upon such schemes as are submitted to them, that, in our judgment, should be quite a sufficient safeguard.

It will be observed that in the Clause in which these provisions occur there is ample power, in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3, to deal with such matters. The words "or any matters" appear in Subsection (4) of Clause 3, but it was intended that those words should apply to considerations other than those that might be foreseen, and in our judgment it would be taking advantage of the House to take advantage of this particular provision in the light of what may occur at a later stage, and so my right hon. Friend has proposed that we should provide this consequential Amendment, with the further consideration that 25 days shall elapse, instead of 20 days, for the consideration of any draft Order that may be laid upon the Table, so as to provide whatever safeguards are essential.

As regards the merits of the case, I should like to submit, very shortly, because the matter has been discussed to a very great extent on previous occasions, that the principle which is proposed to be embodied in the Measure, with all the safeguards and restrictions that will operate, has already been accepted by this House. It operates in relation to the mineral freights rebate. Though I express no opinion on the merits of the principle involved, the provision there is intended to provide assistance to our export trade, and to certain categories of coal other than those intended for export, out of the public exchequer, and if it is wise to take advantage of the public exchequer for the provision of State assistance for such purposes—the purposes, for example, of stimulating our export trade or providing assistance for basic industries in relation to their coal supplies—equally it is wise to provide some sort of levy, as is here proposed, for assistance to the industry. The principle has been accepted by the House, and as it is embodied in our legislation, there appears to be no reason why it should not be accepted in this case.

I fortify myself in this regard by drawing on my experiences at Geneva quite recently. I do not propose to speak on the subject of hours, because that is not appropriate on this occasion, but I left Geneva, after discussion with representatives of the most important coal producing countries in Europe, with the profound impression that every effort was now being made by those coal producing countries to capture whatever remained of our export trade on the Continent. I express no opinion as to the wisdom of such a course; we have to face the facts, and some defence of our interests requires to be maintained. That defence is embodied in the general provisions of this Bill, in the proposal for new organisations, for the proposed amalgamation schemes, and so on. So far so good, but when we have to deal with the export trade as such, it appears to be desirable, in the face of the antagonisms that now confront us and that are becoming more and more intensified, to provide something in the nature of an artificial stimulus. That has already been provided to some extent in the mineral freights rebate, and we propose to fortify those proposals by this additional proposal.

It may be argued that we have accepted the decision of another place in regard to the removal of the specific provision in relation to the imposition of district levies, and that we now propose to insert them in another form. That is only a half truth, and the position is shortly this: In its original form, when a scheme was propounded, the district levy proposition had to be embodied therein. Over and above that, there did not exist the overriding consideration of both Houses of Parliament—a very important consideration, indeed. Our proposal provides, first of all, that there should not be any suggestion of a district levy in the original scheme. It can only come in in the light of experience. For example, if after a scheme has been operating for some time it is discovered that there is need for the imposition of a district levy in any particular district, that power can be invoked, but it is hedged round by restrictions and safeguards such as I have indicated. I think that with these explanations, more particularly as regards the safeguards which are provided, the House might well now agree to the acceptance of this consequential Amendment.


I regret that so soon after our friendly interchange of views I should find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. He has commended this strange Amendment to the House as being a consequential Amendment. If he had called it inconsequential I think it would have been nearer the truth. Let the House observe what we are invited to do. For the last nine months we have been discussing this Bill, and the part of the Bill—and not the least contentious part of it—which we have debated in both Houses has been the levy—the central levy and the district levy. The central levy went by the decision of the House and the district levy very nearly went. Indeed, it had almost as near an escape as the right hon. Gentleman had earlier in the evening, but he made better arrangements on that occasion. [Interruption.] We were all united, at any rate, on the subject, and we found a measure of support from an ally who is not always with us. He gives quite an impartial distribution of his favours, and he is leading his party on this occasion. He has never expressed anything but consistent, eloquent and, for one who does not generally indulge in passion, I might say almost a passionate view and a vehement objection to the proposition. When we discussed it, the whole issue of the levy was considered.

