HC Deb 07 July 1938 vol 338 cc627-53

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 5, after "would," insert" be likely to."

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the following Amendment will change the words in paragraph (e) so that the latter part will read: which, if done, would be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount. This Clause refers to the prevention of actions being brought to restrain what would be purely technical trespass through other people's land underground. After consideration it was found that as "substantial" might not prevent a person doing damage of a small, though real, amount, the proper phrase is "other than of a purely nominal amount."

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

This is another illustration small in scope, but substantial in reality, of the way in which under this Bill the Commission is step by step being sabotaged, if that is not too strong a word. These words will not so much hamper the Commission as ensure that more money will go out of the public purse into private pockets than would otherwise be the case. The position is fairly simple so far as a necessarily complicated Bill like this can make it. The Commission have power themselves, or by licence to give other persons power to do a good many things in the way of underground operations that are necessary. It is then provided that they are not to have the power to interfere with underground operations or with the surface of any land and to do other things provided for in the paragraphs in this Clause, all of which are quite reasonable. As paragraph (e) left this House it was a very sensible and enlightened provision dealing with the difficulties of the law of trespass and, indeed, of nuisance.

The law of trespass is an all-embracing law which says you can be stopped doing a thing which interferes in any degree with a person or his property. The law of nuisance, while much less strong and definite, is a thing of which great use can be made by adjoining landlords and proprietors of property. Almost everybody knows of the threat of action for nuisance to light, in regard to which the House of Lords gave a sensible decision in another capacity, in which they shine much better, limiting the matter to cases of real damage. For almost half a century the threat of an action for an injunction, designed not so much actually to hold up building operations, but to obtain by something little better than blackmail sums of money from people carrying on building operations, has resulted in the cost of building and rents going up.

That is a typical illustration of the way in which the law of this country can be used by rich interests to make themselves richer and to make other people poorer. As this paragraph left this House it was really a very enlightened provision. The Commission were told they were not to do any act which, but for this Clause, would be actionable as a trespass or nuisance and which, if it were done, would cause actual damage of a substantial amount. Except that it would have been simpler to say "substantial damage," it was a very good provision. The other place says that you must not do anything which, if it were done, would be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount. That does two things. It gives or preserves a cause of action in a case where the actual damage is likely to cost 42s., because 40s. is nominal damage, so I suppose that 42s. is damage other than a purely nominal amount. It also gives the right not merely when it would cause actual damage, but when it is merely likely to cause actual damage.

Therefore, the predatory enemy of the Commission being a lessee or owner of some bit of land or interest in land, which enables him in one way or another to come within this proviso, is given the one thing that he ought not to be given. He is given the right to obtain an injunction or the right to threaten to obtain an injunction. Unfortunately, our legal system is so complicated and extensive that to give anybody a right even to threaten an action is to give him a right to hinder and even to hold up the operations of the Commission by threats which he may be willing to withdraw if he is paid a sum of money, provided only that it is large enough. This is essentially a case in which the House ought to stand by its opinions as expressed when this Bill went to another place, and to say, "We made up our minds that the proper thing to do was to get rid of purely technical causes of action, the opportunity of wasting time, of extracting money by threats of action in purely technical matters." This House ought to say, "Persons shall rightly and properly be saved from acts which, if done, would cause substantial damage to them, and not be given the opportunity to employ their lawyers or other agents to hamper the Commission by saying, We do not say it would cause substantial damage; we only say it would be likely to cause substantial damage.'"

Lawyers ought to welcome it, unless they have some sense of public duty and responsibility, but as it stands it might just as well not be there at all. It enables everything that could be called a trespass or a nuisance—and practically everything can be called a trespass, as practically everybody can be called a nuisance—and so long as the thing is little more than purely nominal the whole dreary business of solicitors, counsel, threats and talk of injunctions, waste of time, and sudden realisation that a plaintiff groaning with indignation is prepared to quench that indignation for £25 or £250, starts its weary round again, as if this House had never expressed an opinion to the contrary. I ask this House to say, "We do not subscribe to everything that is selfish, reactionary, and objectionable that another place proposes."

4.33 P.m.

Sir S. Cripps

We on this side are getting a little bit tired of never having any answer whatsoever to the arguments put up on these Clauses. Time after time in the course of these Debates we have put up what we consider to be arguments of some value, and then waited, and there has never been a reply upon them, except in one or two isolated cases. Surely when a Minister opens a case of this kind and an argument is put up, as my hon. and learned Friend has put one up, by someone who has at least some understanding of the law, Ministers might at least have the courtesy of pointing out to the House why they think that that argument is wrong, in order that the House might form some opinion upon the merits of the Amendment. This is a case which, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, is a serious matter as regards the future of the Commission. The Commission were protected by this House from having actions and threats brought against them unless there was damage of a substantial kind actually caused, and that is a matter where the onus would have been on the plaintiff to prove his case.

