HC Deb 20 March 1930 vol 236 cc2290-303

(1) A contract for the sale or supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall not be void or unenforceable as between the parties by reason that it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part I of this Act.

(2) Where the output or disposal of a coal mine exceeds during any period the quota of that mine for that period, the owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme, nor shall any deduction be made from the quota of the mine for any subsequent period, in respect of the excess, if it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty or make the deduction or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator—

  1. (a) that the excess was solely occasioned by the performance of contracts made before the eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine;
  2. (b) that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of those contracts; and
  3. (c) that, having regard to the provisions of the central scheme, the imposition of the penalty or the making of the deduction, as the case may be, can, without substantial injury to the interests of the owners of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with.

(3) The owner of a coal mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme by reason of the fact that he has, in pursuance of any contract, sold or supplied coal at a price below the minimum price determined in respect of that coal under the scheme at the time of the sale or supply, unless the price at which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied was lower than the minimum price determined in respect thereof under the scheme at the time when the contract was made, or, where no minimum price had then been determined in respect of the coal, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with the effect of schemes on contracts. It will be observed that the first part of the Clause provides that, as between two contracting parties, nothing in this Bill is to be treated as rendering a contract void or unenforceable. A contract remains entirely unaffected by any of the provisions of the Bill. Then we have to consider the effect of schemes not as between two contracting parties, but, as between the coalowner and the executive board. Sub-section (2) of the Clause deals with the question of excess of output. There may be, in respect of any given period, an excess of output for disposal, and it is manifest that, if one coalowner in a district exceeds his output, it may have an adverse effect upon other coalowners in the district. Consequently, it is only fair that, subject to the precautions which we have taken here, if anybody does exceed his output, the result of so doing will fall upon him rather than upon his brother coalowners who have not exceeded their output. The Clause provides, however, that no penalties or deductions are to be made, in respect of a coalowner who has exceeded his output, if it is adjudged that the excess was occasioned solely by the performance of contracts made before the 11th December, 1929, the date of the introduction of the Bill, that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of those contracts, and that having regard to the provisions of the central scheme, the imposition of the penalty, or the making of the deduction can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with.

Then, in the last part of the Clause, we deal with the question of price. A coalowner in any particular period may fix a price. That price may be altered when delivery comes to be made. He may find himself, although the price is fixed at a time when there was no price fixing scheme in operation, in a difficulty by reason of the fact that when delivery comes, the price fixed may be altered. So the Clause makes it plain that all the owner may have regard to is the price that existed when the contract was made; and if he has fixed his price in accordance with the price fixed at the time the contract was made, he is not under penalty or disability by reason of the fact that there has been an alteration in the present date of delivery.

We have still to provide for the case of the price being fixed at the present time, there being no price fixing machinery in operation. This proposed Clause deals with it in this way. In a case such as this, the price having been fixed at the present time, the coalowner is again to be under no sort of penalty or disability, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was con- tracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme. What we have endeavoured to do, in regard to the ordinary commercial bargains, is to protect the coalowner absolutely; but in regard to the coalowners who, seeing the Bill coming, have taken the advantage to enter into contracts which, in the ordinary course of commerce they would not have entered into, we have provided that, if it is adjudged—and only if it is adjudged—that they had acted in that way, they may become liable to the penalties provided.


We ought to know a little more about this Clause. I agree with the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Clause, but the Committee ought to understand a little more clearly its implications. I ask the Attorney-General to correct me if I am wrong. First of all, one can offend against Part I of the Bill either by selling below the minimum price or selling more than the quota. With regard to the minimum price, I have little to say about Subsection (3), which seems to me to deal with the difficulties which may arise. But with regard to the quota, apparently it is necessary, in order that a man, who in performance of a contract has to sell more than his quota, may be exempt, that the contract must have been made before 11th December last year. That is one of the conditions for his escaping a penalty.