I will content myself with not rearguing the whole thing now, but of merely expressing, as my own language and on behalf of my party, the extraordinarily strong case made against a district levy at any time or in any place by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). What was the point, and the whole issue between us? It was not a case of whether this required consideration in a district and of the procedure to be followed. It was a very big question of principle, and it was on the question of principle that the House decided. It is on that question that this matter comes back to us again—whether in principle the district levy is right or wrong. The whole argument against the district levy was that it was unfair to the consumer in this country and that what they were doing by the levy, whether district or central, was to take a contribution from the owners to subsidise coal for export. As the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said, that was an inverted protection of a most extraordinary kind which was against the interest of the home consumer, and, to paraphrase the right hon. Gentleman's language, as a result of this Coal Bill, the only man who in future would get his coal cheaply was the competitor of the British industrialist beyond the seas.

There was a further argument advanced, and not for one moment countered, that if you allowed this to happen, you would find British ships bunkering in foreign ports. I do not want to take the House through the whole argument at great length, because that is unnecessary, as the argument has already been fully exposed in the House and dealt with as a question of principle. If I may respectfully say so, it is really not treating the House with any seriousness, when a minute or two ago we agreed with another place in deciding in principle that the district levy should go out, to say two minutes afterwards that, as a consequential Amendment, the hon. Gentleman should be able to move the district levy in. The House has to decide the simple principle of whether we are in favour of a district levy or not. The arguments which the right hon. Gentleman advanced about the importance of not penalising the domestic consumer, the importance of not subsidising the foreign bunkering station so that British ships go to bunker in foreign ports, and the unfairness of forcing people in an area to contribute to a fund to be used in the interests of their competitors—those arguments do not go with the question of whether we should have a district levy now or in two or three months' time. Those arguments raise the question of principle of whether we should have this district levy at all.

The House should not be in any doubt that what is being attempted now, merely under a sort of camouflaged procedure, is to put in the district levy when it has already been thrown out in another place—and the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well if he is to keep his Bill at all he must accept that decision. This is an extraordinary Amendment. To start with, it, has taken two forms within the last two days. A day ago the Amendment was on the Order Paper and both Houses were to have 15 days in which to consider it. For some mysterious reason it appears on the Order Paper today and we are allowed 25 days in which to consider it. I am very much obliged. I confess it appears the only reason why 20 days was not inserted—which is the time proposed in Sub-section (4) for the consideration of an order which has to be laid before the House—was, that if we had been invited to say that this was a matter which could properly be dealt with under Sub-section (4) in the form in which Sub-section (4) had gone through this House, we should have been told, and quite rightly, that, the House having decided as a question of principle and as a substantive proposal, that the district levy was not to be included in the Bill, it would have been ultra vires for the Board of Trade to make a proposal under Subsection (4) as it stood. I think that must be so. If it is not so, it is perfectly unnecessary for any Amendment to appear on the Paper. If I am right on the technical point of Order, as I am quite certain I am right as to the question of principle, then what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to try by this rather cumbrous form of procedure to put back, in what he calls a consequential Amendment, the power to do by an Order that which a minute ago he moved the House to agree—and the House unanimously agreed—should be forbidden.

This is a question of principle, and it has been voted upon in this House as a question of principle. It is a question where every Member who voted against it was clearly of opinion that he was against it as a question of principle. Incidentally, I heard nothing about Scotland to-night from the hon. Gentleman. The last time that we debated this matter, the right hon. Gentleman said it was vital to have this in order that Scottish coalowners might frame a scheme of their own. If the Scottish coalowners did not frame a scheme of their own, the right hon. Gentleman would have power to frame a scheme under the Clauses of the Bill which have been passed. On the last occasion, the right hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) cited a resolution passed by the whole of the coalowners in Scotland saying that the majority of them were opposed to this proposal. Perhaps we shall hear something of that, because that statement was not contradicted on the last occasion. It was the complete answer to the only new argument which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to the House, and we have not had a single word about it to-night. We have only been told that, of course, this will not appear in the scheme at first blush, but presently, if people think that they want this form of subvention, they can come later. We have not had a word in answer to the argument that if the right hon. Gentleman puts this as a statutory levy in the Bill, he will have to discount competely the argument he is now pressing upon foreign countries to abandon subsidised export. There has been no answer to the arguments on the question of principle. This House has voted on the question of principle, and I urge the House to vote on the question of principle again.