Now the position is that an act can be done, and it is judged by whether it is actionable or not, and it cannot be done if it can be shown that it can be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount. The Commission would have to show in such a case that purely nominal damages would be done if they did the act. It has shifted the onus from one side to the other, and it has made the criterion, not substantial damage, but other than purely nominal damage. It has made the criterion not whether it would cause damage, but whether it would be likely to cause damage, leaving an enormous area for threats if the Commission want to do something which they consider necessary for the purpose of exerting the rights which this House has given them. It is just this sort of Amendments that one comes across time after time in this Bill, Amendments intended to hamper the Commission and to give a neighbouring landowner a threat of some kind by which he can extort something further from the Commission, in order that they may become the mulch cows of the neighbouring landlords, to get what money they can from them. This kind of Amendment is not drafting, but is put in purposely and definitely to benefit landowners who will be adjoining the land of the Commission, and we think Ministers should give some answer to the argument as to the alterations that have been made. Surely prima facie we can assume that the Bill, as it left this House, was a Bill assented to by the Government, and assented to by the House by a majority, but here we find a material alteration, and when arguments are put forward to show the effects of that alteration and that we could not assent to it, we cannot get an answer from the Front Bench opposite.

4.37 P.m.

Captain Crookshank

I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I was waiting until the Debate had concluded, and indeed I was taking down notes of what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was saying. He sees in this an important alteration, but we consider it as merely a change in the form of words to bring them into line with what the House intended. We think this is merely a verbal alteration and that it does not at all affect what is intended, which is merely to prevent any actions being brought to restrain what might be a purely technical trespass of a very minute nature. It has not been put in to hamper the Commission or to assist neighbouring landowners; it has been put in because we thought this was a better form of words to carry out the decision of this House. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will take my assurance that there is no ulterior motive about this, and that we have really tried to bring to the notice of the House any matter which we thought could possibly be of substance.

Sir S. Cripps

I should be much obliged if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General would advise the House on this matter, as to whether these words do or do not make a difference in this Clause as it left the House.

4.39 P.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I have a fairly clear recollection of the intention of the original Clause when it was before this House on the Committee stage, and I think I remember pledging myself—I cannot charge my memory exactly—in the clearest possible terms that the intention of this Clause was to prevent actions being brought against the Commission in what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said was purely technical cases of trespass. The alteration is to the words "would cause actual damage," and surely nobody can pretend that the Commission should be free to do acts which would be likely to cause actual damage. The Committee must have intended that what were to be ruled out were cases in which the act would be likely to cause actual damage. I appreciate the astute eye with which my hon. and learned Friend opposite detects subtle differences here.

Mr. Pritt

Why put it in?

The Attorney-General

Because it is a more accurate expression of the intention. The words "would be likely to" carry out the intention which was embodied in the word "would" and carry it out more accurately. With regard to the question of damages "other than purely nominal," I submit that there is no difference, but that it is a more accurate way of framing the intention of the original Clause as it was accepted by this House. What was intended to be done was to protect the Commission against claims of a purely technical kind.

Sir S. Cripps

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he would be in the same position if he was told that, on the one hand, he was to receive in a case a substantial fee and, on the other hand, he was to receive something more than a nominal fee?

The Attorney-General

That just shows the danger of taking words out of their context and putting them in somewhere else. I think it is clear that if we read the word "substantial" in this Clause as it was originally drafted, its meaning was "other than nominal," and the correct words are "other than nominal," because that is the intention of the Clause. I suggest that this is more accurately and more precisely expressing the intention of the original Clause.

Sir S. Cripps

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman so fully explained the Clause to the House on the former occasion, which he remembers so accurately, did he then realise that it was badly drafted and ought to be altered?

The Attorney-General

No, I expect not. If there is anybody who, on a Bill of this size, magnitude, and complexity, has ever realised all the possible improve-

ments that could be made in its drafting, he would be a much greater man than I could ever hope to be.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 120.

