HC Deb 30 March 1938 vol 333 cc2069-87

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after "coal," to insert "and the prevention of subsidences."

This matter was debated on 9th December, upon the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) moved the Amendment and withdrew it after a long discussion, upon the understanding that there was some kind of promise from the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment is now upon the Order Paper again, and we have to state our case once more and try to get it carried. Clause 2 deals with the general functions of the Commission and the Commission will be given authority to look after the interest and welfare of the men. The Clause states: The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal. It is at that point that we wish to insert our Amendment. We say that the safe working of coal cannot be carried on unless the important question of subsidence is attended to.

I wish to deal first with safety of working in the mines and the safety of the workmen concerned. Extracting coal leads to enormous cavities. Anyone who has had practical experience of mine working will realise what it means to have behind you on the long wall face of the mine vast areas of open space and to be always in dread of what will happen when the roof subsides, as it must eventually do. It is generally understood and accepted that for the safe working of mines packing or stowing ought to take place as much as possible. One may say that that cannot be done, because so much material has been taken out that it would be impossible to fill the space with the material that has been cast on one side, but it can be filled up to a certain extent with what is called packing, thereby preventing the enormous spaces that occur from time to time. When that is done it serves two purposes in the working of the mine. The settling down of the roof becomes more gradual than otherwise and accumulation of gaseous matter in the open spaces is to a great extent prevented. There is always a danger that when the roof subsides or falls it will send gas into the workings by pressure caused by the fall of roof. By adequate packing that can be prevented. We are asking that, for the safety of the miners and for the better carrying on of the work, packing should be observed and all material stowed underground. By throwing all the weight on to the coal face that will cause the easier getting of the coal.

The Clause speaks of the national interest. By preventing subsidence you stop the sinking down of the earth's surface, and that is surely in the national interest. In every mining area these gradual depressions are taking place, owing to not stowing properly, and consequently the national interest is ill served in not attending to it. We ask in the Amendment that the Coal Commission should pay attention to that matter in the general working of the mine, so that they may serve the dual purpose of protecting the workmen and those interests which mean so much to the people living in mining areas who are subject to these depressions.

I have just received a resolution which was passed by the local authorities at Tyldesley, Atherton, Ashton-in-Maker-field, Golborne, Earlstown and Leigh, asking me to make an appeal in Parliament that something should be done in the Coal Bill to stop depression and mining subsidence. This Amendment gives me the opportunity of directing the attention of the House to this matter. A fortnight ago a deputation from this House met the Minister of Health on this very question and the Secretary for Mines was present. I hope he will take the opportunity tonight of giving the help which he promised when he met the deputation. He promised that he would appeal to the mineowners to realise the trouble that was being caused by not attending to protection underground and by bringing out material and letting the ground sink, while creating huge mounds on the surface. The Minister of Health and the Secretary for Mines agreed that something should be done in that direction. Here is a golden opportunity. If we can get the Commission to insist that none of this waste material should be brought to the surface we shall prevent the creation of huge mounds on the surface, and we serve another useful purpose by producing greater safety in the mines than exists at the present time.

I hope that we shall get help from the other side on this matter. I want hon. Members to look at it in a wider way. These things spoil the working of the coal seams, but that does not matter to the coalowners, who are out for profit. It is no concern of theirs what effect may be produced on the surface. They consider that they must work the mines in order to produce a certain return to those who have money invested and that it is no business of theirs to stow their material underground and so prevent subsidence. I hope hon. Members on the other side will realise, apart from any idea of helping the mine workers, that they might help us to preserve the beauty of the countryside. I make an appeal once more, in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade, now that he has examined the matter will say: "I have a big job on to satisfy everybody on this matter, but here is something with which I can satisfy the hon. Member for Leigh and other hon. Members, by agreeing to insert this Amendment in the Bill." I appeal also to the Secretary for Mines to use his influence to get the Amendment accepted. If neither of the Ministers will listen to my appeal, I shall begin to think that the Government pay no attention to whatever we may say. I trust to their good sense to grant this Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Several new factors have come to my knowledge since this matter was debated, and I propose to concentrate my remarks upon them Last Sunday afternoon I was passing along a main road in my division when I was surprised to see something that I had not previously seen there. There was a row of houses which appeared to have been struck by lightning. As a result of subsidence those houses had been badly affected and a local contractor had had to be brought in to put a special mortar into the cracks which had been produced by the subsidence. We should be lacking in our duty if we did not take advantage of this occasion to bring our complaints and grievances before the House of Commons. The city which I represent has sent several deputations to the Secretary for Mines. Since our last Debate the Lord Mayor has led a deputation to him on this question. I do not know what went on at that interview, but after the way in which the North Staffordshire area entertained the Secretary for Mines last week—[Laughter]. Well, I never saw a man better entertained—I am hoping that he will make a statement in reply to the deputation that appeared before him.