Let me remind the House of the history of this provision. As the Bill was introduced, there was a Clause allowing a central levy to be imposed over the whole country in order to give a subsidy on export coal, and a district levy which was to be allocated among the districts. [Interruption.] I must ask the hon. and gallant Member not to interrupt. The House struck out the central levy, but the Government were able to carry the district levy. The House of Lords at the next stage struck out the district levy, and when the Measure came here, we voted against the district levy and supported the decision of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, the Government, having defeated that, sent the proposal back to the house of Lords, who have struck it out the second time. The Government have now agreed with the House of Lords in striking it out, but reinsert the proposals in a different form, and seem to me to have abandoned the substance of their Previous proposal, while retaining the form of it.

The provision in its present form seems to be really not worth putting in. It can never become operative. A district levy has to run the gauntlet of five authorities. First, the district committee has to approve the proposal. It then has to go to the national committee

of coal owners, which will certainly regard it with a very jealous eye, because any proposal which will give an advantage to the export of one district in competition with other districts would receive a great deal of opposition. Thirdly, it has to be approved by the Board of Trade. Then it has to be laid before the House of Commons, which can at any time pass a resolution condemning it. Fifthly, it has to be passed on to the House of Lords, who can at any time veto the proposal. In these circumstances, it is a question whether the Clause should be put in the Bill or not. I do not think that it is worth putting in but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman wants to retain it in this form in order to give the House of Lords something to bite on at the next stage, in order that they should not attack other proposals.


Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which way he is going to vote?


I should not have intervened had not the right hon. Gentleman turned round and asked me not to interrupt. I would like to ask a question which my right hon. Friend has just put. We have seen this afternoon an example of carrying—[Interruption.]


The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that question now.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 244.