Division No. 281.] AYES. [4.43 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Dugdale, Captain T. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Dunglass, Lord McKie, J. H.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Edmondson, Major Sir J. Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Ellis, Sir G. Macquisten, F. A.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Unlv's) Elmley, Visconnt Maitland, A.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Aske, Sir R. W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mander, G. Ie M.
Assheton, R. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Marsden, Commander A.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Everard, W. L. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Findlay, Sir E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fox, Sir G. W. G. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Furness, S. N. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Fyfe, D. P. M. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Bennett, Sir E. N. Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chlswick)
Blair, Sir R. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Bossom, A. C. Gledhill, G. Morgan, R. H.
Boulton, W. W. Gluckstein, L. H. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Boyce, H. Leslie Goldie, N. B. Munro, P.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Grant-Ferris, R. Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Broadbridge, Sir G T. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Greene, W. P. C. (Woroester) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Gretlon, Co'. Rt. Hon. J. Owen, Major G.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Gridley, Sir A. B. Palmer, G. E. H.
Bull, B. B. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro,W.) Patrick, C. M.
Bullock, Capt. M. Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Peake, O.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H.(Drake) Peat, C. U.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Petherick, M.
Cartland, J. R. H. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Piokthorn, K. W. M.
Castlereagh, Visconnt Hambro, A. V. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Hannah, I. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Harris, Sir P. A Porritt, R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Channon, H. Haslam, Sir J.(Bolton) Proctor, Major H. A.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Radford. E. A.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Hely-Hutchininson, M. R. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Higgs, W. F. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Holdsworth, H. Rayner, Major R. H.
Colfox, Major W. P. Holmes, J. S. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Colman, N. C. D. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Horsbrugh, Florence Remer, J. R.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hudson Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport) Ropner, Colonel L.
Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S.G'gs) Hulbert, N. J. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Hunloke, H. P. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Cox, H. B. Trevor Hunter, T. Russell, Sir Alexander
Craven-Ellis, W. Hurd, Sir P.A. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Critchley, A. lnskip, Rt Hon. Sir T. W. H. Salt, E. W.
Croft, Brig-Gen. Sir H. Page Kerr, H.W.(Oldham) Samuel M. H. A.
Crookshank, Capl. H. F. C. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Kerr J Granam (Scottish Univs.)
Cross, R. H. Kimball, L. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Crossley, A. C Lamb, Sir J. Q. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Crowder, J. F. E. Lamdert, Rt. Hon. G. Scott, Lord Willam
Culverwell, C. T. Law, Sir A. J.(High Peak) Seely, Sir H. M.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Law R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Shakespeare, G. H.
Dawson, Sir P. Leech, Sir J. W. Shaw, Major P. S.(Wavertree)
De la Bère, R. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shaw, Captain W. T.(Forfar)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lewis, O. Shepperson, Sir E.W.
Denville, Alfred Liddall, W. S. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Lipson, D. L. Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.
Doland G. F. Loftus, P. C. Smith, Braoewell (Dulwich)
Donner, P. W. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Drewe, C. M'Connell, Sir J. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Spens, W. P. Touche, G. C. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Train, Sir J. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) Walker-Smith, Sir J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Suetor, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Warrender, Sir V. Wragg, H
Tasker, Sir R. I. Waterhouse, Captain C. Wright, wing-Commander J. A. C.
Tate, Mavis C. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Wayland, Sir W. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Wedderburn, H. J. S. Mr. Grimston and Major
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. Wells, Sir Sydney Herbert.
Titchfield, Marquess of White, H. Graham
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Poole, C. C.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hardie, Agnes Price, M. P.
Adamson, W. M. Hayday, A. Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Quibell, D. J. K.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Ridley, G.
Barnes, A. J. Hicks, E. G. Riley, B.
Barr, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Batey, J. Hollins, A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Bellenger, F. J. Jagger, J. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Benson G. Kelly, W. T. Sanders, W. S.
Broad, F. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. Kirby, B. V. Silkin, L.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kirkwood, D. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Buchanan, G. Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Burke, W. A. Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cape, T. Lee, F. Stephen, C.
Chater, D. Leonard, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cluse, W. S. Leslie, J. R. Stokes, R. R.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Logan, D. G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Collindridge, F. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford McEntee, V. La T. Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)
Dalton, H. McGhee, H. G. Thorne, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) McGovern, J. Thurtle, E.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) MacLaren, A. Tinker, J. J.
Dobbie, W. Marshall, F. Tomlinson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Mathers, G. Viant, S. P.
Ede, J. C. Maxton, J. Walkden, A. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Messer, F. Walker, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Montague, F. Watson, W. McL.
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Welsh, J. C.
Garro Jones, G. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Naylor, T. E. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, P. J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Oliver, G. H. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Parker, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parkinson, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W. Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 18, line 6, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 8, after Clause 16, insert new Clause E (Coal not to be dealt with to the prejudice of the Commission after passing of this Act): As from the date of the passing of this Act until the valuation date, all persons interested in coal or a mine of coal shall be treated as holding their respective interests in a fiduciary capacity for giving effect to the provisions of this Part of this Act, and as being subject accordingly to an obligation to refrain from any dealing therewith (not being a disposition or other dealing which might reasonably have been effected in the ordinary course of business if this Act had not been passed) calculated to give a factitious or artificial value to a holding or to prejudice the

interests or powers to be acquired by the Commission under this Part of this Act."