Supposing that in the latter days of December a man, who has been accustomed to sell 100 per cent. of his output to some regular customers, knowing that this Bill has been introduced, but being in complete ignorance as to what his quota will be, either sells 100 per cent. of his output, or sells a certain percentage, say 80, which happens to turn out larger than the quota allotted to him, the contract is made after 11th December but shortly afterwards, and at a time when he could not possibly know what the quota is. He will then, as I understand it, be liable to a penalty. He does not come within the paragraphs, the first of which is that the excess was solely occasioned by the contract made before 11th December. So apparently he will be liable to a penalty. On the other hand, he cannot escape the liability which he has contracted to his buyer. The contract does not become void and unenforceable, because of the fact that under this law it has become unlawful for him to produce that amount of coal. It is a hard position for a man to be put into retrospectively in regard to a perfectly proper transaction entered into in the ordinary course of business within a few days of the time when this Bill was introduced and when he could not possibly know what his quota was to be. It is a hard thing for a man who has made a bad shot at his quota to be, apparently, saddled with a penalty, while at the same time he cannot escape under the ordinary law the obligations of his contract.

I want the Attorney-General to consider this. Supposing that a coal owner had intelligently anticipated the form which this Bill was to take, and knew that a quota was to be imposed upon him, and that in making his forward contracts in December he put in a clause to the effect that in the event of legislation being passed curtailing his production the contract should be avoided, or avoided in proportion. I ask the Attorney-General whether, under the Clause as drafted, the coalowner would not still in spite of having put the clause in the contract, be liable to his buyer for the complete fulfilment of his contract; because this Clause as it stands makes no reference to any contrary provision in the contract. The Statute, as it will read, will say the contract shall not be void and unenforceable by reason of the quota Clauses and I suggest that the Statute would prevail and the clause in the contract would not. As the Statute says, the contract is not to be void and unenforceable, he would not be able to plead a clause in the contract saying that it should be avoided. This may be a mere matter of words, but I suggest that the point ought to be considered. The Attorney-General has told us quite truly, that this contract is not to be void and unenforceable, although the law has made it illegal to perform it, because that is the plain English. A man who, after the 11th December, did make a forward contract exactly as he had done in past years, for a quantity of coal no greater than he had delivered in the past, but which turned out to be larger than his quota will, retrospectively, have been doing an illegal thing, and yet he is to be liable to his buyer. I want to know why the Clause takes the form that it does. I am going to call the attention of the Committee to the original form in which this proposed Clause was printed, and to ask what is the reason for the change. I have before me the Blue Order Paper and the White Order Paper for 11th March. In the White Order Paper the Clause reads as it now stands, but on the Blue Order Paper for that date it reads as follows:

Mr. William Graham to move the following Clause: (1) A contract for the sale and supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall be void and unenforceable as between the parties if it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part 1 of this Act.


The Attorney-General will deal with the legal point, but I should like to explain the reason for this variation in the Clause. An hon. Member in another part of the House accidentally put down a Government Clause, and that was printed for a day or two until the correction was made. That is the explanation, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept it.


I want to ask one question. I will assume that the Bill is law, a district scheme is in force, and the price is fixed for a certain grade or quality of coal. There is a provision that no contract shall be made for a period of 12 months. Suppose that a seller of coal sells coal for three years at the price fixed, ignoring the regulation as to the period? I want to know what the position would be? Would that man be liable for penalties for selling contrary to the price should the price be changed after the period had elapsed, and when the regulation said that no contract should be made for a larger period? That is a matter of great importance, because there is a great temptation to make long contracts in order to get orders on the order book.