Division No. 426.] AYES. [9.43 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Cove, William G.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Broad, Francis Alfred Daggar, George
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Brockway, A. Fenner Dallas, George
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Bromfield, William Dalton, Hugh
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Brooke, W. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Alpass, J. H. Brothers, M. Day, Harry
Amman, Charles George Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Angell, Norman Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Dickson, T.
Arnott, John Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Dukes, C.
Attlee, Clement Richard Buchanan, G. Duncan, Charles
Ayles, Walter Burgess, F. G. Ede, James Chuter
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Edge, Sir William
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Caine, Derwent Hall- Edmunds, J. E.
Barnes, Alfred John Cameron, A. G. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Barr, James Cape, Thomas Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Batey, Joseph Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Egan, W. H.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Charleton, H. C. Foot, Isaac
Bellamy, Albert Chater, Daniel Forgan, Dr. Robert
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Church, Major A. G. Freeman, Peter
Benson, G. Clarke, J. S. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Cluse, W. S. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Gibbins, Joseph
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Cocks, Frederick Seymour Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Bowen, J. W. Compton, Joseph Gill, T. H.
Gillett, George M. McKinlay, A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Gossling, A. G. MacLaren, Andrew Sherwood, G. H.
Gould, F. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Shield, George William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) McShane, John James Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Shillaker, J. F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). Mander, Geoffrey le M. Shinwell, E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mansfield, W. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) March, S. Simmons, C. J.
Grundy, Thomas W. Marcus, M. Sinkinson, George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Markham, S. F. Sitch, Charles H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Marley, J. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Marshall, F. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mathers, George Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Hardie, George D. Matters, L. W. Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Messer, Fred Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Middleton, G. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Haycock, A. W. Mills, J. E. Snell, Harry
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Milner, Major J. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Montague, Frederick Sorensen, R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Stamford, Thomas W.
Herriotts, J. Morley, Ralph Stephen, Campbell
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Mort, D. L. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Hoffman, P. C. Moses, J. J. H. Strauss, G. R.
Hollins, A. Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Sullivan, J.
Hopkin, Daniel Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Sutton, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F. Muff, G. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Muggeridge, H. T. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Isaacs, George Murnin, Hugh Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Naylor, T. E. Thurtle, Ernest
John, William (Rhondda, West) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Tinker, John Joseph
Johnston, Thomas Noel Baker, P. J. Toole, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Oldfield, J. R. Tout, W. J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Oliver, George Harold (likeston) Townend, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Palin, John Henry. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Paling, Wilfrid Turner, B.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Palmer, E. T. Vaughan, D. J.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Viant, S. P.
Kelly, W. T. Perry, S. F. Walkden, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Walker, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Phillips, Dr. Marion Wallace, H. W.
Kinley, J. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Wallhead, Richard C.
Kirkwood, D. Pole, Major D. G. Watkins, F. C.
Knight, Holford Potts, John S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lang, Gordon Price, M. P. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Pybus, Percy John Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Lathan, G. Quibell, D. J. K. Wellock, Wilfred
Law, Albert (Bolton) Rathbone, Eleanor Welsh, James (Paisley)
Law, A. (Rosendale) Raynes, W. R. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Lawrence, Susan Richards, R. West, F. R.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Westwood, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) White, H. G.
Leach, W. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Ritson, J. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Romeril, H. G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lindley, Fred W. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis Rowson, Guy Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Logan, David Gilbert Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Longbottom, A. W. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Longden, F. Sanders, W. S. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Lowth, Thomas Sandham, E. Wise, E. F.
Lunn, William Sawyer, G. F. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Scrymgeour, E. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
McElwee, A. Scurr, John
McEntee, V. L. Sexton, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Mr. Hayes and Mr. William
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Balfour, George (Hampstead) Boyce, H. L.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Bracken, B.
Albery, Irving James Balniel, Lord Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Brass, Captain Sir William
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Beaumont, M. W. Briscoe, Richard George
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Berry, Sir George Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Betterton, Sir Henry B. Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Buchan, John
Astor, Viscountess Bird, Ernest Roy Buckingham, Sir H.
Atholl, Duchess of Boothby, R. J. G. Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Atkinson, C. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Butler, R. A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Butt, Sir Alfred
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Gunston, Captain D. W. Pilditch, Sir Philip
Carver, Major W. H. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Power, Sir John Cecil
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pownall, Sir Attheton
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Purbrick, R.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hammersley, S. S. Ramsbotham, H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hanbury, C. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, David D. (County Down)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Hartington, Marquess of Remer, John R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Haslam, Henry C. Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Chapman, Sir S. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Christie, J. A. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ross, Major Ronald D.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Colfox, Major William Philip Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Colman, N. C. D. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Salmon, Major I.
Colville, Major D. J. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cowan, D. M. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cranborne, Viscount Hurd, Percy A. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Savery, S. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Iveagh, Countess of Scott, James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Skelton, A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Kindersley, Major G. M. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Lamb, Sir J. Q. Smithers, Waldron
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Somerset, Thomas
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Dawson, Sir Philip Little, Dr. E. Graham Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Llewellin, Major J. J. Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Duckworth, G. A. V. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Eden, Captain Anthony Long, Major Eric Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lymington, Viscount Thomson, Sir F.
Elliot, Major Walter E. McConnell, Sir Joseph Tinne, J. A.
England, Colonel A. Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Todd, Capt. A. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Train, J.
Everard, W. Lindsay Macquisten, F. A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Turton, Robert Hugh
Ferguson, Sir John Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Fermoy, Lord Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Fielden, E. B. Margesson, Captain H. D. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Fison, F. G. Clavering Marjoribanks, E. C. Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Ford, Sir P. J. Meller, R. J. Warrender, Sir Victor
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Wayland, Sir William A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wells, Sydney R.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay).
Ganzoni, Sir John Morden, Col. W. Grant Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Withers, Sir John James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Muirhead, A. J. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Womersley, W. J.
Gower, Sir Robert Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Grace, John Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. O'Connor, T. J. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Peake, Capt. Osbert Sir George Penny and Major the
Gritten, W. G. Howard Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Marquess of Titchfield.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Lords Amendment, in lieu of their former Amendment, agreed to.