4.53 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In the Bill there are already two Clauses dealing with what is called the interim period between valuation and the vesting date, and the property is held during that period with certain obligations arising from the sale. This Clause extends to some extent those provisions, of course in favour of the Commission, by saying that from the passage of the Bill the property will be held in a fiduciary capacity, and that really amounts to those obligations which come into effect on the valuation date being ante-dated from that date to the date when the Bill passes. I am sure that every one will agree that this is an improvement, and I hope that there will be no difficulty in the minds of anyone about accepting it.

4.54 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I think this Amendment partially carries out a suggestion which we on this side put forward in an Amendment in another form when the Bill was in Committee, which was rejected by the Government, and we therefore have no objection to this new Clause provided that it is spelt rightly. In the last line but two I presume that the word "factitious" is meant to be "fictitious," because a factitious value would be a very odd thing to come across, while a fictitious value is quite a reasonable thing to find. As their lordships apparently cannot spell we may as well put it right.

Captain Crookshank

As a matter of fact "factitious" is right.

Sir S. Cripps

Surely, as it is speaking of value, it must mean a fictitious, or artificial, value. I see that an hon. and learned Member opposite wants to get up to explain the position.

Mr. Spens

I had the curiosity to look this up in the Oxford Dictionary at lunch yesterday and the two words mean exactly the same thing. "Factitious" comes from facio, and fictitious from fingo, and the meaning in each case is "artificial."

Sir S. Cripps

If someone so conversant with mining matters and with this legislation as the hon. and learned Gentleman had to resort to the Oxford English Dictionary to find out what the word means I suggest that we put ordinary English into the Bill, and the ordinary English is certainly "fictitious" and not "factitious," and if it means nothing but artificial I suggest that we leave it out altogether, because we have "artificial" in already. I should like to move an Amendment to leave out the words "factitious or."

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid it is too late for the hon. and learned Member to move an Amendment. The Question has been proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Captain Crookshank

To satisfy the hon. and learned Member, the word "factitious," which I understand is perfectly correct in this case, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary means "designedly got up, not natural."

Sir S. Cripps

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to look it up in the dictionary, I may say that I have never come across the word in any legal document or Act of Parliament. I have often come across the word "fictitious." It is really fantastic that we should put into Acts of Parliament words of which nobody in the House knows the meaning until they look in the Oxford English Dictionary. I suggest that we are making fools of ourselves if we do that sort of thing, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of guidance, Is there no way of preventing us making fools of ourselves?

Mr. Speaker

There are so many that I could not enumerate them.

Sir S. Cripps

Is it impossible now for anybody to alter this word "factitious" into "fictitious" in this Clause?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that it is too late.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 41, after Clause 17, insert new Clause F—(Power of the Court to appoint receiver and manager on the application of the Commission.) In any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the Court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises, or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease, and the provision to be made by any such order may include the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises, with liberty, subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit to impose, to manage the undertaking, to use for the purposes of the order any fixed or movable plant or machinery of the lessee in or upon the premises, and to do all such other acts and things as may be or become requisite for those purposes.

4.57 P.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words: the Court in which the proceedings are pending, and to insert: and in any other case where the premises are or are about to become subject to a coal-mining lease, the Court The object of this Amendment is to assist the Secretary for Mines to attain the objective which he announced yesterday when we were discussing the Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill by which we proposed to insert the words "continuing employment." He pointed out that it was not necessary to insert those words because this new Clause, put into the Bill in another place, would cover the point we had in view, and he told us that the Commission could at any time go to the Court in a case where a lease was either terminated or about to terminate and get a receiver and manager appointed, and that the manager could then continue the undertaking, and that that provided for the case in which there was sudden termination or the danger of sudden termination of the employment of the workpeople. We put the view—I think the right view—that the new Clause F as drafted did not cover what the Secretary for Mines thought it covered. When our Amendment was turned down by the House, we thought that it was only right and proper that we should put in an Amendment to make the new Clause F actually do what the Minister thought it did, thereby giving him the opportunity of voting for the Clause in the form in which he would like the Clause to be.

In the original Clause F as inserted by their Lordships, in any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make"— certain orders, among them orders for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises. The Clause at present is limited to cases in which proceedings have been brought before a court by the Commission to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease. The case which we desire to cover is not that in which there are proceedings but in which the lessee, for some reason or other which we discussed at great length yesterday, gives up the lease, and the Commission are met with the difficulty that they cannot continue to produce coal or carry on the operations of coal-mining because they have no power so to do.

What we suggest in the Amendment is that they should be permitted in such circumstances to make application to the court to appoint a receiver and manager of the empty mine or the mine which may become empty, who should on their behalf be allowed, under conditions made by the court, to carry on the operations so that the Commission would then be able to arrange provisions in the interim whereby the mine might be permanently carried on by a new lessee. It was generally agreed in the House yesterday that that is the only effective way by which you can keep a mine in proper order for letting to a new lessee. If the mine is allowed to become derelict, in the sense that production ceases altogether, you not only diminish the value of the property but you diminish the chance of getting someone to take over the mine for permanent production. This Amendment of ours will get over any difficulty in the Commission permanently carrying on any undertaking. They will be entirely subject to the control of the court as to how long the receiver and manager can continue, and as to the conditions under which he shall operate.