Since the last Debate, we have received circulars from a large number of urban district councils and local authorities affected by this matter. Some of those local authorities are represented by people who are politically opposed to us, but so important and urgent are the difficulties that arise by reason of subsidence, that they are forced to take the question up. The result has been that Members of this House have received circulars on subsidence from local authorities. I received this letter to-day from the Town Clerk of the City of Stoke-on-Trent on behalf of the City Council. He says: I am directed by the City Council of Stoke-on-Trent to forward to you the undermentioned resolution passed by the council of the North Staffordshire and District Law Society, Ltd., in connection with the injustice to the house-owning public which will result from the operation of the provisions of the Coal Bill with reference to compensation for subsidence. I know that it would be out of order to raise the question of compensation on this Clause, but the reason that I am drawing the attention of the Minister in particulcir, and the House in general to this question is to show the need for steps to be taken for the prevention of subsidence in order that our people should not need to claim compensation. The letter continues: 'The Council of the North Staffordshire and District Law Society, Limited, representing the Solicitors of North Staffordshire who from their practice in a coal mining district, are fully conversant with the effects and repercussions of subsidence upon house property, draws attention to the injustice to the house-owning public which will be perpetrated by the provisions of the Coal Bill in limiting the compensation for subsidence to damage which could not have been prevented by precautions, the cost of which will be out of all proportion to the price paid to the landowner for the mines compulsorily purchased.' Yours faithfully, E. B. SHARPLEY (Town Clerk). I have read the letter in order to reinforce the claim we are making that the Minister should agree to insert the Amendment in the Bill, so that the Commission can take steps to prevent subsidence in areas of this character. Since our last Debate there has appeared in the "Daily Dispatch" photographs of a row of houses in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). If hon. Members could have seen the effect of subsidence upon these houses, I am convinced that they would have been supporting us this evening. The photographs showed houses which were practically split in two as a result of subsidence, and the local authority in this area has been forced to take steps to house the people. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will make a statement with regard to the case presented to him by the deputation from my division.

7.4 p.m.

Sir John Withers

I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House would wish that the Commission should have power to make regulations to prevent subsidence. The only question, therefore, is whether it is provided for in the Clause as it now stands. My view is that probably it is; at the same time, there is a doubt. I think it would be all right if we stopped at the words affect the national interest but to leave in the words including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions, is to particularise. It might well be argued that, having put in these particulars, we had left out subsidence, and, therefore, I appeal to the Minister to make the position clear. The Amendment could do no harm, and if he would accept it, it would make the position abundantly clear from the point of view of the law.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

I wish to associate myself with the appeal which has been made to the Minister to accept the Amendment. The question of subsidence is of very great importance, especially in Staffordshire, where a great deal of damage has been done during recent years as a result of these geological changes. The Secretary for Mines will remember that we had a very full Debate some weeks ago on the Committee stage on the question of compensation in respect of subsidence, and that he said it was impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment providing for compensation. Whatever justification there may be for the Government taking up that attitude with regard to the past, surely, there is no justification to do so with regard to the future. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Board of Trade shall issue general directions to the Commission, so as to enable them to take any necessary precautions with regard to the prevention of subsidence in future.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has indicated that, in his opinion, the principle would be accepted by both sides of the House. If that be so, surely, there can be no objection to inserting this Amendment in the Clause. It is true that the whole includes the part, but having regard to the fact that the Government have thought fit to particularise in respect of matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, there can be no objection to accepting the Amendment so as to include the second particular with regard to the prevention of subsidences. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. Even the power given to the Board of Trade is optional. There is nothing mandatory about the Clause itself. If it were possible for the Board of Trade to issue directions to the Commission, they would be purely precautionary, and I hope that for that reason the President of the Board of Trade will see fit to accept the Amendment.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will, to a great extent, agree with the speeches that we have heard, especially the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who moved the Amendment. I am sure that more could be done in the way of underground stowage. I remember, some 10 years ago, paying a visit to the Ruhr district of Germany and being impressed by the amount of underground stowage that was being done. It is possible by moving forward the longwall faces very rapidly, in many cases, to reduce the amount of damage done to the surface, and a great deal can be done by careful attention to this particular method. I feel that, in the vast majority of cases, colliery companies are not deliberately damaging the surface. Far more often than not, when a colliery company damages the surface, the result is that it has to meet a fairly heavy bill. The hon. Member for Leigh went so far as to suggest that no waste material should be brought up from the collieries at all. While that might apply perfectly well in certain districts, and perhaps in the district with which he is associated, in other districts it would create all sorts of difficulties.