Sub-section (1) of this new Clause provides for the sale or supply of coal, and Sub-section (2) deals with the case of a man who made a contract before the 11th day of December, 1929. If it is shown that a man before the Bill was heard of made an agreement in the ordinary course of his business, in pursuance of his legal rights, he has to show that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of that contract. Why should the unfortunate man who has acted in accordance with his legal rights, who did not try to anticipate any contract, who has done nothing whatsoever except what he was legally entitled to do in the ordinary course of his business, be asked, when he comes to carry out his contract, to prove that Having regard to the provisions of the central scheme"— which he has never heard of— the imposition of the penalty or the making of the deduction, as the case may be, can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with. That is a piece of absolute tyranny. If he has fulfilled the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b), he has done everything that an honourable man should be asked to do, or that an honourable man should ask him to do.


I should like to ask what will happen where miners have a contract or agreement in regard to their wages that they shall have coal at a given rate under their wage conditions? There is also the case in which royalty owners have an agreement under which they get a certain amount of coal in lieu of royalties. How do they come in under this particular Sub-section? If the Government cannot answer these questions, no doubt, if they had a consultation with certain other powers below the Gangway, they would be able to give me an answer.


The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) pointed out the possibility of there being very hard cases, and I quite agree, but I would remind him of the old saying that hard cases are apt to make bad law. He will observe that that must be so inevitably, and for this reason. After all, unless you have some provision such as we have here, the hardest case will be that of the group of coalowners who represent the coalowners in a district governed by the scheme, who otherwise would find that their output was restricted by the fact that one of their fortunate members had entered into contracts under which he was entitled to increase his output, and, as the burden of that would otherwise fall on the other coalowners, it is thought to be only fair that, in the circumstances provided in the Clause, the coalowner who has entered into contracts after the 11th December, should, under these safeguards, be liable to what is called a penalty, but which is really more in the nature of a contribution to his brother coalowners who otherwise would suffer. That also answers the question of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), who thought it very hard that, when a man had proved (a) and (b), he should also have to prove (c). The penalty is in the nature of a contribution, and surely it would be exceedingly hard if the burden were to fall upon the other coalowners and not on this one. The scheme provides that when he pays what is called a penalty, but which is really a contribution, it falls into the common pool, and the loss or profit is shared to that extent, not only by him, but by the others also.


Would it not be possible to make the way a little easier for the coalowner by substituting for the 11th December, when he could not possibly know anything of the matter in practice, the date of the passing of the Act?


I am afraid that would be impossible. These schemes have been discussed for a long time, and, if we were to accept the date of the passing of the Act, it might render the whole thing nugatory and it would break down.


Surely it is retrospective legislation. I pointed out that a man has made a contract in the exercise of his legal rights, with no knowledge of the introduction of this Bill.


Of course, it is retrospective legislation in the sense that it had not been passed, but there was intelligent anticipation that it would be passed. Unless you have some such provision as this, you knock the bottom out of the scheme. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts), under the Clause as it stands, so long as the coalowner supplies at a price in accordance with the price as it existed at the date of the contract for sale, he is not liable to any penalty. The remedy would be some provision in the scheme. If you had a provision in the scheme against contracts to any extent, let us say a longer period than 12 months, I could well understand that a coalowner who sold over a period of two years might find himself liable to a penalty, not because he sold at a wrong price, but because he fixed the contract for a longer period than the period allowed. Therefore, we have to look to the scheme for that and not to the Clause. Another hon. Member asked me several questions which seemed to relate to contracts between mine owners and royalty owners. I have previously pointed out that so far as contracts between two contracting parties are concerned, they are left intact.


I have in my mind details of a number of contracts made mostly in the latter part of December, not in anticipation of any legislation such as this. In the ordinary course of business for the coming year, many contracts have been made. I am assured by the Attorney-General that, as far as the two contracting parties are concerned, it means that a contract can be fulfilled, though it has been made before 11th December. The people I represent have great concern about the matter. They have submitted their case to an eminent legal authority, and he said that in his opinion a contract made, even with this Clause in the Bill, which is rendered illegal by a further Clause in the Bill, cannot be enforced in law, and cannot be regarded as a binding contract. If it is so, we are going to be in a very awkward position. If you have made a contract which cannot be enforced at law, it is not much use to either party. As far as the date 11th December is concerned, why has it been specially selected? In the original draft we understood that contracts that were made would be rendered null and void by the passing of the Act. Therefore, I do not think that it can be said that people have made contracts because of this Bill being introduced. I hope that we shall be given an assurance as to whether these contracts will be legally enforceable. If they are, then the fears and difficulties of these consumers will have largely passed away, but, if they are not, they will not be in a very favourable position under this Clause. I should like to know why the date of 11th December has been selected. Many contracts for the coining year are made towards the end of December.