We suggest this course as a second-best way to getting the Amendment which we moved yesterday. It is a method which will enable the difficulties that we mentioned to be overcome, without any danger whatsoever of infringing the precious principles of Capitalism which this Bill shows to be so inefficient in the carrying on of coal-mining.

5.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I do not think that the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given is exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend said yesterday. I have looked at what he said and I see that he started his reference to the Clause which we are now discussing by saying: If there were for the time being a breach of any coal-mining lease."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1938; col. 438, Vol. 338.] He made it clear that that applied only in certain circumstances. This is not strictly in order on the discussion that we are having, but I thought it right to make a reference to it.

In view of some observations which were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as to the general tendency of the Government in these matters, namely, to limit the power of the Commission, it is perhaps relevant to point out that the Lords Amendment gives the Commission power which they did not possess when the Bill left this House and when there was no power in the Commission to appoint a receiver and manager to carry on the business of coal-mining in any circumstances. It is only right to point out that an Amendment has come from another place which increases the power of the Commission. So attracted is the hon. and learned Gentleman to the lead which has been given to him by another place that he is anxious to carry the matter a little further. I think I can put shortly the position as it was in the Bill.

Let us take the case of a lease which comes to an end in the normal way, that is to say, at the end of the period for which it has been entered into. The Commission will know in that case when the date is coming, and they will be able to negotiate for a renewal of the lease with the existing lessee; or, if for any reason the existing lessee does not want to continue, and the mine has to continue in working, the Commission will have plenty of time to look round for another lessee to take the place of that lessee. In that case the Bill would operate as it left this House, namely, that no power would be required by the Commission to carry on the working of the mine. The Commission now have a power which they did not have, enabling them to take steps to see that the mine is preserved. The new Clause proposed by their Lordships deals with the covenant in which the lessee is in default. I suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the case which they put yesterday and which we are now considering is that in which the lessee is in default. In all these cases there is a covenant to work the mine, and if the mine is closing down and men are being thrown out of employment, there is a breach of the covenant to work. If the colliery is becoming insolvent—it may be in arrear with its rent—and if the mine is continuing in work, there is not a breach.

Sir S. Cripps

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite right? Suppose these are trustees in bankruptcy?

The Attorney-General

I am not saying that there may not be such cases, but the normal case contemplated in the speeches made yesterday was that in which there was a breach of the lease by the company. If the mine continues to be worked, men will not be thrown out of employment, whereas if men are being thrown out of employment there will have been a default and a breach of the covenant. There may be other breaches and there may also be arrears of rent. Under the proposed new Clause the Commission will have power to apply to the court for relief against the lessee who, ex hypothesi, is in breach. Relief can be applied for against him and an order can be obtained from the court for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease. That covers the circumstances which were considered yesterday and does, in our view, adopt the right principle, having regard to the principle affirmed in this House that in ordinary circumstances the Commission are not to carry on the business of coal mining. If you find that owing to default by a lessee a mine is not being carried on, any court can order this power to be exercised on the part of the Commission through a receiver and manager.

The hon. and learned Gentleman would carry it further. He would throw upon the court further jurisdiction, and would provide that where there has been no default against the lessee and where mines are or are about to become not subject to a coal-mining lease, the court might give the Commission permission to exercise that power. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would open up the whole question which we discussed yesterday, because it seeks to cover the period when a coal-mine lease has come to its end in the normal course and when the Commission have had months or years of notice to make any arrangements they want to make for the continuance for the working of the coal mine. In those circumstances, their new power would not be exercisable under the new Clause F, in its present form. The other point concerns the words "are about to become." We have to consider in what circumstances, if the lease has come to an end in the normal period, the mine is about to become not subject to a coal-mining lease, because the 60 or 70 years of the lease have run out. The observation which I made just now is relevant. We do not think that in those circumstances a court or anybody else ought to give the power to appoint a manager to work that coal mine. If there has been no default and the lease is about to come to an end, application can be made to the court under the new Clause F as it stands, and if the court thinks it is a proper case—the House knows that application can be made pending proceedings—that position is safeguarded in the Clause as unamended, except in the case which we do not desire to cover, where the lease has come to an end through the effluxion of time.