Mr. Wragg

And dangers.

Mr. Mitchell

For example, in Scotland a great many collieries are using the whole of their waste material for making bricks. If you prohibit them from bringing up that waste material, not only would you, in some cases, cause difficulties to collieries which only just keep going by brick production, but you would cause a very acute shortage of bricks in Scotland, where every brick is needed to overcome the housing shortage. I want the Minister, before he accepts an Amendment of this kind, to be aware of the difficulties which might exist in several districts. I appreciate that in certain districts it may be possible to keep the waste material completely underground, but there are other districts where such a course would be practically impossible, and it would cause a great deal of damage and unemployment.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

I gather from what the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell) has just said, that he thinks it would be inadvisable if colliery companies were obliged to keep the rubbish in the collieries, and that difficulties might arise at collieries where they make bricks from the debris taken out of the pits. Undoubtedly there is some monetary gain to colliery companies where they are able to use some of the debris in making bricks, but normally it is a very small proportion of the underground debris that can be used for making bricks or anything else.

Mr. Mitchell

The collieries to which I referred are using 90 per cent. of the waste material which they bring up in making bricks.

Mr. Jenkins

It is a very small percentage of the rubbish that is in the colliery. It is important for the House to remember that subsidence in general can be prevented if rubbish is kept in the colliery.

Mr. Wragg

Would the hon. Gentleman say that it is safe in most collieries in this country to stow that rubbish? Would it not be a great danger? I know it would.

Mr. Jenkins

It is rarely that you have a type of material which would be dangerous.

Mr. Wragg

Every day.

Mr. Jenkins

Obviously, if you had that type of material it would be foolish to keep it in the pit, and no colliery company would desire to do so. I can speak from experience in this matter. Some of the best collieries in South Wales are those in which all the rubbish has been kept. They are properly packed, the roads are better, and the colliery is safer. There are no spaces where gas can accumulate. In many collieries great spaces are left where sometimes gas accumulates and the area is such that it is almost impossible to ventilate it properly.

Mr. Wragg

Why do they bring up the stuff?

Mr. Jenkins

Purely from the point of view of economy. It is cheaper to bring it up than to stow it.

Mr. Wragg

No, it is cheaper to stow it.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. Gentleman is really talking quite wildly upon this point. One knows the practices of colliery companies quite well, and much of this rubbish is brought up because it is cheaper to do so. I am strengthened in this argument by the reports of the last seven or eight years of the Divisional Inspector for South Wales. He has recommended time after time, and year after year, that the standard of safety would be raised very considerably if the rubbish were kept in the pit instead of bringing it to the surface and piling it up in heaps. All kinds of difficulties arise. There is the possibility of hydraulic stowage. In Upper Silesia hydraulic stowage is carried out in a very effective manner and subsidence is generally prevented. There are many instances in Upper Silesia where I have seen hydraulic stowing carried out, and where they have succeeded in stowing a 40-foot seam and preventing to a large extent any danger from subsidence. I agree that the process is costly, but our seams in this country are very much thinner. One often finds, however, that, even when a seam is not more than four feet thick, the rubbish will be brought to the surface instead of being kept in the pit and used to pack the spaces securely. I know, of course, that in the Staffordshire district there are thick seams, and in that district stowing has been greatly neglected and great damage has been done to surface property, all for the purpose of enabling the colliery owners to make a little more profit. There is no other reason at all.