I thank the learned Attorney-General very much for the answer which he has given to me. This is a matter of very great importance, and I would respectfully ask him to be good enough to look into the matter again very carefully before the Report stage? As far as I can see from his answer, he throws us back on to Clause 8, which imposes a penalty of £100, and a further fine of £20 a day if the offence continues. I think that it is difficult to see how in this case it could be a continuing offence. You might deliver once a week and easily pay £20, if you had only to pay that sum once a week. I think that this is a point which should be looked into.


May I put one point which, I think, may clarify the issue? I think that on such a Clause as this we might have been given the benefit of the views of the Liberal party. It is not one of the Clauses in which they are interested, bad as it is. The learned Attorney-General has been asked to justify the date of the 11th December. In his first speech, he said that it was put in, because it was the date of the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend asked why it should not have been the date of the passing of the Act? The learned Attorney-General said that anybody ought to have had sufficient intelligent anticipation to know that the Bill would become an Act of Parliament,

and that, therefore, the date of the introduction of the Bill was adequate. I want to know how in the world anybody could possibly have had such an intelligent anticipation, considering that it was only yesterday, as far as we know, that the Liberal party decided that the Bill should become an Act. Really, to put the onus upon unfortunate coal-owners up and down the country to foresee from December what was going to be the attitude of the versatile members of the Liberal party is asking too much either of coalowners or of anybody else. I would suggest that an alternative date might be put in; the date when this new Clause was put upon the Paper, or, if they like it better, the 19th March, the decisive date when the Liberal party decided to help.


I will certainly look into the point to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) has called attention, and I express my thanks to him. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), I think I can reassure him that trawler owners need be under no misapprehension at all about the matter. As far as they are concerned as contracting parties, their contracts are absolutely untouched.

Motion made, and Question put "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 147.