I would make one further observation with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed Amendment. It would confer, I think, an unusual jurisdiction upon the court. There would be no parties. The Commission would be going to the court to ask the court, on principles on which no particular guidance would be given to them, to decide, without argument or issue or substantial guidance, whether in the circumstances the Commission should appoint a manager. That would be an unusual procedure, because the Order would entitle the manager to use other people's property. For instance, debenture holders might have rights over the property. Very likley the hon. and learned Member would be able to suggest ways of getting over these difficulties, but under the Clause as we have it the parties will be there, and we believe that the Clause, giving this power in case where the lessee is in breach, is a sufficient protection against the evil which has been apprehended of a mine being put out of action merely because the lessee is in default and is unable to continue working. We suggest that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment goes far wider than is necessary, that it would contradict a general principle affirmed by the House, and that other difficulties would arise out of it which would make it an impracticable suggestion.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

We are dealing here with the coal industry, and the legal arguments to which we have listened from both sides of the House indicate that we are dealing with something which is very material. I submit, however, that it can be cut down to very human considerations. I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to accept the Lords Amendment, which provides for cases in which the lessee is in default. In such cases the Government are prepared to accept the position that the Commission may go to the court, and that the court may, on the evidence, empower the Commission to keep the mine open. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) broadens the Lords Amendment to the extent that, where the lease is expiring or has expired, it would enable the Commission to go to the court for powers to carry on the mine until such time as in their judgment they thought it was expedient to close it, or a new buyer came along.

I would ask the Attorney-General to look at this matter from the angle from which I am looking at it. It may be that a colliery company decides to give the necessary notice under the lease to discontinue working the mine. That may be due to financial reasons, or it may be due to bad management, but bad management has a very direct connection with financial reasons in the running of any business. The Attorney-General says that in that case the Commission would have sufficient time to look round to get a new lessee. They certainly would have some time to look round, but it does not follow that they would have sufficient time to look round to get a new lessee, and, in the event of a new lessee not coming forward, then, merely because of a fear of putting too much power into the hands of the Commission, the pit is to go out of production, which means in many cases, as some of my hon. Friends on this side know from actual experience, going out of commission for ever. Pumps are drawn, electricity is cut off, everything is finished, and the water is allowed to rise. Then it is a matter of great expense to de-water the pit, and you cannot find a lessee willing to come in with sufficient capital to de-water the pit and bring it back into production.

At the last pit but one where I worked, it was decided, for financial reasons, that it was not possible to carry on any longer. The concern went into voluntary liquidation, a receiver was appointed by the court, and, if I recollect rightly, it was in the hands of the receiver for two years. During that time coal was being produced, everything was kept in perfect order, and then a new lessee came and took the place and we got several more years' work as the result. It meant employment for some 700 or more men and boys, and money coming into the town, which unfortunately, since then, has become more or less derelict. Is the fear of putting too much power into the hands of the Commission a sufficient reason for resisting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend? The consequences of a pit being closed are only known by those who have been in a district where it has happened. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would entirely meet such a situation as I have described, and, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has advanced no valid reason against it, it seems to me that the Amendment should be accepted.

5.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

May I, with the leave of the House, make one or two observations on what the Attorney-General has said? As I understand his argument, it is that it is sufficient to make this provision in cases in which a lessee is in breach of his obligations. I cannot, however, understand the mentality that would determine the possibility of the continued employment of, say, 1, 000 men at a pit by whether or not a lessee is technically in breach. That is what it comes to. It means saying to the men, "Your possibility of continuing in work and not being scrapped will depend upon the technical question whether a breach was committed before the lease was given up." That is the attitude of the Attorney-General. Take the case of a trustee in bankruptcy who, perfectly legally, disowns the lease, as he has full right to do, and the rights under the lease are re-vested, at perhaps very short notice, in the Commission. The Attorney-General would say that that is a case in which the Commission have no right, the men have no right, nobody has any right, because it so happens that the bankruptcy law has allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to disown the lease.

If it is right, where there is a breach of the lease, for the courts to have power to order the appointment of a receiver and manager to carry on the mine, surely there cannot be an conceivable objection, if the lease is disowned by a bankrupt, to following exactly the same procedure. There is no difficulty whatsoever as regards the procedure. An application can be made to the court for the appointment of a receiver and manager, and the court will have to be satisfied by proper evidence, as it always has to be satisfied in these cases, that the receiver is the right man, properly qualified to receive and manage the property, able to put up a bond, and all the other things which are necessary; and they will have to be satisfied that the circumstances are such as to entitle them, under the general policy laid down by the Act, to appoint a receiver. Clearly, in a case such as the Attorney-General cites, where a lease runs out in the ordinary course, they would not dream of appointing a receiver, because they would say there were no circumstances which made it necessary or proper to do so. But even in a case where the lease does run out, supposing that negotiations for the new lease are just ready for the new lessee to take on without cessation, and something happens as a result of which the negotiations cannot be completed by the time the old lessee goes out, so that there is a gap of a week, a fortnight, or a month, nothing at all can be done to keep the pit going during that period.