Mr. Wragg

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Jenkins

I know that the hon. Member knows something about mines, but I am afraid his experience is not as wide as that of some of us. No doubt, however, he will get his opportunity later. Where this damage has been done, it is ntterly impossible to put the property into proper condition. In many places in Wales you see cottages which have been properly built, which have been purchased by colliery workpeople, and which, when the coal has been worked under them, have begun to face all ways. I know of a group of 50 houses built in 1913 by an urban district council at a very substantial cost. Since then, coal has been worked under these houses, and it is now possible to see through any of them. The walls have gone in all directions; they are shored up with timbers; and the result has been a substantial loss to the authority concerned. If this subsidence could not be prevented, there would be some argument for allowing it to continue, but we know that, with adequate stowing, it can be prevented. The Minister may say that there is provision in the Clause which gives the Commission power to take certain steps in this connection, but I cannot read that into the Clause; it seems to me that the Clause is not detailed and specific enough to give the Commission authority to impose upon colliery owners the duty of adequately stowing the space from which they remove the coal. The Clause speaks of: the safety of the working of coal. The safety of the working of coal is, I agree, a matter of importance, but in many cases the question of subsidence might well be included. I hope the Minister will say that powers are being taken to get this matter dealt with, but, if so, I think it ought to be made much more specific in the Clause than it is at the present time.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald

I am rather surprised that the Minister has not intervened before on this Amendment. He told us in Committee that he thought he had power in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 as it stood, and he said that, if he had not that power, he would see that he got it. We have put down this Amendment to safeguard ourselves, thinking that the Minister would, before any Debate on it took place, convince us that he has the power to do what the Amendment suggests. If he did that, we should withdraw the Amendment, but it is for the Minister to show us that he has the necessary power. There is a general feeling in the House that it is desirable to prevent subsidence. I can quite understand that it would be costly, and I do not think it would be very easy in some coalfields. I know, however, that in some parts of my own division subsidence has created havoc for individuals and for the local authorities. They know what the effect has been on their sewerage, their sanitary arrangements, and in other ways. It has cost the local councils in my division many hundreds of pounds to deal with it, and has cost the local builders quite as much, if not more. All we ask is that the Commission should be given this power, so far as they can exercise it, to prevent subsidence. We know that it is a tremendous task, but we think it can be done. Indeed, it has been done in some areas, and we ask that the Commission should have the power to do it. I hope that the Minister will say to us that in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 he has the power for which we are asking in this Amendment. If he says that, we shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Grookshank

I thought that hon. Members opposite wanted to develop their argument on this matter, and accordingly I did not intervene earlier. I apologise if I misunderstood their intention. I think I can clear up this point quite rapidly. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) with great interest. I agree with him that I was most splendidly entertained in his constituency, and not the least pleasing part of my visit was when he and I went to a football match at which we saw Bolton Wanderers subside.

I would like to make one remark on the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who referred to a deputation, of which he was a member, which came to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself. As that was a private deputation, and no public statement was made afterwards, I think that perhaps it will be better if I neither accept nor deny his version of what passed on that occasion. During the Debate in Committee this matter was raised, and the question was whether or not it was necessary to insert these words in the Bill in order that the Board of Trade should, if it saw fit, give to the Commission general directions on this subject, or whether, without these words, it was possible for general directions to be given. During that Debate my right hon. Friend said: It has always been our view that subsidence is one of the matters upon which the Board of Trade might give a general instruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1937; col. 657, Vol. 330.] He went on to say that he was quite clear in his own mind that this power was inherent in the Clause, without its being necessary to say so in so many words. Since then we have taken further advice, and my right hon. Friend's view has been confirmed that it is not necessary to particularise. I think the real reason for that was given just now by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), when he said that he thought the matter was open to doubt because the safety of the working of coal was particularised, and that the doubt ought to be cleared up. It seems to me that to particularise still further would be to endanger still more any other matters about which it might be desirable to give general directions. My right hon. Friend pointed out why we have particularised with regard to the safety of the working of coal, namely, because that was one of the things which one would not normally associate with the ground landlord. That was why we thought it necessary to mention it specifically. But this other matter of subsidence is quite clearly, in our view, one which it would be reasonable that the ground landlord should take an interest in and should deal with if possible. As it is one of a variety of things, it is better not to particularise. Therefore, since we are fortified in the opinion we gave on the previous occasion that these words are not necessary, and since, as the House knows, it is always undesirable to put into Bills words which are not required, I suggest to the hon. Member that he should not press this matter any further, with the assurance that what he wants is there.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it seems to me that to refrain from using specific language with respect to this question would be to render the power of the Commission in this regard quite incidental to its main functions, and, as hon. Members on this side regard the question of the prevention of subsidence as fundamental, I am afraid we shall require to test the opinion of the House in the Division Lobby. I assumed, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose, that he was proposing to accept the Amendment, and I cannot understand why he rejects it. It may be that some other language would be more appropriate to the principle we are trying to establish, and, if that be one of the difficulties, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could deal with the matter at a subsequent stage. We do not dispute for a moment that the question of legislation with respect to subsidence bristles with difficulties, but we are not asking for legislation which would deal with the whole question. For example, no reference is made in this Amendment to the question of compensation, which was raised by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage. All that we are asking in effect is that the Commission, in granting leases, should lay down the condition that efforts should be made, and will be made, to prevent subsidence.