Division No. 235.] AYES. [11.45 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Day, Harry
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Bowen, J. W. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Dickson, T.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Brockway, A. Fenner Dukes, C.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Bromfield, William Duncan, Charles
Alpass, J. H. Bromley, J. Ede, James Chuter
Ammon, Charles George Brooke, W. Edmunds, J. E.
Angell, Norman Brothers, M. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Arnott, John Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Aske, Sir Robert Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Egan, W. H.
Attlee, Clement Richard Buchanan, G. Elmley, Viscount
Ayles, Walter Burgess, F. G. Foot, Isaac
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Forgan, Dr. Robert
Barnes, Alfred John Cameron, A. G. Freeman, Peter
Barr, James Cape, Thomas Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Batey, Joseph Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Bellamy, Albert Charieton, H. C. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Chater, Daniel Gibbins, Joseph
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Cluse, W. S. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mostley)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Cocks, Frederick Seymour Gill, T. H.
Benson, G. Daggar, George Gillett, George M.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Dallas, George Glassey, A. E.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Dalton, Hugh Gossling, A. G.
Gould, F. McElwee, A. Scurr, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) McEntee, V. L. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) McKinlay, A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Sherwood, G. H.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Shield, George William
Groves, Thomas E. Mansfield, W. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Grundy, Thomas W. Marley, J. Shillaker, J. F.
Hall, F. (York, W. U., Normanton) Marshall, Fred Shinwell, E.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mathers, George Simmons, C. J.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Matters, L. W. Sinkinson, George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Maxton, James Sitch, Charles H.
Hardie, George D. Melville, Sir James Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Messer, Fred Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Haycock, A. W. Middleton, G. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hayday, Arthur Mills, J. E. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Milner, J. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Montague, Frederick Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Morley, Ralph Snell, Harry
Herriotts, J. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Sorensen, R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Mort, D. L. Stamford, Thomas W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Moses, J. J. H. Stephen, Campbell
Hoffman, P. C. Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Hollins, A. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Strauss, G. R.
Hopkin, Daniel Muff, G. Sullivan, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Muggeridge, H. T. Sutton, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F. Murnin, Hugh Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Nathan, Major H. L. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Naylor, T. E. Thurtle, Ernest
John, William (Rhondda, West) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Tinker, John Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Noel Baker, P. J. Toole, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Oldfield, J. R. Tout, W. J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Townend, A. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Turner, B.
Kelly, W. T. Palin, John Henry Vaughan, D. J.
Kennedy, Thomas Paling, Wilfrid Viant, S. P.
Kinley, J. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Walker, J.
Lang, Gordon Perry, S. F. Wallace, H. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lathan, G. Phillips, Dr. Marlon Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Law, Albert (Bolton) Potts, Jonn S. Wellock, Wilfred
Law, A. (Rosendale) Price, M. P. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lawrence, Susan Pybus, Percy John Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Quibell, D. J. K. West, F. R.
Lawson, John James Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Rathbone, Eleanor Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Leach, W. Raynes, W. R. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Richards, R. Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lees, J. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Ritson, J. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Lindley, Fred W. Romeril, H. G. Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Lloyd, C. Ellis Rosbotham, D. S. T. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Logan, David Gilbert Rowssn, Guy Wise, E. F.
Longbottom, A. W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Longden, F. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sanders, W. S.
Lunn, William Sandham, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Sawyer, G. F. Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Scrymgeour, E.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Dalkeith, Earl of
Albery, Irving James Buchan, John Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Butler, R. A. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Carver, Major W. H. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Atholl, Duchess of Castle Stewart, Earl of Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Dixey, A. C.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Duckworth, G. A. V.
Beaumont, M. W. Christie, J. A. Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Eden, Captain Anthony
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bird, Ernest Roy Colfox, Major William Philip Elliot, Major Walter E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Colville, Major D. J. Everard, W. Lindsay
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Courtauld, Major J. S. Ferguson, Sir John
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Fison, F. G. Clavering
Boyce, H. L. Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. Ford, Sir P. J.
Bracken, B. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Ganzoni, Sir John
Brass, Captain Sir William Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Briscoe, Richard George Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Gower, Sir Robert Margesson, Captain H. D. Skelton, A. N.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Marjoribanks, E. C. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mond, Hon. Henry Smithers, Waldron
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Somerset, Thomas
Gunston, Captain D. W. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Hammersley, S. S. Muirhead, A. J. Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hanbury, C. Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Thomas, Major L. S. (King's Norton)
Hartington, Marquess of Oman, Sir Charles William C. Thomson, Sir F.
Haslam, Henry C. O'Neill, Sir H. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Todd, Capt. A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Power, Sir John Cecil Turton, Robert Hugh
Iveagh, Countess of Purbrick, R. Vaughan-Morqan, Sir Kenyon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsbotham, H. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Reid, David D. (County Down) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Remer, John R. Warrender, Sir Victor
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Liewellin, Major J. J. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil Wells, Sydney R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Ross, Major Ronald D. Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)
Long, Major Eric Salmon, Major I. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Lymington, Viscount Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
McConnell, Sir Joseph Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Womersley, W. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir George Penny.

Question, "That the Clause he read a Second time "put, and agreed to.


On a point of Order. Was that Division on the Second Reading of the Clause, or on the Question "That the Clause be added to the Bill"?


I put the question "That the Clause be now read a Second Time," and it was not challenged; and then I put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."


I did not hear you put the Second Reading.

Clause 12 (Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.