We are not so concerned with the question of the condition of the property; we are vitally concerned with the men, and we are most anxious, under such safeguards as are considered necessary, to make a provision by which, in such circumstances, somebody has the power to say that the case is one in which it is proper that the men should not be thrown out of work for a fortnight, or a month, or whatever the period may be. If there is no provision unless a lessee is found to be in breach, you are compelled to start proceedings against him, whether you want to do so or not, in order to get a receiver and manager appointed. In many cases there may be a technical breach of some kind on account of which you would not dream of proceeding to an action, because it would be perfectly useless and simply throwing good money after bad. But in such a case you would be forced to start proceedings, because otherwise you could not get the relief asked for. We ask the House to insert these words, so that this protection may be given to the men. It will always be under the control of the courts, and it is perfectly certain, in view of the terms of the Bill, that the courts will not be in the least likely in any case to extend the conditions in which they will appoint a receiver and manager so as to allow the Commission to carry on permanently under the cloak or guise of a manager-ship. For these reasons, we ask the House to support the Amendment.

5.29 p.m.

The Attorney-General

With the leave of the House, perhaps I might make a very brief reply to the speeches which have been made. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) put the case in which a colliery company went into liquidation and the mine was carried on by a receiver until a new lessee appeared. That will be just as possible under this Bill as it was when the coal was in private hands. If a colliery company were in liquidation, a receiver would be appointed, who could carry on in exactly the same way, and there is nothing in the Lords Amendment to prevent that happening.

With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, the one example which he put against my argument was the case of a disclaimer by a trustee in bankruptcy. I cannot think that that is a case which would prevent application under this Clause. Trustees in bankruptcy do not descend, so to speak, instantaneously. They are the unfortunate result of previous events: a process of insolvency, the filing of a petition and so on. I cannot but think that, prior to the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy and a disclaimer of the kind described, there would have been a default, and investigation would have been made and, one way or another, an arrangement would have been made. For those reasons, I do not think this Amendment should be accepted.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

I would commend this as the lamest explanation given by His Majesty's Government on either a small or a large point. Let us take this case. A man or a partnership is running a pit. They hold on as long as they can without disclosing that they are in difficulties. The last thing they want to do is to ruin their asset—or the asset of their creditors—by closing the pit. Then the crash comes. Everybody who has even an elementary knowledge of bankruptcy law knows that the matter is not made public until it reaches a certain stage. First the bankrupt, before he becomes bankrupt, and then his trustee in bankruptcy, will, at all reasonable costs, keep the pit running. But then they come to a Friday, let us say, when they see that they can no longer keep it running. They give their notices, and finally out they go. At the same moment the trustee in bankruptcy disclaims. The law says that that is an absolutely lawful thing to do. It involves no breach by anybody. There never having been a default—because of the necessary sensible commercial effort to keep going—the law steps in and says to the trustee in bankruptcy that it is right in the general interest that whereas the bankrupt could never say "I am walking out on this lease and dropping it without default," the trustee may say that he is walking out without default.

The instance given by my hon. and learned Friend was not one which merely might happen or could be avoided. It is practically certain in every case. Therefore, you will get the position that in practically every bankruptcy of a firm or an individual the trustee in bankruptcy will disclaim, and the Commission will have to say: "Thanks to the wisdom of the Attorney-General on 7th July, 1938, we are absolutely compelled to say that this asset shall go to minor, or perhaps major, ruin."

With regard to the other illustration given by my hon. and learned Friend, what possibility there is of answering that is best gauged by the fact that the Attorney-General, who spoke again with the leave of the House, wisely left it unanswered. What amazes me about the whole thing is that hour after hour, on Amendment after Amendment, it is pointed out to the Government that they are sabotaging this Bill, and the Government either say nothing or say, "We do not think we are," when it is plain to everybody that they are. It is perfectly obvious that either they are terrified of Lord Cromwell, terrified of the coalowners, or that they do not know what they are doing.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland

I intervene with some diffidence in this controversy to say how it appears to me as a layman. Hon. and learned Member on this side say that the words they propose to introduce will, in some cases, be useful. I thought they made out a very strong case from that point of view. The Attorney-General answered them by saying that no circumstances would arise in which the words they propose to introduce could be of any use. While he was speaking I was carried away by his argument. It seemed to me that he was right. Subsequently it seemed to me that the legal arguments on this side were a little stronger.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley)

That is why you are on those benches.

Mr. Acland

Someone not versed in the law may be excused if he is carried one way by one hon. and learned Gentleman on that side and then the other way by another hon. and learned Gentleman on this side. But the Attorney-General did not suggest that these words could in any circumstances do any harm. He has once or twice asked us to support the Lords in inserting words into the Bill on the ground that the insertion of those words could not do any harm. If one hon. and learned Gentleman thinks these words may be useful and another thinks they will not, surely the House ought to insert the words unless some argument is brought before us to suggest that the words in certain circumstances could do any harm.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes. 135.