Captain Crookshank

I think the hon. Gentleman is reading into the Amendment words which are not there. The Amendment would merely provide that the Board of Trade might give to the Commission general directions regarding this matter; it does not cover what the Commission might do.

Mr. Shinwell

I quite recognise that point, but surely the exclusive purpose of the directions which the Board of Trade may give to the Commission is to ensure that the Commission will carry out those directions; otherwise I cannot understand the purpose of it. While it is true that the matter is vested primarily in the Board of Trade, and is subsequently referred by the Board of Trade, in its discretion, to the Commission, it must be assumed that the Commission will conform to the directions of the Board of Trade. Our proposal is such a moderate one that there is no reason at all for the Government to refuse it. If we were asking at this stage that the Commission should lay it down in the most positive fashion that compensation must be paid where there is subsidence, that they should begin at once to enforce on every colliery owner stowing of a practical kind, and so on, I could understand the Government refusing to accept the proposal, which would give rise to a great deal of fuss on the opposite benches by the coalowners' representatives. We are not asking for that. I repeat that all we are asking for is that the Commission, as a result of directions given to them by the Board of Trade, should pay due regard to the question of the prevention of subsidence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that that is within their functions. My quarrel with him is that, if it is within their functions, it is purely incidental. I want it to be made one of their primary duties, because we regard it as being so important from the standpoint of the proper functioning of the mining industry.

I would remind the House that this question of subsidence and questions associated with it have been before the country for a great many years. Many years ago, a Royal Commission on mining subsidences made its report. I recall that in 1924 the matter was being considered with a view to legislation. It was found to be, as I have said, bristling with difficulties, and everybody recognises that. Here is the first opportunity we have had—and we may get no other opportunity for many years—to assure at least, irrespective of wider measures, that property may be, to some extent, safeguarded and the mines rendered safer. The right hon. Gentleman said, in respect of another matter earlier in the evening, that we might introduce a private Member's Bill, and that if we did we should get Government support. This is not a matter on which we can introduce a private Bill; it is much too complex; and I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and accord to this moderate proposal the consideration and favour that it deserves.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

This, really, is an almost ridiculous situation. The whole House, I think, and the Minister certainly, is agreed that we want to be sure that the Board of Trade has power to give directions relating to the prevention of subsidence, and it is simply a question of what is the best way of doing it. Most lawyers would say, certainly, that the best way would be to put these words in, but the Minister says—and he must mean what he says—that he is clear, on the advice he has been given, that he has the power without putting the words in. I see that the lawyers referred to in the letter from Stoke-on-Trent and the hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) do not think so. I do not think so—that does not matter much, I know; but I mention the point. I can only say, with the very greatest respect to the eminent lawyers who advise the Government, that the Bar must have made at least £100,000 in the last few years out of legislation which they have advised Ministers was all right. It is notorious, for instance, that the derating Act means exactly the opposite of what the Government thought it would mean; and whenever a lawyer is told what the Crown intended to be done about it, the case has to be adjourned to allow him to recover from his laughter. The reason that is being given is that it is dangerous to add these words because, if you proceed further to particularise, you may add a limitation, and it may be necessary to insert something more to deal with that. Let the Minister tell us what the something more is that might possibly be excluded, and, if there is something more, let him put that in, too. The English language is clumsy, and, if they want to be sure, let them include the words: including, without prejudice to the generality of these provisions, all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal and subsidence.… This is not a party matter. I feel sure that the moment this is in operation and the Board of Trade makes some regulations dealing with subsidence, and it happens to meet an individual of one of the more obstinate types, who wants to challenge the validity of the regulations, because he is affected by them, there will be prolonged litigation.