Division No. 282.] AYES. [5.38 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Clarry, Sir Reginald Furness, S. N.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. C. Clydesdale, Marquess of Fyfe, D. P. M.
Albery, Sir Irving Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Colfox, Major W. P. Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Colman, N. C. D. Gledhill, G.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's) Colville, Rt. Hon. John Gluckstein, L. H.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Goldie, N. B.
Aske, Sir R. W. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Gower, Sir R. V.
Assheton, R. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs) Grant-Ferris, R.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Cox, H. B. Trevor Greene, W. P. C. (Wercester)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Craven-Ellis, W. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Gridley, Sir A. B.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Cross, R. H. Grimston, R. V.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Crossley, A. C. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Bennett, Sir E. N. Crowder, J. F. E. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Blair, Sir R. Culverwell, C. T. Hambro, A. V.
Boothby, R. J. G. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Hannah, I. C.
Bossom, A. C. Dawson, Sir P. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Boulton, W. W. De la Bère, R. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Boyce, H. Leslie Denman, Hon. R. D. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Denville, Alfred Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Doland, G. F. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmoutn)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Donner, P. W. Higgs, W. F.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Holdsworth, H.
Bull, B. B. Drewe, C. Holmes, J. S.
Bullock, Capt. M. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Dunglass, Lord Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Ellis, Sir G. Horsbrugh, Florence
Cartland, J. R. H. Elmley, Viscount Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Cary, R. A. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Hulbert, N. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hume, Sir G. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Entwistle, Sir C. F. Hunloke, H. P.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Errington, E. Hunter, T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Hurd, Sir P. A.
Channon, H. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Everard, W. L. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Kimball, L. Peat, C. U. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Petherick, M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Spens, W. P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Porritt, R. W. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Leech, Sir J. W. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Procter, Major H. A. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Lewis, O. Purbrick, R. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Liddall, W. S. Radford, E. A. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Lindsay, K. M. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lipson, D. L. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Liewellin, Colonel J. J. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Loftus, P. C. Rayner, Major R. H. Tate, Mavis C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
M'Connell, Sir J. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
McCorquodale, M. S. Remer, J. R. Titchfield, Marquess of
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Touche, G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Train, Sir J.
McKie, J. H. Ropner, Colonel L. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Macnamara, Major J. R. L. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Macquisten, F. A. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Maitland, A. Russell, Sir Alexander Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Warrender, Sir V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Walerhouse, Captain C.
Marsden, Commander A. Salmon, Sir I. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Salt, E. W. Wayland, Sir W. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Samuel, M. R. A. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Sandeman, Sir N. S. Wells, Sir Sydney
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Sanderson, Sir F. B. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Scott, Lord William Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morgan, R. H. Shakespeare, G. H Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Munro, P. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Wragg, H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Simmonds, O. E. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. TELLERSFOR THE AYES.—
Palmer, G. E. H. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Captain Dugdale and Major Sir
Peake, O. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) James Edmondson.
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Montague, F.
Adams, D. (Consett) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Adamson, W. M. Grenfell, D. R. Naylor, T. E.
Ammon, C. G. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Groves, T. E. Oliver, G. H.
Banfield, J. W. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal) Owen, Major G.
Barr, J Hardie, Agnes Paling, W.
Batey, J. Harris, Sir P. A. Parker, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Hayday, A. Parkinson, J. A.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Benson, G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Poole, C. C.
Broad, F. A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Price, M. P.
Bromfield, W. Hicks, E. G. Pritt, D. N.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hills, A. (Pontefract) Quibell, D. J. K.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hollins, A. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Buchanan, G. Jaggar, J. Ridley, G.
Burke, W. A. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Riley, B.
Cape, T. Kelly, W. T. Ritson, J.
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helena)
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Sanders, W. S.
Cocks, F. S. Lathan, G. Seely, Sir H. M.
Collindridge, F. Lawson, J. J. Sexton. T. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Short, A.
Dalton, H. Lee, F. Silkin, L.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leonard, W. Silverman, S. S.
Davies, R. J.(Westhoughton) Leslie, J. R. Simpson, F. B.
Day, H. Lunn, W. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Dobbie, W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McEntee, V. La T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Ede, J. C. McGhee, H. G. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McGovern, J. Stephen, C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. MacLaren, A. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Frankel, D. Marshall, F. Stokes, R. R.
Gardner, B. W. Mathers, G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Garro Jones, G. M. Maxton, J. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Messer, F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Milner, Major J. Thorne, W.
Thurtle, E. Watson, W. McL. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Tinker, J. J. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Tomlinson, G. Welsh, J. C. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Viant, S. P. Westwood, J.
Walkden, A. G. White, H. Graham TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watkins, F. C. Wilkinson, Ellen Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.

Question put, and agreed to.