Mr. Spens

This does not authorise the Board of Trade to make regulations at all. It authorises the Board of Trade to give directions to the Commission.

Mr. Pritt

How wonderful. We have a contribution from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who points out that this does not authorise the Board of Trade to make regulations, but only to give directions. That is a useful contribution to the Debate, I am sure. I apologise for using the word "regulations" instead of "directions," and I apologise for bringing the hon. and learned Member for Ash-ford to his feet.

Mr. Spens

I have pointed out that the directions cannot affect any individual. They are matters only between the Board of Trade and the Commission.

Mr. Pritt

I would like to wrangle with the hon. and learned Member for

Ashford, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in doing so. The effect would be that if the Board of Trade gave directions to the Commission to exercise certain functions, and the Commission could not do so, we would have litigation as to whether it was ultra uires or not. That is what I want to avoid, and I suggest that the Amendment ought to be accepted.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 183.

Division No. 154.] AYES. [7.38 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Grenfell, D. R. Muff, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Naylor, T. E.
Ammon, C. G. Graves, T. E. Oliver, G. H.
Banfield, J. W. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Owen, Major G.
Barnes, A. J. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Paling, W.
Barr, J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parkinson, J. A.
Bellenger, F. J. Hardie, Agnes Pearson, A.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Harris, Sir P. A. Pritt, D. N.
Bevan, A. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Quibell, D. J. K.
Broad, F. A. Hayday, A. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Bromfield, W. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ridley, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Riley, B.
Buchanan, G. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Cape, T. Holdsworth, H. Seely, Sir H. M.
Cassells, T. Hopkin, D. Shinwell, E.
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cluse, W. S. John, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Stephen, C.
Cocks, F. S. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kelly, W. T. Thorne, W.
Daggar, G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Thurtle, E.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leach, W. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, F. Tomlinson, G.
Dobble, W. Leonard, W. Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G. Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Lunn, W. White, H. Graham
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) McEntee, V. La T. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. McGhee, H. G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Foot, D. M. MacLaren, A. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Mander, G. le M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maxton, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Messer, F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Montague, F. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
NOES.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Bull, B. B. Crowder, J. F. E.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Campball, Sir E. T. Culverwell, C. T.
Albery, Sir Irving Cartland, J. R. H. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovll)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Carver, Major W. H. Dawson, Sir P.
Apsley, Lord Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Aske, Sir R. W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, N. (Edgb't'n) Denville, Alfred
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Channon, H. Donner, P. W.
Balniel, Lord Christie, J. A. Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Clarke, Frank (Dartford) Eastwood, J. F.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Eckersley, P. T.
Beechman, N. A. Clarry, Sir Reginald Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Bernays, R. H. Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Colville, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Ellis, Sir G.
Bossom, A. C. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Boulton, W. W. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Emery, J. F.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Bracken, B. Cox, H. B. Trevor Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Brass, Sir W. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Fildes, Sir H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Fleming, E. L.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Cross, R. H. Fyfe, D. P. M.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsay and Otley) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Gledhill, G. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Gluckstain, L. H. M'Connell, Sir J. Samuel, M. R. A.
Goldie, N. B. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Gower, Sir R. V. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Maclay, Hon. J. P. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcaster) Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Maitland, A. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Markham, S. F. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Guinness, T. L. E. B. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Spans, W. P.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Hannah, I. C. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Hannan, Sir P. J. H. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Harbord, A. Morgan, R. H. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncasatle) Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Munro, P. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Titchfield, Marquess of
Higgs, W. F. Palmer, G. E. H. Touche, G. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Peake, O. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Peat, C. U. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Hopkinson, A. Perkins, W. R. D. Turton, R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence Peters, Dr. S. J. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.) Petherick, M. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Hume, Sir G. H. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hunter, T. Pilkington, R. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Hurd, Sir P. A. Procter, Major H. A. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Radford, E. A. Wells, S. R.
Keeling, E. H. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Ramsden, Sir E. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Rankin, Sir R. Windsor-Olive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Rayner, Major R. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Leech, Sir J. W. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Withers, Sir J. J.
Lees-Jones, J. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Levy, T. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Wragg, H.
Lewis, O. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Liddall, W. S. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Lipson, D. L. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lyons, A. M. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness.