Sitting of 26 February 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    IMPORTED ARMS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the yearly figure shown by the latest Chinese Maritime Customs returns of arms and munitions imported through the Customs at the Chinese treaty ports; and can he state from which countries these arms were shipped?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. A. Henderson): The most recent returns of the Chinese Maritime Customs show that the importation of arms and munitions of war through them in 1928 amounted to a total net value equivalent, at the average rate of exchange, to, roughly, £1,750,000. These figures do not include imports for sporting purposes or for individual self-defence. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will have the detailed particulars circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAY: Have any recent protests been made by the British representatives in China with reference to the importation of arms?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Not that I have any knowledge of.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: How does the right hon. Gentleman separate arms
    2218
    for individuals for self-defence and arms that are to be used against other people?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I can only give the answer that has been provided for me.
    Following are the detailed particulars:
    Note.—The following figures include arms imported for British and other foreign naval and military forces in China as well as for such institutions as the Chinese Maritime Customs and the Shanghai Volunteer Corps. The various countries named are those from which the arms are shipped, and are not necessarily those of origin.
    STATEMENT showing the value of direct gross imports through the Maritime Customs of arms and munitions into China during the year 1928, distinguishing the countries whence imported.
    (Extracted from the Statistical Returns, Part II, Vol. 1, Imports—published by the Chinese Maritime Customs.)

    China.

    Arms and munitions of war:

    1928.

    Haikwan Taels.

    Total imports of which from:

    11,400,315

    Hongkong

    171,659

    French Indo-China

    34,301

    British India

    45

    Great Britain

    34,577

    Norway

    4,868,550

    Sweden

    44,557

    Poland

    2,536,646

    Germany

    3,208,897

    Netherlands

    21,242

    Belgium

    16,154

    France

    19,398

    Korea

    305

    Japan (including Formosa)

    393,005

    Philippine Islands

    1,763

    United States (including Hawaii)

    49,216

    Arms and munitions, sporting and self-defence.

    Haikwan Taels.

    Total imports of which from:

    125,671

    Hongkong

    37,455

    French Indo-China

    1,869

    British India

    462

    Great Britain

    23,105

    Germany

    12,392

    Belgium

    1,038

    France

    64

    Korea

    394

    Japan (including Formosa)

    35,089

    Philippine Islands

    160

    United States (including Hawaii)

    13,643

    NOTE.—The equivalent of the Haikwan Tael during the year 1928 was 2s. 11 1/16d.

    RAILWAY LOAN AGREEMENT.
    Mr. WARD LAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the position which has arisen owing to the Chinese Ministry of Railways having demanded payment from the Pekin-Mukden Railway of a portion of its revenue for local purposes; and what has been the result of the protests from the British Legation to the Chinese authorities in connection with this matter?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) last Monday.

    MILITARY MOVEMENTS.
    Mr. WARD LAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the combined movement of the northern generals in China against Nanking; and whether the Kuominchun leaders have carried out any disbandment of their forces?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The most important commander in the North recently issued a manifesto calling on the head of the Chinese Government to resign his offices and leave the country. Warlike preparations are reported to have been made on both sides, but I have no report of any open hostilities, nor any definite information as to the attitude of other northern military commanders. There has, so far as my information shows, been no effective disbandment of the various military forces in China.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the League of Nations taking any part in trying to get these forces disbanded?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Not up to now.

    HANKOW DEBENTURES (INTEREST).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Hankow authorities are in default in the payment of interest on the municipal debentures?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: So far as I am aware, there is no default in the payment of interest on the debentures of the former British concession at Hankow,
    2220
    except in respect of the interest for the first half of 1927 which was paid in depreciated notes of the Hankow Central Bank.

    MISSIONARIES (EXTRA-TERRITORIAL PRIVILEGES).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communications from British missionary societies in regard to extraterritorial privileges in China; and what is the purport of such communications'?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have received no such communications; the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    BOXER INDEMNITY FUND.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the question of the Boxer Indemnity Fund?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government are in negotiation with the Chinese Government for the return of the accumulated and future instalments of the Boxer indemnity to the Chinese Government on terms in harmony with the report of the Advisory Committee set up under the China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925. A draft agreement has been reached between His Majesty's Minister and the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs for the consideration of both Governments, and I am at present awaiting the text.

  PASSPORTS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention to take any steps towards the abolition of passports or to minimise the difficulties and expenses incurred in connection with them?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The resumption of relations with the Soviet Government, together with the modifications made in the passport requirements of certain other Governments, have now made it possible to authorise the grant of an endorsement for all countries in Europe as a general rule. Apart from the considerations to which I drew attention in my reply to my hon. Friend

  2221
  the Member for Kennington on 6th November last, my hon. Friend will, no doubt, remember that the Debate on the Children's (Employment Abroad) Bill, on 28th January, brought out the fact that the passport system has a very real value in connection with the white slave traffic.

  NICARAGUA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any settlement has yet been made in respect of the British claims arising out of the recent disturbances in Nicaragua?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to my information the new Nicaraguan Commission, which is to complete its task within 18 months, if possible, has been engaged continuously since November last in the examination of claims of 1,000 dollars and under. No award has yet been made.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    POLAND-LITHUANIA FRONTIER.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress the Council of the League of Nations have made in the settlement of the differences between Poland and Lithuania with regard to Vilna and the frontier generally; and what the present position is?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: A sub-committee constituted by the Advisory and Technical Committee of the League of Nations has been investigating the problem on the spot. Its Report will probably be ready for the consideration of the Committee when it meets in March, so that the final Report should be ready in time for the May session of the Council. Other outstanding questions have formed the subject of direct negotiations between the Polish and Lithuanian Governments.
    Mr. SANDERS: Is it not a fact that the situation between the two countries is less feverish than it was six months ago?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think that is so.

    COVENANT.
    Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the Covenant of the League of Nations; and, if so, the nature of the proposed alterations?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: A committee is now sitting at Geneva to report on the amendments necessary to bring the Covenant into harmony with the Pact of Paris. As regards the nature of the amendments proposed, those put forward by the British delegation were designed to eliminate from Articles 12 and 15 of the Covenant the so-called right of "private war" which they now allow.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Would any alteration made in tine Covenant be brought before both Houses of Parliament before it is ratified?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We have already undertaken to lay all these Treaties before both Houses, and, before ratification takes place, there will certainly be an opportunity given to this House.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be possible to lay the instructions which have been issued to the British representative on the Committee?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I shall have to consider that matter.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his predecessor published any of the instructions which he gave?

    INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION.
    Major HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all countries have now signed and ratified the International Opium Convention of 1925; and, if not, whether he will give the names of those abstaining?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Ratifications and definite accessions to this Convention have been deposited on behalf of 34 countries. There are 11 other countries on whose behalf signatures or accessions have been given but which still require, before they take effect, ratification or confirmation. Twenty-five countries have neither signed nor ratified nor acceded. I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the details:

    SECOND OPIUM CONFERENCE OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS CONVENTION.
    (Geneva, 19th February, 1925.)
    Ratifications or definitive Accessions.

    Austria.

    Belgium.

    United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including all Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories).

    Canada.

    Australia.

    Union of South Africa.

    New Zealand Western Samoa.

    India.

    Bulgaria.

    Czechoslovakia.

    Free City of Danzig (through the intermediary of Poland).

    Dominican Republic.

    Egypt.

    Finland.

    France.

    Germany.

    Greece.

    Italy (for the Kingdom and Colonies).

    Japan.

    Latvia.

    Luxemburg.

    Monaco.

    Netherlands (including Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curacao).

    Poland.

    Portugal.

    Rumania.

    Salvador.

    San Marino.

    Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes.

    Siam.

    Spain.

    Sudan.

    Switzerland.

    Venezuela.

    Signatures or Accessions not yet perfected by Ratification.

    Albania.

    Bolivia.

    Brazil.

    Chile.

    Cuba.

    Denmark.

    Hungary.

    Irish Free State.

    Nicaragua.

    Persia.

    Uruguay.

    The Convention is open to Accession by:

    Abyssinia.

    Afghanistan.

    United States of America.

    Argentine Republic.

    China.

    Colombia.

    Costa Rica.

    Ecuador.

    Estonia.

    Guatemala.

    Haiti.

    2224

    Hejaz.

    Honduras.

    Iceland.

    Liberia.

    Liechtenstein.

    Lithuania.

    Mexico.

    Norway.

    Panama.

    Paraguay.

    Peru.

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Sweden.

    Turkey.

    GAS PROTOCOL.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which States have now ratified the Gas Protocol?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The answer is rather long, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HASLAM: In view of the fact that the Soviet Government is not a member of the League of Nations, has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain their views on the matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, I have not taken any steps, but that hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.
    The folio-wing is the answer:
    The following have either ratified or definitely acceded to the Geneva Gas Protocol:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Canada.

    The Commonwealth of Australia.

    New Zealand.

    The Union of South Africa.

    India.

    Austria.

    Belgium.

    China.

    Egypt.

    Finland.

    France.

    Germany.

    Italy.

    Liberia.

    Persia.

    Poland.

    Rumania.

    Spain.

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Turkey.

    Venezuela.

    Yugoslavia.

  CONGO BASIN TREATIES.
  Major HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the proce-

  2225
  dure which it is intended to adopt in connection with the discussions for the revision of the Congo Basin treaties?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The whole question of the attitude to be adopted by His Majesty's Government and the procedure to be followed in these discussions are still under consideration by the interested Departments, and I am not in a position to make a statement at present.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite that consideration, because the matter is becoming rather urgent?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member knows that, where there are a number of Departments concerned, it is not easy to expedite decisions.

  RUSSIA.

    TYPHUS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the epidemic of typhus at present raging in Russia, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing the issue of visas to Russian subjects?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government have no information regarding the existence of any such epidemic beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I am asking His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow for a report on the subject.

    PROPAGANDA.
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, as officially stated in the Russian newspaper, Rul, of 11th February, 200 persons are to be sent to the Russian Commercial Commission in London, most of whom have been trained in a school of Communist propaganda; that among the qualifications necessary in the future for all members of commercial agencies will be the tenure of an active or reserve appointment in the red army; whether he will represent to the Russian Government the desirability of restricting the number of the proposed Russian staff in London; and whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to ensure that these com-
    2226
    mercial agencies are used exclusively for trade and not for subversive propaganda?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under some misapprehension about any "official" statement. According to my information, the newspaper referred to is published outside the Soviet Union and is in opposition to the Soviet Government. Nothing has occurred to justify any representations to the Soviet Government on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his question.

    NAVAL MOVEMENTS.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to ascertain from the Soviet Ambassador whether the Russian naval forces in the Black Sea have been recently augmented by ships transferred from the Baltic?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I see no need to make any inquiries of the nature indicated. It is common knowledge that two Soviet warships arrived recently in the Black Sea.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Does any augmentation of the number of Russian men of war in the Baltic and Black Sea, affect the naval forces of the other signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that it is necessary for me to take any action.

    BRITISH EMBASSY.
    Captain CR00KSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any members of the British Embassy to Russia have yet visited any cities other than Moscow; and, if so, on how many occasions?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: So far as I am aware, since their arrival in the Soviet Union, the members of the Embassy have been occupied at the seat of Government, but the movements of the staff of His Majesty's missions abroad are, as the hon. and gallant Member is well aware, within the discretion of His Majesty's Ambassadors and Ministers.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct our Ambassador to see that his staff goes into the outlying parts of Russia to investigate the question of religious persecution?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that the movement of the staff is at the discretion of the Ambassador.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that there is any difficulty being put in the way of the members of the Embassy in Russia?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman advise the staff to attend the Baptist chapels while in Russia?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I believe too much in religious liberty to make that interference.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Am I not right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman also believes in religion?

  EQUADOR (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the default upon its obligations to British holders by the Government of Equador upon the Guayaquil and Quito Railway bonds; and will he request His Majesty's representative in Equador to watch developments and report to the Foreign Office?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. Full reports on this question are already being received through His Majesty's Consul at Guayaquil, who is carefully watching the situation.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman at discretion publish what he can?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I shall have to consider that.

  KELLOGG PACT.
  Mr. JAMES WELSH (Paisley)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the Powers who have deposited at Washington instruments of adherence to the Treaty of Renunciation of War, signed at Paris 27th August, 1928?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. As, however, the list of nations is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the list:

  KELLOGG PACT, 27TH AUGUST, 1928.

    PAETIES AS ON THE 14TH FEURUARY, 1930.
    Original Signatories.

    Great Britain and Northern Ireland (British Empire).

    Australia.

    Canada.

    India.

    Irish Free State.

    New Zealand.

    South Africa.

    Belgium.

    Czechoslovakia.

    France. Germany.

    Italy.

    Japan.

    Poland.

    United States of America.

    Accessions.

    Abyssinia.

    Latvia.

    Afghanistan.

    Liberia.

    Albania.

    Lithuania.

    Austria.

    Luxemburg.

    Bulgaria.

    Mexico.

    Chile.

    Netherlands.

    China.

    Nicaragua.

    Costa Rica.

    Norway.

    Cuba.

    Panama.

    Danzig.

    Paraguay.

    Denmark.

    Persia.

    Dominican Republic.

    Peru.

    Portugal.

    Egypt.

    Rumania.

    Estonia.

    Siam.

    Finland.

    Soviet Union.

    Greece.

    Spain.

    Guatemala.

    Sweden.

    Hayti.

    Switzerland.

    Honduras.

    Turkey.

    Hungary.

    Venezuela.

    Iceland.

    Yugoslavia.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (VISA CHARGES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the negotiations between this country and the United States of America with regard to the reciprocal abolition or reduction of passport visa charges?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave in reply to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) on Monday last.

  FIGHTING SERVICES (WHEAT AND MEAT SUPPLIES).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the diffi-

  2229
  culties in the way of purchasing British meat and wheat for the requirements of the Navy and thus carry out the Government instruction to buy British goods?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The difficulties in regard to meat are the same as those which for nearly 4½ years prevented the last Government from adopting the course desired by the right hon. Gentleman. Certain trials of National Mark all-English flour are being carried out in connection with naval shore establishments.
  Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Government did make an arrangement?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware that there was a decision made upon the eve of the General Election, but I am not sure that decisions made under those circumstances are the best.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not a death-bed repentance?
  Mr. HASLAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of a percentage of British wheat into the loaves used is an economy?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already said that trials of National Mark all-English flour are being carried out in the naval shore establishments.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman's Department to be setting a good example to private firms in this country?
  Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Is not a certain percentage of British wheat being used?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: A certain percentage of such wheat is being used in such departments.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the letter issued by the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of British-mark beef, and whether he is now prepared to arrange for the issue of home-produced meat to forces serving at home?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part, I have nothing to add to previous replies on this subject.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those replies are quite unsatisfactory, and will he do something to help the Minister of Agriculture to encourage the sale of British meat?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL NAVAL SCHOOL OF MUSIC.
    Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any intention of transferring the Royal Naval School of Music from Eastney to Deal; and whether, seeing that the majority of the band boys are recruited locally, this fact will be taken into consideration before any decision is arrived at?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: A proposal for the transfer of the Royal Naval School of Music from Eastney to Deal has been received and is being investigated. All the relevant factors will be taken into consideration before any decision is arrived at.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (ALTERNATIVE WORK.)
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will bear in mind the position of dockyard employés concerned when the revised system of accounting and clocking are introduced in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, with a view to finding these employés alternative work?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: This matter will certainly be borne in mind, as it was at Portsmouth when the revised system was introduced.

    ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (RETIRING ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the scheme of retiring allowances and gratuities to officers of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service makes no provision for officers who retired before the 1st July, 1929, and in view of the hardship many of these men are suffering, he can see his way to make the scheme retrospective in order to include those officers who fulfil the conditions but who retired before the 1st July, 1929?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that it is not possible to vary the terms of the scheme as promulgated. In introducing a new scheme a limit must be fixed to the date to which it can be made retrospective and I am afraid that it is inevitable that some persons will thereby be ineligible to benefit.

  KENYA.

    NATIVE SERVICES.
    Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Kenya Colony, in a speech to the Legislative Council on 14th May, 1928, promised to produce, in connection with the Estimates for 1929, a schedule, or schedules, proving that every penny of direct native taxation in Kenya is spent on direct native services in the native reserves; and whether he will give, for the past five years, figures showing the amount of such direct native taxation and the amount spent on direct native services in the native reserves, respectively?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Governor of Kenya has been requested to furnish the figures asked for, but these have not yet been received.
    Mr. BUXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Native Commissioner in Kenya stated to the Parliamentary Commission that only 25 per cent. of the taxes contributed by the natives was spent Uipon the natives?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.

    NATIVE LAND TRUST BILL.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether objection has been raised in the Legislative Council of Kenya to the passing of the Native Land Trust Bill, with the Amendments desired by the Secretary of State; and what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is in communication with the Governor on the subject and I am not in a position to reply yet to the second part of the question.

    CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that official representation has been refused to the heads of the Church of Scotland in Kenya on public occasions on the ground that the Secretary of State cannot grant the Church of Scotland the privilege of such representation, as it is a rule throughout the Empire that such representation be given to the Church of England only; and whether, seeing that there is no established church in the Colony, he will state on what grounds this differentiation is based?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has no knowledge of the circumstances which have given rise to this question, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars the matter will be investigated. The suggestion in the question as to a rule confirming official representation of religious communities on public occasions to one denomination is not understood.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM.
    Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Prime Minister, whether he intends to publish the memorandum on unemployment submitted to him by the First Commissioner of Works, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: May we know whether this influential triumvirate have been converted to the Liberal solution for attacking unemployment?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If this memorandum is likely to help unemployment, what good purpose is served by keeping it secret?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reason why Cabinets have secret documents, is that, if there were no secret documents, Cabinets would never do their work at all.
    Mr. SAMUEL: While I do not contest that view, is this a document which can of necessity be called secret? We

    2233
    want to help the unemployed. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us this document, which is better than the policy of the Lord Privy Seal?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman discovered who gave this information concerning Cabinet secrets to the public Press?

    DUNDEE.
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who were provided with employment by the Dundee Employment Exchange during the six months to 31st December, 3928; and the six months ended 31st December, 1929?

    Dundee Employment Exchange.

    —

    10th July, 1928, to 14th January, 1929.

    9th July, 1929, to 13th January, 1930.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Fresh and renewal claims made.

    14,723

    7,608

    22,331

    18,219

    11,068

    29,287

    Claims disallowed on the ground "not genuinely seeking work":

    (a) By Insurance Officers

    683

    546

    1,229

    103

    318

    421

    (b) Recommended for disallowance by Courts of Referees on 78-day review.

    90

    109

    199

    144

    164

    308

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities this Session for the Education (School Attendance) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in answer to a question on the 30th January by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). Everything depends upon the state of public business.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the Prime Minister aware that, while the permanence of the present regimé is well understood in this House, there are a great many local edu
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): During the six months ended 31st December, 1928, 2,368 vacancies were filled by the Dundee Employment Exchange, and 2,968 during the six months ended 30th December, 1929.
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women who signed on at the Dundee Employment Exchange during the six months ended 31st December, 1928, and the six months ended 31st December, 1929, and who were refused unemployment benefit on the ground of not genuinely seeking work?
    Mr. LAWSON: As the reply consists of a Table of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPOET.
    Following is the Table:
    cation authorities throughout the country in very genuine doubt as to whether the Government will last sufficiently long to pass this legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House may depend upon me to do everything I possibly can to assure the local authorities one way or another, in the most effective way possible, that this Bill is going to be made an Act of Parliament.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he can always rely upon the support of the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if there is a Disolution we shall come back again upon these seats?
    Miss LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that pupils at schools, if they do not get this Bill this Session, will be in grave doubt, whether or not, to train for teaching, and that that will aggravate the problem of the supply of teachers?

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that many education authorities are of opinion that maintenance grants for school children at 14 years of age should be provided exclusively from Exchequer funds; and will he favourably consider such a course on account of the poverty in many of the industrial and depressed areas in the country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I am aware that some opinions have been expressed in favour of this course, but I am unable to adopt it.

  HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (SALE).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the sale to a United States collector by the Royal Institution of Great Britain of the headquarters' papers of the British Army during the American revolutionary war; and whether he proposes to take action to restrain the sale of British historical documents to persons in foreign countries?
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the sale of the Carleton or Dorchester papers to a private individual in the United States; and if he will take steps to make it illegal to sell documents of historic interest to private citizens of foreign countries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have just heard of the sale of these papers. From the historical point of view, hon. Members may know that the papers formed the subject of four volumes published some years ago by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. So far as public despatches are concerned, I understand that the Public Record Office have copies of the despatches to America, and originals of the despatches from America to this country. The remainder of the
  2236
  collection consists of correspondence which passed in America. The question of taking steps to prevent the sale abroad of historical manuscripts has been considered by successive Governments, but I regret no practicable policy has so far been found which would meet all the various cases which arise. I consider, however, that it is the duty of those possessing documents of national historical value to give an opportunity, should need arise for their sale, for their retention in this country.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman investigate the circumstances under which this sale took place, the particular circumstances attending the sale, and will he see whether even now he cannot take some action thereon?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret very much to say that the contract is absolutely and fully complete and that nothing can be done to undo it.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not very reprehensible that the officials of this institution should have kept the matter quiet until the whole thing was brought to completion?
  Captain GUNSTON: If they did not inform him or any member of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to keep the Government informed in the future if they intend to sell more manuscripts?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I purposely put the last sentence in my reply so that not only those officials but the whole public ought to know that in fairness to the nation they ought to disclose their intentions to the Government.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does not the right bon. Gentleman think that there is a particular duty upon an institution which has a Royal Charter to preserve these documents in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER.

  IMAM OF YEMEN (NEGOTIATIONS).
  Mr. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the request from the Imam of Yemen suggesting that he should negotiate outstanding points

  2237
  requiring settlement in London direct with the Colonial Office instead of through Aden?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Imam was informed that His Majesty's Government considered that on account of the great distance and lack of communications between the Imam's capital and London it would be a mutual convenience if the negotiations could be held either in Sanaa or at Aden.

  PALESTINE.

    WAILING WALL, JERUSALEM.
    Major NATHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the committee recently appointed by the Mandates Com-mission of the League of Nations to inquire into matters affecting the Wailing Wall?
    Dr. SHIELS: In accordance with the resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations in January, the members of the Commission in question will be appointed by His Majesty s Government with the approval of the Council. The constitution of the Commission is now under consideration.
    Major NATHAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission will hear evidence?
    Dr. SHIELS: I presume so, but the Terms of Reference have not been decided upon. They will be laid down along with the other conditions when the constitution of the Commission is decided.
    Major NATHAN: Is not the Government proposing to lay down in the Terms of Reference requirements as to the taking of evidence?
    Dr. SHIELS: His Majesty's Government will submit to the Council of the League the names proposed, and also the proposed Terms of Reference.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will it be made clear, in drawing up the Terms of Reference, that the conditions of the Proclamation made in Palestine in regard to the status quo in connection with this matter, will be maintained?
    Dr. SHIELS: I will take a note of what the hon. Member has said.

    DISTURBANCES.
    Major NATHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the recent disturbances in Palestine will be published; and whether the evidence will be published at the same time?
    Dr. SHIELS: I am not yet in a position to add anything to previous replies on this subject.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the numbers of Jews and Arabs that have been sentenced to death in Palestine for the riots of last summer; and whether any of the sentences have been commuted to imprisonment?
    Dr. SHIELS: Two Jews have been sentenced to death by the Court of Criminal Assize, but according to my latest information their appeals have not yet been heard. Seventeen Arabs have been sentenced to death by the Court of Criminal Assize, and in all cases the sentence has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. No death sentences have yet been confirmed or commuted by the High Commissioner.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman say that the reports that these sentences have been commuted to 15 years' imprisonment are untrue?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. I understand the position is that a number of those convicted have applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and in the meantime the question of commutation is left over.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will arrange that the Empire Marketing Board posters shall be designed to advertise products and objects which it is desired to bring to the notice of the public, in view of the fact that the present posters are more ornamental than useful?
    Mr. PALING (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The board's

    2239
    posters are primarily designed to create a general background for the more specific advertisements undertaken by the Governments of various parts of the Empire, as well as by producers and others directly concerned in the sale of individual commodities. By way of illustration of the board's general theme of Empire buying, however, the posters have frequently drawn specific attention to particular products, which it is desired to bring to the notice of the public, and they will continue to do so within the limits of the board's general policy.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Does not the hon. Member consider that the mental and artistic side is rather overdone, to the detriment of the sale of the products?
    Mr. PALING: I will mention that to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that the other day a poster appeared showing a tiger and a pineapple, raising the question whether tigers eat pineapples?

    TRADE STATISTICS (RAW WOOL).
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of raw wool, greasy and scoured, exported from and imported into all Dominions and foreign countries for which returns are available for each of the last three completed years?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question asked by him on the 11th February, which gave figures for 1925, 1926 and 1927. According to the latest volume of the "International Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics," published by the International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, the total imports of wool into 71 countries, British and foreign, amounted, in 1928, to 2,564.2 million lb., and the exports and re-exports to 2,477.1 million lb. This volume contains revised figures for 1927, the corresponding figures for imports being 2,710.6 million lb., and for exports and re-exports 2,606.1 million lb.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that total figures are of very little use in this connection, and that what are wanted are figures of one's individual competitors?
    2240
    Will the hon. Gentleman make an attempt to get the Department furnished with relevant figures as to trade, as heretofore?
    Mr. SMITH: I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

  DOMINION AND MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION.
  Sir KENYON VAUGHAN -MORGANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation, 1929, as stated in paragraph 43 of Cmd. 3479?
  Mr. PALING: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 13th February, to which I am not in a position to add anything.

  AGRICULTURE.

    POTATO INDUSTRY.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what sum has been allocated by the Empire Marketing Board to the present campaign on behalf of home-grown potatoes respectively as Press advertising and other forms of publicity; and whether he can say what has been the response to the board's efforts in this direction?
    Mr. PALING: It is not the normal practice to assign fixed sums from the Empire Marketing Board for the advertisement of particular commodities, and no such assignment has been made in respect of home-grown potatoes. It is not possible to make any estimate of direct results accruing from the publicity which the board have given to this subject, as it is part of their general scheme for promoting the marketing of Empire produce from home and overseas.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does the hon. Member not think in the particular circumstances that he might do a little more on behalf of the Government to facilitate better publicity on these matters?
    Mr. PALING: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that matter.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask whether we are encouraging the Colonies to do for us what we are now doing for them in the way of advertising goods?
    Sir HARRY HOPEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will accede to the appeal made by farmers, landowners, smallholders and farm workers that importation of new, or luxury, potatoes be suspended pending investigation into the risk of diseases being introduced by them and in order that stocks of home-grown potatoes may be sold before they go to waste?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of potatoes into this country have already been imposed under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts where there is danger of the introduction of pests or diseases into this country, and in all cases where importation is allowed the potatoes are required to be accompanied by an official certificate of health. Prohibitions and restrictions on economic grounds are precluded by the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, ratified by the late Government.
    Sir H. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the list of diseases is increasing, and that unless suspension is made very soon the stocks of potatoes at home will go to waste?
    Dr. ADDISON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are constantly reviewing this matter and that the restrictions with regard to disease are very strictly adhered to.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: When the right hon. Gentleman always refers to the acts of the late Government, is it because the present Government have no policy of their own?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Convention was concluded by the late Government, and it cannot be dispensed with until June, 1931.
    Mr. BLINDELL: In view of the fact that the United States and Canada are keeping out British potatoes merely on
    2242
    the ground that there is danger of the importation of disease, has not the hon. Gentleman yet received sufficient indication that there is a positive danger of disease being introduced into this country by the importation of potatoes from France?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have already said that we are continually investigating these cases and that the prohibitions are most strictly adhered to. If the hon. Member can tell me of any case, I will gladly go into it.
    Mr. BLINDELL: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that other countries refuse to accept our clean health certificate with regard to potatoes, he will adopt the same course in the interest of the British producers?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter, will he—
    Mr. BLINDELL: May I have an answer to my question?
    Dr. ADDISON: As far as other countries are concerned, of course it is for them to carry out their own undertakings. All that we are responsible for is carrying out our own.
    Mr. BLINDELL: In view of the terrible state of the potato industry in this country, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time that we adopted the stringent measures against the foreigners which they are adopting against us?
    Dr. ADDISON: I can only reply that our action in this matter is prescribed by the International Convention which was concluded by the last Government. As far as we are concerned, we have not, and cannot obtain, any freedom of action in this or kindred matters until June, 1931.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he is considering this matter, to bear in mind that it is not only a question of the Convention, but of a great deal of employment which is given in the ports in connection with the importing of potatoes, and that very important business interests are involved?

    PIG INDUSTRY.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion. Affairs whether it is the intention of the Empire Marketing Board to consider the recommendations contained in the Second Interim Report of the Pig Industry Council with a view to increasing the consumption of home-produced pig-meat?
    Mr. PALING: The recommendations contained in the Report in question were addressed primarily to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and not to the Empire Marketing Board. A substantial annual grant to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is provided out of the Empire Marketing Fund for the improvement of methods of marketing home produce, but the Empire Marketing; Board is not in general directly concerned with the carrying out of any recommendations to that end.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of persons rejected during the previous 12 months by the Canadian Government doctors as unfit for migration to Canada?
  Mr. PALING: The total number of persons rejected in this country on medical examination as "prohibited immigrants" under the Canadian Immigration Law during 1929 was 1,289. In addition 9,523 persons were certified owing to physical defects as unsuitable, though not prohibited, migrants, but of this number 3,436 were subsequently permitted to proceed, after the Dominion authorities had satisfied themselves that the arrangements for their settlement in Canada were satisfactory, and on 21st February 431 were still under consideration. The total number of persons finally rejected up to that date was, therefore, 6,945. The total number of persons examined was 86,793.
  Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say whether the large number of rejections is caused through the increased standard of fitness required by the Canadian authorities?
  Mr. PALING: I must ask my hon. Friend to put down another question on that point.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing the enormous number of people who are rejected, will the hon. Member bear in mind that the best way of really dealing with unfit citizens is the establishment of nursing schools and welfare centres in crowded areas?
  Mr. HASLAM: May I ask if the hon. Member is satisfied that the expense to which intending migrants are put in connection with this medical examination is reduced to the minimum?
  Mr. PALING: I will put that point before my right hon. Friend.

  AIR SERVICES (AUSTRALIA AND INDIA).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he now expects the establishment of an air mail service from this country to Australia; and whether arrangements have been made with the Netherlands Government for the use of the landing grounds, aerodromes and facilities for flying boats in the Dutch East Indies for this purpose?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As regards the first part of the question, I cannot as yet give a definite date. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are negotiations in progress with the Netherlands Government as to facilities?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: There is no trouble anticipated in the negotiations with Holland, especially in view of the fact that the Dutch have had facilities from us at Singapore.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hesitation is being experienced in granting facilities to the Dutch for further flights, and will the hon. Member look into the matter in view of possible reprisals?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: There is a good deal of misapprehension in regard to this matter. The matter is under the jurisdiction of the Indian Government, and the Indian Government have simply said to the British as well as the Dutch that until meteorological, wireless and ground arrangements are complete, it is inadvisable to have these flights.
  Mr. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, in the Imperial Airways London-to-India air route, it is necessary to proceed to Athens by rail; when it is expected that the air route to India will be available by air throughout; what action is being taken; and whether there is any shortage of aircraft?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: It having been found impossible up to the present to conclude with the Italian Government arrangements which were commercially satisfactory to Imperial Airways., Ltd., for the permanent operation of the air route to Athens via Genoa and Naples, the company have diverted the service for the present to a central European route. Until more experience has been gained of this new route, and in order to ensure as far as possible regularity in the arrival of mails, the company deemed it advisable during the winter months to send the mails by train between Cologne and Athens on the outward journey and between Athens and Paris on the return journey. The company hope to be in a position to carry out regular flights over this route in the spring. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  TRANSPORT.

    AUTOMATIC SIGNALS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his recent reports from the provinces on the various systems of electric automatic traffic signals show that they are meeting with success; are similar experiments in the Metropolitan area under consideration; and can he give particulars?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): So far as I am aware the experiments made in the provinces with automatic traffic signals are generally giving satisfactory results, but it is important that the apparatus should be of a suitable type and that the signals should only be erected where the best results are likely to be obtained. Arrangements are being made to carry out an experiment with signals of this nature in Oxford Street.
    Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many automatic signals are at present in use in the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, not without notice.
    Mr. EVERARD: May I ask how many of these signals are made in England?
    Mr. MORRISON: There is some difficulty on that point, as to the capacity of English manufacturers to manufacture according to requirements at the present moment, and it may be necessary to experiment with imported articles. As soon as the experimental stage is passed we shall be able to make suitable arrangements with British manufacturers.
    Mr. EVERARD: Would it be right to say that every single one now in use is made abroad?
    Mr. MORRISON.: I cannot say.

    EWELL AND EPSOM BY-PASS.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the proposal to make a by-pass road to avoid Ewell, he will consider the advisability of dealing with the town of Epsom at the same time and make a road which will by-pass both Ewell and Epsom?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member was fully considered before the line of the Ewell by-pass was determined.
    Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the strong feeling on the subject is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to send a representative to inspect this road again with a view to the matter being reconsidered?
    Mr. MORRISON: All the local authorities concerned are, I believe, in communication with the Ministry, and their representations have been and will be considered. I would point out that the congestion of traffic in Epsom High Street, particularly on race days, will be materially relieved by the new road which will be opened shortly.

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, RUTHERGLEN.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the railway accident which occurred at Rutherglen on 17th February, when 51 people were injured; if he has made any investigations into the cause

    2247
    of this accident; and what steps are being taken in order to avoid such disasters in the future?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: An inquiry has already been ordered into the causes of this accident and I will give careful consideration to any recommendations which may be made as a result of that inquiry.

    BLIND AND DEAF PEDESTRIANS.
    Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGANasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the issue by his Department, or by local authorities, of conspicuous and distinctive armlets to be worn by the blind and the totally deaf for the avoidance of traffic accidents, as is done in Canton Vaud and elsewhere in Switzerland?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no power to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

    PORT GLASGOW (WEST HARBOUR).
    Dr. FORGANasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the quay wall of the west harbour at Port Glasgow is in need of repair; what are the estimated costs of the necessary repairs; and whether the funds of the harbour trust are sufficient to meet them?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have been in communication with the Port Glasgow Harbour Trustees and am informed that the west harbour at Port Glasgow has silted up and that, in the opinion of the trustees, owing to its narrow entrance and lack of proper accommodation, further expense on the harbour would not be justified. The trustees have accordingly disposed of this harbour to the Port Glasgow Town Council for conversion into a recreation ground. They state that the mid and east harbours which remain under their control are more than ample for the requirements of shipping.

    MOTOR BICYCLES (NUMBER PLATES).
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Transport if it is intended in any way to alter the present regulations relating to the size of motor-bicycle number plates?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Notice of my intention to amend the present regu-
    2248
    lations was given in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes of the 24th January, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the draft Regulations which I propose to make, subject to any amendments which may be made as the result of representations put forward within the prescribed limit of time.
    Viscount ELMLEY: Is the Minister of Transport aware that the proposed increase in size will mean that all present stocks will have to be scrapped and that motor cyclists will have to buy new plates and new lamps, which will mean a loss of thousands of pounds not only to cyclists, but to manufacturers as well?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am aware of the objections which motor cyclists and the trade have to the change, and, before making the change, I met representatives of the trade and the motor cyclists' organisations and discussed the matter with them. One must take into account their objections, but I must also take into account the insistent demand of the police that the number plates should be adequate in size.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS SERVICES (EXTENSION).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the possibility of relieving passenger traffic congestion by the extension of underground services which at present end at New Cross, Southern Railway, and New Cross Gate, Southern Railway; and whether he will bring to the notice of the appropriate authority this means of reaching the rapidly growing suburbs of Kent and Surrey?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This matter has been considered on previous occasions, but I will again bring it to the notice of the railways concerned.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER ROLLING STOCK.
    Mr. WALKERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of public safety, he has made representations to the railway companies upon the matter of substituting steel for wood in the construction of passenger rolling stock; and, if so, what progress has been made in this direction?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have made representations to the railway companies in regard to this matter and under-

    2249
    stand that they are building a number of steel coaches, the results of which are being carefully watched.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE, HARRINGAY.
    Mr. MESSERasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the congestion of passenger traffic at Harringay; and if he will communicate with the London and North Eastern Railway Company with a view to a tube station being built at this part of the new route about to be opened up north of Finsbury Park?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the London Electric Railway Company.

    MOTOR TRAFFIC.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport how many Orders made by his Department totally prohibiting mechanically-propelled vehicles on certain highways are now operative; and the total mileage of the highways involved?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There are now in operation 13 Orders made under Section 7 (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, totally prohibiting mechanically-propelled vehicles. The total mileage of roads involved is 23.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport how many Orders made by his Department limiting the speed of mechanically-propelled vehicles on certain highways to a maximum of 10 miles are now operative: and the total mileage of the highways involved?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The total number of Regulations made under Section 9 (1) of the Motor Car Act, 1903, limiting the speed of motor cars to 10 miles an hour, is 226. Of these 12 have been made since 1919 by the Minister of Transport. The other 214 Orders were made by the Local Government Board in whom the powers to make these Regulations were originally vested. I am unable to state the total mileage of highways involved.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not the answer indicate that the Ministry of Transport is a much more enlightened body than the Local Government Board?
    Mr. MORRISON: The answer indicates that the Ministry of Transport is much more reserved in granting powers than the old Local Government Board.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these Orders are enforced; and that where they are unnecessary they will be taken off?
    Mr. MORRISON: The first point of the hon. and gallant Member's question is a matter for the Home Secretary. The second point is somewhat involved, and various considerations arise in connection with the Road Traffic Bill now before the House.

    TYNE (CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Transport if an engineer has been appointed to advise on a crossing of the River Tyne between South Shields and Tynemouth; and, if so, will he give the name of such engineer?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Town Councils of South Shields and Tynemouth were advised in December last of the offer of a grant towards the cost of an engineering investigation, but I have not yet been furnished with the name of the engineer whom they propose to appoint.
    Mr. EDE: Are negotiations going on between the Minister's Department and the local authority concerned with regard to the appointment referred to?
    Mr. MORRISON: We do not, of course, submit a particular name, but we have suggested a panel of names to the local authority for consideration. Up to the present we have not received a reply from the local authority.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. MATTERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the comparative figures for the quarters ended 30:. September and 31st December, 1929, showing the numbers of fatal accidents in England in which the following classes of motor vehicles were involved: motor cycles, private cars, trade, commercial, and general passenger vehicles?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I regret I am not in a position to give these figures for the country as a whole.
    Mr. MATTERS: Has my hon. Friend any information to show or suggest that accidents which involve motor cycles are on the increase?
    Mr. SHORT: I shall look into the matter, and any information that the hon. Member can give me will be considered.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

    WEST RENFREWSHIRE.
    Dr. FORGANasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to expedite the introduction of electric light in the area of West Renfrewshire covered by the powers given to the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company, particularly in the Kilbarchan and Milliken Park district that have not yet been furnished with any such supply?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The authorised distributors for the West Renfrewshire area, namely, the Strath-clyde Electricity Supply Company, Limited, are already providing supplies in each of the parishes included in the area of supply under their Order of 1925. With regard to the Kilbarchan and Milliken Park district, I understand that the result of a canvass made by the company a few months ago was not regarded as very promising in relation to the capital expenditure required for providing a supply in that district; and that the prospect" of a supply are dependent on housing development at Milliken Park.

    BATTERSEA POWER STATION.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Transport the present position concerning the Battersea electric power station; and whether he has received any further report on the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that the London Power Company hope to complete early in March the experiments with the full-sized washing plant referred to in my answer on the 29th January, and will then submit a further report.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether the work is still proceeding on the original site of the Battersea Power Station?
    Mr. MORRISON: The sanction given in respect of one-third of the station during the time when the right hon. and gallant Member was Minister of Transport is proceeding. The question in dispute is whether any further sections of the station will be allowed to be erected.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to proceed with this work?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid I cannot say.

  WESTMINSTER PALACE YARD (CHAUFFEURS).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the possibility of providing a room in the immediate vicinity of Palace Yard where chauffeurs can sit and smoke while waiting for Members?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Such a room was provided prior to 1924, but it was found to be very little used owing to the fact that chauffeurs preferred to sit in their cars, and the accommodation was therefore allocated to other purposes. I am, however, inquiring further into the matter.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Were the chauffeurs fully aware of the fact that this room was available in the winter-time and not in the summer only?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think it was available all the year round.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the cost of any room that he may provide in future will be found by those Members who keep their chauffeurs waiting in Palace Yard?

  POST OFFICE (LETTER DELIVERY, GUILDFORD).
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Postmaster-General at what o'clock an ordinary letter will be delivered in High Street, Guildford, Surrey, if posted at mid-day on a week-day in the letter-box at the Western District Office, Welbeck Street, London?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): An ordinary letter posted at noon at the Western District Office in Wimpole Street should be included in the 4.0 p.m. delivery at Guildford on the same day. The latest time of posting in other boxes in the Western District (including Welbeck Street) to secure the same connection is 11.0 a.m.
  Mr. SAMUELasked the Postmaster-General what o'clock a letter will be delivered by express delivery in High Street, Guildford, Surrey, if handed in at the counter at mid-day on a weekday at the western district office, Welbeck Street, London?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: An Express letter handed in at the Western District Office up to 12 noon on a weekday should be delivered in Guildford at about 3.15–3.30 p.m. the same afternoon.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Do I understand the Postmaster-General to say that an ordinary letter will be delivered at 4 o'clock and that an express letter will be delivered at 3.15? If so, may I send him proof that an express letter posted at 12 o'clock was not delivered at Guildford this week until 7.40? Is not this an opportunity to do away with a very inefficient branch of the Post Office service?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall, of course, be' glad to consider a particular case, but it certainly does not represent what usually happens.
  Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether these two last questions conform with the Standing Orders fioverning the putting of questions, one of the conditions being that questions shall not be of a frivolous character?

  EASTER (STABILISATION).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to set up in this country a national committee, as recommended by the Council of the League of Nations, for giving consideration to the question of a fixed date for Easter and other possible calendar changes?
  Mr. SHORT: I have been asked to reply. The resolution of the Assembly of the League of the 25th September, 1926, to which I understand the hon. Member to refer, relates to general calendar reform, and on this subject I would refer to the reply which the late Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for the Newton Division (Mr. R. Young) on the 30th January, 1929. The question of a fixed date for Easter
  2254
  has already been dealt with, so far as regards this country, by the Easter Act, 1928.
  Sir W. DAVISON: What is the position of the negotiations with other countries with regard to the Easter Act passed in this House?
  Mr. SHORT: I must have notice of that question.
  Captain GUNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the date of the stabilised Easter falls on one of Buchan's cold days?
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps under the Easter Act, 1928, to secure a fixed date for Easter; and, if so, what is the date proposed?
  Mr. SHORT: In reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Waterloo Division (Captain Bullock) on the 25th November, the Home Secretary explained that His Majesty's Government was eon-suiting the other European Governments with a view to common action if possible, as was foreshadowed by his predecessor when the Bill was read a Second time. Until there has been time to receive and consider the replies of the various Governments, no further steps can be taken.
  Sir W. DAVISON: When does the Under-Secretary expect that a reply will be received and a statement made in the House on the matter?
  Mr. SHORT: I am unable to make any statement in that connection.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will set up a Departmental Committee to consider and report upon the present accommodation allotted to various Departments of State and to make suggestions as to a re-allotment in order to effect increased economy and efficiency in the working of such Departments?
  The FINANCIAL-SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The accommodation allotted to Departments is kept under constant review with the object of securing greater economy

  2255
  and efficiency in the public service, and I see no occasion for the appointment of a special committee for this purpose.
  Mr. HACKING: Is the Financial Secretary aware that if this committee is set up it will be only the 27th committee set up by the present Government?

  FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION.
  Mr. BEAUMONTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many cases of British subjects joining the French Foreign Legion have been brought to his notice?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Cases of British subjects joining the French Foreign Legion are not normally brought to my notice except when appeal is made to me to assist in securing their release. Three such cases have been brought to my notice since June last. In addition, my attention has been called to the case of a fourth British subject who was rearrested in France after desertion from the French Foreign Legion.

  BAHREIN ISLANDS.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further negotiations have taken place with the Persian Government on the subject of the ownership of the Bahrein Islands?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The views of His Majesty's Government on this subject were made public in a letter addressed to the Persian Minister in London on the 18th February, 1929, a copy of which was sent to the League of Nations. There have been no developments of importance since that date.

  OVERSEA WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
  Mr. BOWEN (by Private Notice)asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been reached as to the control of Imperial wireless telephony, and whether it is intended to use the Beam stations?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, Sir. The Government have reached a decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
  Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is in order for Members on the other side to wave their papers over their heads, and, if so, are we entitled to wave the Red Flag?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: With the permission of the House, I will state the main reasons in support of the Government's decision.
  Under the late Government the Beam wireless system for Oversea Telegraphy was leased to the Imperial and International Communications Company under conditions and circumstances which are well known. The late Government, however, in conformity with the recommendation of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, reserved to the Post Office the control of Oversea Telephony and deliberately refrained from committing themselves on the question whether they would or would not use the Company's stations for this purpose.
  In August last I received a letter from the Communications Company urging that the Government should now decide to work Oversea Telephony through the Company's stations beginning with four services to Canada, Australia, South Africa and India. This was one alternative. The other was to concentrate all their - wireless telephone services at the Government station at Rugby which has for three years worked the service to the United States on a commercial basis. In deciding between these two alternatives there were two main issues. Firstly, which of the two systems would provide the most efficient service, and, secondly, which would be the more economical. As the first question involved highly technical considerations, the Government decided to consult two independent experts of acknowledged repute who have no connection with the Post Office, Professor G. W. Howe, Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Glasgow, and Dr. F. E. Smith, Secretary of the Royal Society of the Department of Scientific Research. They reported that apart from future developments both systems are probably equally capable of providing satisfactory telephonic communication between two points for a, given number of hours a day, and that, as regards future development, the Rugby

  2257
  system was the more elastic and therefore in this respect offered decided advantages.
  The second main issue is the financial comparison between the two systems. Concentration at Rugby admits of economies in many directions, and, in particular, in the land-line connections to the London Trunk Exchange. A wireless service requires costly land-line connections between the London Trunk Exchange and the wireless stations. By grouping of services at one centre, such as Rugby, a smaller number of lines will suffice and the distance of Rugby and Baldock from London is much less than the distance of the beam stations at Bodmin, Bridgwater, Grimsby and Skegness. The result is that to work the four services to India and the Dominions through the beam stations would need 4,190 miles of high-grade telephone circuit, while to work them through Rugby and Baldock only 786 miles would be required.
  The minimum rental asked by the company for the use of the beam telegraph stations for the telephone services in question is (excluding a cheaper scheme which is open to objection on other grounds) £40,000 to £45,000 per annum, according to the type of equipment employed, plus a royalty of 10 per cent. on the gross receipts in excess of a certain figure. A detailed estimate of the cost of working the same services from Rugby shows a saving on the above figures of £17,000 per annum and £22,000 per annum, respectively, which would be increased when the royalty commenced to operate.
  The Government has had to weigh the pros and cons of a number of other questions which cannot be compressed into a Parliamentary answer. As a result of their consideration of all the issues they have decided upon a policy of conducting oversea wireless telephony by concentration at the Post Office station at Rugby with its receiving station at Baldock.
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: That answer, of course, is one of very great interest and importance and very great technicality. I gathered from the cheers that it received on the other side that they understand much more about these matters than I do. It is a matter, obviously, which must be discussed in the House, and I have no doubt the Post-
  2258
  master-General would welcome the opportunity of making a much longer and more detailed explanation on a matter which interests a great number of Members. I therefore rise for the purpose of saying that I hope the Government will give an opportunity later for a full discussion.
  Mr. BOWEN: I desire to ask my hon. Friend if he can say why communications revealing the evidence before a Cabinet Committee on this matter appeared in the Press on the 31st January.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: There have been these communications, and I can tell the House all I know about the subject. There was a Cabinet Committee appointed to go into this question, and the Communications Company was invited to give its views before that committee, and attended two meetings for that purpose. I assume that the meet-tings of the committee were private, but it is the case that, before the committee had finished its sittings, there were communications to the Press, putting part of the evidence and the views that had been placed before the Cabinet Committee, and there was a series of articles on the subject. I think it is for Members themselves to decide the propriety of communications of this sort, but I would express my own view that I think it is unfortunate that, when financial proposals are before the Government, before the Government have decided, there should be a Press campaign to try to compel a certain decision. None of these communications certainly came from the Post Office.
  Mr. WELLOCK: When does my hon. Friend propose to open this service?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to enter into partnership with any American or foreign company with regard to these oversea communications, as, for example, with Egypt; and, if so, does he propose to ride roughshod over recommendation No. 8 of the Imperial Wireless Conference Report?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: There is certainly no intention to override Recommendation No. 8 of the Imperial Conference Report, which I may say, as far as I recollect, merely laid it down that the Government should have the right, if it wished, to use the beam stations, but imposed no

  2259
  obligation upon it. We do not intend to enter into any connection or partnership with American or foreign companies, although, of course, the House will understand that at the other end of the service, which, of course, is in foreign countries, we are bound to make some arrangement.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the other end of the service the wireless and cable organisation can give good service, and is he aware that Recommendation No. 8 of that Report said that it would be deplorable if His Majesty's Government did not use these British communications for the purpose of wireless telephony?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: The first answer is that Recommendation No. 8 did not deal with that subject at all. The second answer is that the Government cannot at the moment say with what companies it is going to act in foreign countries. It has to consider which companies will give it access to the greatest number of subscribers and which companies have concessions. Certainly, the Government will do all it can to support British interests.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think there will be opportunity for discussion later on.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think what has passed shows the House clearly that it is necessary that this matter should be dis-
  cussed. It is impossible for the Postmaster-General to deal with the matter as he would desire, and it is impossible for anyone in the House to ask such questions as they would desire. May I have an assurance from the Government—perhaps the Foreign Secretary can give it—that some definite time will be arranged for discussion of this matter?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I will certainly make representations to the Leader of the House in the sense indicated by the right bon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. S. BALDWIN: Can the Foreign Secretary say how far the Government hope to get to-night with the Coal Mines Bill?
Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Leader of the House has requested me to say that he does not propose to ask the House to sit late for the consideration of the postponed Clauses of the Coal Mines Bill, but he hopes it may be possible to complete, at to-day's sitting, consideration of the proposed new Clauses and any Amendments to those new Clauses.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee, on the Coal Mines Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]
The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 165.

Division No. 185.]

AYES.

[4.0 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Bowen, J. W.

Compton, Joseph

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Cove, William G.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Daggar, George

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Bromfield, William

Dallas, George

Alpass, J. H.

Bromley, J.

Dalton, Hugh

Ammon, Charles George

Brooke, W.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Angell, Norman

Brothers, M.

Day, Harry

Arnott, John

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Aske, Sir Robert

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Devlin, Joseph

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Ayles, Walter

Buchanan, G.

Duncan, Charles

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Burgess, F. G.

Ede, James Chuter

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Edmunds, J. E.

Barnes, Alfred John

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Batey, Joseph

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Cameron, A. G.

Egan, W. H.

Bellamy, Albert

Cape, Thomas

Elmley, Viscount

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Charleton, H. C.

Foot, Isaac

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Chater, Daniel

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Benson, G.

Church, Major A. G.

Freeman, Peter

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Clarke, J. S.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cluse, W. S.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Blindell, James

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Gibbins, Joseph

Logan, David Gilbert

Sawyer, G. F.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Longbottom, A. W.

Scott, James

Gill, T. H.

Longden, F.

Sexton, James

Glassey, A. E.

Lowth, Thomas

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Gossling, A. G.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Gould, F.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

McElwee, A.

Shield, George William

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

McEntee, V. L.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Granville, E.

McKinlay, A.

Shillaker, J. F.

Gray, Milner

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Shinwell, E.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Simmons, C. J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

McShane, John James

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Groves, Thomas E.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Sinkinson, George

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normenton)

Mansfield, W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)

March, S.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Marcus, M.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Markham, S. F.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Marley, J.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Harbison, T. J.

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Harbord, A.

Mathers, George

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Hardie, George D.

Matters, L. W.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Harris, Percy A.

Maxton, James

Snell, Harry

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Melville, Sir James

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Messer, Fred

Sorensen, R.

Haycock, A. W.

Millar, J. D.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Hayday, Arthur

Mills, J. E.

Stephen, Campbell

Hayes, John Henry

Milner, J.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Montague, Frederick

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Morley, Ralph

Strauss, G. R.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Sullivan, J.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sutton, J. E.

Herriotts, J.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Hoffman, P. C.

Mort, D. L.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Hollins, A.

Moses, J. J. H.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Thurtle, Ernest

Horrabin, J. F.

Muff, G.

Tillett, Ben

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Tinker, John Joseph

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Naylor, T. E.

Tout, W. J.

Isaacs, George

Noel Baker, P. J.

Townend, A. E.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Oldfield, J. R.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Turner, B.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Vaughan, D. J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Viant, S. P.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Palin, John Henry.

Walkden, A. G.

Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

Palmer, E. T.

Walker, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wallace, H. W.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Perry, S. F.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Watkins, F. C.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Wellock, Wilfred

Kennedy, Thomas

Picton-Tubervill, Edith

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Pole, Major D. G.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Kinley, J.

Potts, John S.

West, F. R.

Kirkwood, D.

Price, M. P.

Westwood, Joseph

Knight, Holford

Pybus, Percy John

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Lang, Gordon

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Raynes, W. R.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Lathan, G.

Richards, R.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lawrence, Susan

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Romeril, H. G.

Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

Lawson, John James

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wise, E. F.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Rowson, Guy

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Leach, W.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Lees, J.

Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sanders, W. S.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Atholl, Duchess of

Beaumont, M. W.

Albery, Irving James

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Berry, Sir George

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Balniel, Lord

Bird, Ernest Roy

Astor, Viscountess

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Boyce, H. L.

Hanbury, C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bracken, B.

Hartington, Marquess of

Ross, Major Ronald D

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Haslam, Henry C.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Briscoe, Richard George

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Salmon, Major I.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Buckingham, Sir H.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Savery, S. S.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Simms, Major-General J.

Butler, R. A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Skelton, A. N.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smithers, Waldron

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Somerset, Thomas

Christie, J. A.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colman, N. C. D.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Long, Major Eric

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lymington, Viscount

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Tinne, J. A.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Macquisten, F. A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Dalrymple-white, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Train, J.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Dawson, Sir Philip

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Everard, W. Lindsay

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Wells, Sydney R.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Ferguson, Sir John

Muirhead, A. J.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Fe moy, Lord

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Withers, Sir John James

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Womersley, W. J.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Peake, Captain Osbert

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Penny, Sir George

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Grace, John

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Purbrick, R.

Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Ramsbotham, H.

Frederick Thomson.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.
Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to matrimonial causes."
In form, the Bill involves two Amendments of the existing law. In the first-place, it adds to the grounds on which petitions for matrimonial relief are founded the ground that the respondent is incurably insane, and has been continuously a certified lunatic for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. In the second place, the Bill withholds relief from a petitioner whose wilful neglect or misconduct has contributed to the insanity. This recommendation was concurred in by the majority commissioners in the 1912 inquiry, and I am glad to foe able to say that the Bill I am asking leave to
2264
introduce is supported from all quarters of this House. It relates to a grievance which is very sorely felt. The Royal Commission in 1912 pointed out that the question whether or not insanity should be accepted as a ground for divorce had not been considered by any Commission in this country, although, they added:
"the hardships resulting are well known and have been frequently discussed."
They stated:
"The evidence given before us and the communications received by us prove these hardships and the disastrous moral effects inseparable from the present state of the law."
They added further:
"Indeed, incurable insanity is more effective in destroying the marriage relationship than any of the other causes which we have recommended as grounds for divorce."
An eminent specialist who gave evidence before that Commission used an expres-

2265
sion which I will recall to the House. Dr. Robert Jones said:
"The marriage contract is ended by death, and should similarly and for the same reason be ended by confirmed insanity, which is social and domestic extinction."
That sets up the ground on which I ask the House to grant leave to introduce this Bill. The extent of this grievance is widespread. Certain figures were placed before the Royal Commission in 1912, into which I need not go, but quite recently in this House certain figures were given. On 19th February, it was stated on behalf of the Ministry of Health that the statistics of annual admissions in mental institutions show the total number of married persons certified in the years 1921 to 1928, inclusive, to be 37,872 men and 43,276 women. Statistics are not available as to the number of those still remaining under care, or the number that have been in mental hospitals for more than five years; so that while it does not directly affect the restriction imposed by this Bill, it does indicate the extent of the trouble. On 16th December last certain figures were given of which I may remind the House. It was stated on behalf of the Ministry of Health that statistics collected by a special inquiry in 1921 showed that on 1st January in that year there were 43,871 males and 55,883 female patients under care in institutions for the insane in England and Wales. Of these, 14,058 men and 19,292 women were described as married, and of these, again, 7,121 men and 10,021 women had been certified for more than five years.
During the last few days, since notice of my intention to ask leave to introduce this Bill became known, I have received showers of letters from all over the country giving pitiful cases of spouses who have been in asylums for many years, and testifying to the widespread need of relief. There is a difficulty which might induce hon. Members to hesitate to accept this Bill, except under proper safeguards. That is the difficulty of ascertaining the condition of incurable insanity. I may advise the House by referring again to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1912. These words are included in the Report of the Commission:
"It was suggested that it may be difficult to determine the fact that a patient is absolutely incurable, and that conflicting medical evidence might leave the question
2266
uncertain. The evidence clearly shows that, if a time limit be given, the difficulty becomes almost negligible, and there appears to be no reason to suppose that, if the ground is confined to lunacy pronounced incurable after five years continuous confinement, any real difficulty would arise."
I press that view upon the House, and may I add that, under the Bill, the condition of insanity is not only to be a present condition, but it is to be a condition which has been certified over a continuous period of five years immediately preceding the application for a petition. The relief offered under the Bill is optional, and my submission is that, where there is a desire for this relief, it is in accordance with public justice and national necessities that that relief should be available under suitable safeguards.
Mr. LANG: I regret that I feel compelled to ask the House not to grant leave to my hon. and learned Friend to introduce this Bill. I desire to thank him for the modest and careful way in which he has put forward his case, but the sympathetic and gentle manner of his introduction covers what may be a very large and vital tragedy. Whatever other merits this amendment of the law may have, it is plain that if it were granted and presently became law, divorce would become possible upon the application of one party, without any possibility of defence on the part of the other, for obviously, if a person is certified as incurably insane, he is unable to take any part in the proceedings. With great respect to the clear opening that we had from my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot feel satisfied, with the extract that was given, that there is an ample definition of incurable insanity. With the present rapid state of advancement in medical and mental science, it is becoming increasingly difficult, and doctors will be increasingly unwilling, to say at any time, much less after five years, that a patient has reached a period where there is absolutely no hope.
In many border-line cases of insanity, men and women might have the haunting fear during the first months, which are the important months for observation, that they may presently be certified as insane, and that their whole home life will be gone, together with the relationship of the family, which is one of the strongest magnets to draw such patients back to normality and make

2267
them undergo treatment. All that will be gone, and people on the border-line will become much more serious cases, I am speaking entirely for myself, but, I hope, on behalf of many other people in this House. I think that we are tackling this problem at the wrong end. It is possible under the existing law for couples of all kinds to go into the marriage relationship and produce mentally unfit children and, it would have been much wiser if a real attempt were made to prevent the marriage of unfit persons, and to prevent the birth of unfit children rather than tinker with the problem at this end. If we are continuously going to make divorce easier, if we are going for ever to increase the ways and means by which the marriage bond can be broken and the relationship can be ended, we shall land ourselves in a most serious position. There are grave objections to an extension of the grounds of divorce. There are ample grounds already, and if five years' detention in a mental hospital or a doubtful certificate of permanent insanity, is to be a ground for divorce, there are other things perhaps harder than that that might perhaps be brought in.
I suggest that we are fast approaching the stage when a contract of marriage will be merely a contract between two people on almost identical grounds with the present arrangement that many people have for purchasing their furniture. I do not see why there should not be a Bill introduced to make a decrease in income a reason for divorce. I understand that the principle of married life is that two people have each other on trust for better or for worse, but little by little every bit of the worse is being ruled out. It is like saying that the first time you fail to meet your instalments, you must be thrown on the scrapheap. I know that my hon. Friend does not mean that, but that in fact will be the result of this Amendment. One of the most difficult cases is that of the insanity of women at a certain age, and it seems a terrible thing if it is going to be possible at that time, after the man has had a full life, for the woman to be haunted with the fear of being permanently insane while the man will be free to marry again.
Question put,
"That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to matrimonial causes."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 102.

Division No. 186.]

AYES.

[4.27 p.m.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Church, Major A. G.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Clarke, J. S.

Harbison, T. J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harbord, A.

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Colman, N. C. D.

Harris, Percy A.

Amman, Charles George

Compton, Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Angell, Norman

Cove, William G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Arnott, John

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Haycock, A. W.

Atholl, Duchess of

Daggar, George

Hayday, Arthur

Ayles, Walter

Dallas, George

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Dalton, Hugh

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Hoffman, P. C.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Day, Harry

Hollins, A.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Batey, Joseph

Duncan, Charles

Horrabin, J. F.

Bellamy, Albert

Ede, James Chuter

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Benson, G.

Elmley, Viscount

Isaacs, George

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

England, Colonel A.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Fermoy, Lord

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Foot, Isaac

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Fergan, Dr. Robert

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Bromfield, William

Freeman, Peter

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bromley, J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gill, T. H.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Glassey, A. E.

Lathan, G.

Butler, R. A.

Gossling, A. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Grace, John

Lawrence, Susan

Cameron, A. G.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Leach, W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Groves, Thomas E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Lees, J.

Chater, Daniel

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Paling, Wilfrid

Stamford, Thomas W.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Palmer, E. T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Longbottom, A. W.

Perry, S. F.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

McElwee, A.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Strauss, G. R.

McEntee, V. L.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Pole, Major D. G.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Maltland, A, (Kent, Faversham)

Price, M. P.

Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Purbrick, R.

Thurtle, Ernest

March, S.

Pybus, Percy John

Vaughan, D. J.

Marcus, M.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Viant, S. P.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilton

Walkden, A. G.

Markharn, S. F.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Walker, J.

Marshall, Fred

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Mathers, George

Rameril, H. G.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Matters, L. W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Watkins, F. C.

Maxton, James

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Wellock, Wilfred

Messer, Fred

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Millar, J. D.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Mills, J. E.

Sanders, W. S.

West, F. R.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sawyer, G. F.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Montague, Frederick

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Morley, Ralph

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Shillaker, J. F.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Moses, J. J. H.

Sinkinson, George

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Sitch, Charles H.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Muff, G.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wise, E. F.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Womersley, W. J.

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Snell, Harry

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Palin, John Henry

Sorensen, R.

Mr. Holford Knight and Commander Bellairs.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hayes, John Henry

Raynes, W. R.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Richards, R.

Beaumont, M. W.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Berry, Sir George

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowson, Guy

Bowen, J. W.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Kennedy, Thomas

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Boyce, H. L.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Savery, S. S.

Brothers, M.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Sexton, James

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Buckingham, Sir H.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Shield, George William

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Simmons, C. J.

Cape, Thomas

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Simms, Major-General J.

Charleton, H. C.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Cluse, W. S.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Smithers, Waldron

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Logan, David Gilbert

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Longden, F.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Lowth, Thomas

Sutton, J. E.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lymington, Viscount

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Tinker, John Joseph

Edmunds, J. E.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

McShane, John James

Townend, A. E.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Turner, B.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mansfield, W.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Milner, J.

Wells, Sydney R.

Gibbins, Joseph

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Westwood, Joseph

Gould, F.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Oldfield, J. R.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Withers, Sir John James

Grundy, Thomas W.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Gunsten, Captain D. W.

Potts, John S.

Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hanbury, C.

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Mr. Lang and Dr. Vernon Davies.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. Freeman, Dr. Little, Viscount Elmley, Dr. Bentham, Mr. Pybus, Mr. Sorensen, Commander Bellairs, Mr. Duncan Millar, and Sir Rennell Rodd.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL,
"to amend the Law relating to matrimonial causes," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSION AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to amend Section three (a) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, so as to include in its benefit the widows of police pensioners who finally retired from the police force prior to the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Colonel Sinclair; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Moore.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] and the Omnibuses Bill): Mr. James C. Welsh (Coatbridge); and had appointed in substitution: Mr. James Welsh (Paisley).
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th February.]
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  COAL MINES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(General functions of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.)
    Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, to leave out the words "and otherwise."
    Those are two simple, completely comprehensive, and therefore thoroughly insidious words to find in a Clause of this sort, and my reason for moving to omit them is, first, to find out from the President of the Board of Trade what is meant by those words, and how far they are intended to carry us. We find that the purpose of this Commission is to make schemes, and if we look through the following Clauses we see that schemes are the whole essence of this Commission. The words "and otherwise" are completely comprehensive, and they may include the use by the Commission of some kind of threats, may include cajoling the owners of the different mines, and may even include buying up or even destroying the works of some recalcitrant owner; or, perhaps, as is the more usual way in commercial undertakings nowadays, the words may impose a duty upon the commissioners to take the directors out to lunch in order to promote and assist the amalgamation of the undertakings. The words cast a duty on the commissioners, and not merely empower them to do something. Therefore, it is necessary for us to know how far the President of the Board of Trade intends the commissioners to go.
    In the second place, I would like to see the words deleted because I think they are superfluous. In a case of this sort, where a duty is put upon the commissioners, they have a right to know in what their duties consist, and Parliament ought to lay down what their duties are. The coalowners, upon whom this Commission is being thrust against their consent, also have a right to know exactly how far these commissioners have
    2290
    been empowered by Parliament to go. It will not be enough that the commissioners and the coalowners should have to look up a particular volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the House to see what the President of the Board of Trade intends; that ought to be incorporated in the Statute itself. I do not know myself, and I do not think the Committee have yet had any indication, where this Clause will eventually nestle in the Bill. If it comes finally into Part I of the Bill, one has to contempate the position that if Clause 8 is passed as it is now drafted, to commit a breach of duty under this Act will be an offence. But if the duties are drawn so broadly as they are by these vague words "or otherwise," the commissioners will not know where they stand under this Act. In setting up a new Commission of this sort, it ought to be made perfectly clear what the duties of the comsioners are and just how far they extend.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I would like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said as to the desirability of omitting these words. As he has said, the Amendment was put down to a great extent to find out exactly why the words were inserted. An Amendment of much the same kind was discussed yesterday, and we then heard from the President of the Board of Trade the extraordinary statement that really the words meant nothing at all and were redundant, but, on the other hand, he would not withdraw them. I hope we shall not have that statement repeated in this case. When we read what the Clause says
    "to promote and assist, by the preparation of schemes and otherwise,"
    it makes us wonder why the words were put in. After the debates we have had on the reorganisation Commission, it is difficult to see in what other way the Commission is expected to work except by the preparation of schemes. I trust that the President will give us some information as to the actual reasons for the insertion of these words, and if, as he stated yesterday, he thinks they are really redundant, I hope he will consent to accept this Amendment and withdraw them.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The two hon. and gallant Members who have

    2291
    spoken on this Amendment have raised a perfectly simple point. I do not for a moment assent to what they have said about the words we dealt with last night being redundant. Under the proposed new Clause power is given to these commissioners to assist in the preparation of schemes and the amalgamations of collieries, and the introduction of the words "and otherwise" is simply to enable the commissioners to make the necessary inquiries and investigations which would be a very important part of their task and which ought not to be limited to the strict and narrow preparation of schemes. There are no dangers in those words such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment indicated, and they are intended to cover only investigations which are a necessary and valuable part of their work.
    Commodore DOUGLAS KING: I am afraid that the President of the Board of Trade does not realise that our objection is that the words "and otherwise" are redundant. In objecting to an Amendment which was proposed last night, the right hon. Gentleman said that the words which it was sought to delete were redundant and that
    "if the words remain it is my duty to advise the Committee that they have no legislative effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1930; col. 2201, Vol. 235.]
    Although it may be technically correct that these words have no legislative effect when the right hon. Gentleman brings in the words "and otherwise," it looks as if he is giving those wider powers which were objected to last evening with regard to the duties of the central council, the executive boards, and the investigating committees which are to have the powers under Part I of the Bill for the further reorganisation of the coal mining industry, and they are covered by the words "and otherwise." If those words have no legislative effect, I still submit that they should be left out. We have not to consider what is in the mind of the President, and we are not considering his intentions in regard to the insertion of these words, but, when we pass these words, we have to consider their legal effect, and they are connected with the words which we seek to leave out. I maintain that they give a legislative power to the Reorganisation Commission which the President himself said he does not intend.
    Sir BASIL PETO: In the earlier part of the proposed Clause it is stated that the primary duty of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is
    "to further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry."
    I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether those words are not enough to cover completely the object which he has in view by including the words "and otherwise.' The right hon. Gentleman says that without those words the Commission would not be empowered to make inquires which are a very necessary part of their duties, but the proposed Clause states that their duty is
    "to further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry,"
    and they could not possibly carry out that duty without preliminary investigation and inquiry. Therefore, I do not see any reason for the retention of those words.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I support the proposal to leave out the words "and otherwise," because my object all through has been to try to show my distaste for compulsory amalgamation. This Bill is apparently going to be carried, and therefore we shall have to accept the decision of the House when it allows certain commissioners appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to submit their schemes. I do not want these commissioners to have powers to make further investigations not connected with the schemes, and I would suggest that if between now and the Report stage the President can see his way to leave out the words "and otherwise," and put in some such words as "for the purpose of making inquiries necessary to put forward the proposals of the scheme" that would be giving them power to get the information necessary for their schemes. If the words "and otherwise" were left in, they would be solely connected with the preparation of these schemes if the right hon. Gentleman adopts my suggestion.
    Mr. EVERARD: I am extremely dissatisfied with what the President of the Board of Trade has said. It seems perfectly clear that this proposed Clause is primarily meant for the reorganisation of the coal industry and that is provided for, as was clearly pointed out by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)

    2293
    at the beginning of the Clause. Now the President is proposing to take additional powers far and above that, and he gave no answer to the arguments put forward by the Mover of this Amendment that there was a danger that duress might be brought to bear on the owners of any pits who were not willing to amalgamate. As far as I am concerned, I am not at all satisfied that those words are necessary. After all, it is perfectly clear that the question of amalgamation and
    reorganisation is already dealt with, and the words "or otherwise" are entirely unnecessary for this purpose. I think the Committee will be well advised to support this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words 'and otherwise' stand part of the proposed Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 142.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES.

    [4.54 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    England, Colonel A.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Kinley, J.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Kirkwood, D.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Freeman, Peter

    Knight, Holford

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Angell, Norman

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lang, Gordon

    Arnott, John

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Lathan, G.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gill, T. H.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Ayles, Walter

    Gillett, George M.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Gould, F.

    Lawson, John James

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)

    Leach, W.

    Bellamy, Albert

    Granville, E.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Gray, Milner

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

    Lees, J.

    Benson, G.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Blindell, James

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Longden, F.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lowth, Thomas

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lunn, William

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Bromfield, William

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Bromley, J.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    McElwee, A.

    Brooke, W.

    Harbison, T. J.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Brothers, M.

    Harbord, A.

    McKinlay, A.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Hardie, George D.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    McShane, John James

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Hayes, John Henry

    Mansfield, W.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    March, S.

    Cape, Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Marcus, M.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Markham, S. F.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Herriotts, J.

    Marley, J.

    Chater, Daniel

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Marshall, Fred

    Church, Major A. G.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Mathers, George

    Clarke, J. S.

    Hollins, A.

    Matters, L. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Maxton, James

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Melville, Sir James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Messer, Fred

    Compton, Joseph

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Millar, J. D.

    Cove, William G.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Mills, J. E.

    Daggar, George

    Isaacs, George

    Milner, J.

    Dallas, George

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Montague, Frederick

    Dalton, Hugh

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Morley, Ralph

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Johnston, Thomas

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Day, Harry

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Dukes, C.

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Mort, D. L.

    Duncan, Charles

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Muff, G.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Egan, W. H.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Sexton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Toole, Joseph

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Tout, W. J.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Palin, John Henry.

    Shield, George William

    Turner, B.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Shinwell, E.

    Walker, J.

    Perry, S. F.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Sinkinson, George

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Potts, John S.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Price, M. P.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    West, F. R.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Richards, R.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Snell, Harry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Sorensen, R.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

    Rowson, Guy

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wise, E. F.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Sullivan, J.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Scott, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Albery, Irving James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., w.)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Balniel, Lord

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Grace, John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Berry, Sir George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Hanbury, C.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Boyce, H. L.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Bracken, B.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smithers, Waldron

    Butler, R. A.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Christie, J. A.

    Long, Major Eric

    Sueter, Rcar-Admiral M. F.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Train, J.

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    2296

    2297

    Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, to leave out the words "or comprising."
    This short Amendment raises, as I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree, a very important point. Without these words, the Clause would read:
    "It shall be the duty of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission … to promote and assist, by the preparation of schemes and otherwise the amalgamation of undertakings consisting of coal mines,"
    and so on. I am well aware that in the Act of 1936 the word "comprising" finds a place, but there you are dealing with a different situation, where a scheme is put forward by someone who is willing to promote it. This Clause gives new and wide powers. I do not propose to enter into those powers now, but the Clause does raise a very plain distinction, and I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade whether it is in his mind—and, if so, it should be in his Bill—that these commissioners shall only have power to propose the amalgamation of coal mines, or whether they will have power to propose an amalgamation of a colliery undertaking with another undertaking, say a steel works, which owns a coal mine. The words "or comprising" would apparently give them power to get together two coal mines, and then to find some other' undertaking—a steel works, a shipyard, or any trading or manufacturing concern—and propose that there should be an amalgamation, not only of the collieries, but of the whole of those undertakings. I am quite sure that the Committee, in discussing these Clauses so far, never contemplated anything as wide as that, and, in order to safeguard ourselves, I have put down one or two specific Amendments, which, however, will probably be unnecessary if these words are taken out now. I think the Committee would wish to know clearly whether what is proposed here is that coal mine and coal mine should be amalgamated, and to be perfectly certain that it is not proposed that, under the aegis of this Commission, there should be taken before the Railway and Canal Commission a large number of undertakings, primarily
    2298
    manafacturing concerns, who find themselves included, very likely against their will, in some proposed amalgamation merely because their concern happens to own a coal mine. That is the short point. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will agree that it is a point of real importance, and I hope that in the circumstances he will be able to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, was plainly in some difficulty, having regard to the Act which our predecessors passed in 1926. Strictly speaking, the compulsory powers to be applied under this Clause proceed quite definitely on that basis. The only effect of the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind would be to put beyond the reach of these commissioners for all time, or at all events for so long as this legislation lasted, the mixed undertaking which owns iron and steel works, or whatever other undertaking it may happen to be. There is not the least doubt that in many parts of the country that would prevent any amalgamation at all between very important colliery undertakings, and that is a restriction which could never be permitted in any scheme of this kind. The Committee has already been informed on innumerable occasions that the commissioners must decide what is in the national interest, taking into account all the circumstances—the nature of the undertaking, whether it is primarily or largely a coal undertaking, and the rest. I am afraid that the Government could never accept this Amendment. It would, in fact, be going back on the Act of 1926.
    Sir LAMING - WORTHINGTON -EVANS: The President of the Board of Trade takes refuge under the Act of 1926, but, surely, he has overlooked the fact that under that Act rights were given, to those who were not pleased with amalgamation, to receive, on appeal, compensation for the rights that were taken from them. There was compulsion, but subject to the right of the individual to appeal. There is an Amendment later which will deal with that question, because I observe that the

    2299
    right hon. Gentleman has tried to cut out from these Clauses the right of compensation reserved in the Act of 1926. He really has said something which to me is quite new, namely, that the Government do definitely intend to take power to cause the bringing about of amalgamations of mixed undertakings, that is to say, not of coal mines only, but of coal mines which are now owned on a vertical amalgamation with steel works or other undertakings. It is the intention of the Government that these commissioners should be entitled to bring in schemes for such amalgamations, and that they should be made compulsory. That, to me, is a great revelation. I do not believe that the Committee generally have recognised, although they may have suspected, the extent to which the Government are prepared to go. It is quite true that this very Clause provides that:
    "with a view to facilitating the… sale of coal,"
    the commissioners will be entitled to bring in schemes of amalgamation, and I presume that the Government are going to say that it will facilitate the sale of coal if they amalgamate steel works and so on with coal mines. That is an entirely new position, and I very much doubt whether the Committer- have really understood it. It reinforces immensely my opposition to this Clause.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Amendment now before the Committee provides an illustration of the difficulties in which the Committee are bound to find themselves when they make this amalgamation system compulsory. I have always had very grave doubts about the good effect of amalgamations which were not voluntary, or not partially voluntary. If they become compulsory, we may be landed into all sorts of difficulties, and this is one of the practical difficulties that will have to be faced. It ought to be faced now by this Committee. If it be not faced by this Committee, it will have to be faced by the Government and by the commissioners, for there are many cases all over the country where coal mines are owned, not only by steel works, but by chemical undertakings. Most of these mixed concerns have been brought together in an effort to form a virtual monopoly, or something akin to it. Perhaps that is an unkind way of expressing
    2300
    it, but very often they are cases in which a steel works wants to make quite sure that it will have an aim pie supply of coal for its own purposes. The steel works, in turn, may be owned by a combination, say of shipbuilders, who want to make quite sure that they will have their steel supplies and will not be held up at any moment. But where is the "comprising" to end?
    There is one case that I know of where a great shipyard on the Clyde and another at Belfast own their own steel works, which in turn own their own coal mines, and, as the Clause now stands, these words "or comprising" might bring in the whole lot. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the Government. I do not bow what was the intention of those who have most keenly advocated amalgamation, but I am less persuaded than ever I was as to the effectiveness of this method of dealing with some of the problems which we have to face.
    Let me give a single illustration of what must be in the mind of my right hon. Friend. He has aimed at providing the owners with a means, by re-organisation, or regulation of prices, or otherwise, of paying for the half-hour. That is really what is giving him all this trouble. In providing for that why should it be necessary to take in these other concerns? If they have profits they go to one of the other concerns. If the colliery has a profit it goes to the steel company. If a steel company has a profit it goes to the shipyard. Why should it be necessary to do this? I cannot see that it is necessary within the objects the right hon. Gentleman has himself provided. If the commissioners go quite outside the range of collieries and bring in these other mixed concerns, it will lead to unutterable confusion, it will bring about combinations which are really not necessary, as the problem is row presented to us, and certainly are not justified by the half-hour which has brought the whole of this into being. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see if he cannot devise some words later which will prevent this unnecessary confusion.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have an Amendment later on to provide that no undertaking which owns coal mines as a subsidiary part of its business shall be forced into an amalgamation without its

    2301
    consent. I think that really is the issue that lies before us. The right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) rightly says, "Why do you want to force these undertakings, which are not primarily colliery undertakings at all but large industrial undertakings, into these amalgamation schemes?" If the President of the Board of Trade will say that he will at a later stage accept an Amendment to exclude from the purview of the commissioners and of these Clauses any colliery undertaking that is owned by some other concern, and used primarily for its own purposes, we shall have gone a long way to meet the case. If he is not prepared to accept an Amendment in those terms, an issue of absolutely first-class importance is now raised. I thought it was bad enough when every colliery undertaking in the country, existing simply as a colliery undertaking, was going to be hunted round and have schemes made for it whether it liked it or not. But if this process of uncertainty is to be applied to all undertakings which happen to own collieries—and those are probably most of the large industrial undertakings—we are creating a machine which will embarrass and encumber the whole industrial progress of the country. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to face the problem of a certain number of coal mines. He has not been greatly helped in his attempt to do so by accepting these long Clauses, which have apparently been drafted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). If he were here, we should probably better understand what is intended. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to cause more uncertainty in these trades than is necessary and, if he would be prepared to accept an Amendment later that no company that owned a coal mine as a subsidiary undertaking is to be forced into an amalgamation against its will, he would go a long way to meet the real difficulty that has been presented. If he cannot give us such an assurance, he is obviously raising an issue of first-class importance which we must fight to the full extent of our power.
    Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg the President of the Board of Trade not to give way to the specious plea that has just been made. The position we are facing at the moment is that the Government have accepted the principle of com-
    2302
    pulsory amalgamation, with the support of the majority of the House. In all these Amendments we have to proceed on the basis that the Government are prepared to accept the decision of the majority of the House, which is in favour of compulsory amalgamation. If the right hon. Member who moved the Amendment is prepared to say that this object is to defeat amalgamations, I agree with him that lie is going a very long way towards doing it, and if the Committee is going to adhere to its decision to accept compulsory amalgamation, the acceptance of this Amendment will destroy it. The right hon. Gentleman below me said this arises out of the decision to accept compulsory amalgamation. If we want to turn it down, let us do it honestly and openly. Let us not do it by a side issue of this sort, because if these words are accepted, there are very few colliery undertakings, which under our decision may be amalgamated if the Commission so decide, which cannot defeat that object, because you are asking the people who, you have said, must submit to compulsory amalgamation to adopt a method of evading it. I do not think that is honest. If we want to do that, let us reverse our decision, but as long as the decision stands, let us understand what we are doing. The late President of the Board of Trade (said if we cannot do that lot us accept his Amendment, that any undertaking which owns a coal mine is to be exempt. There is very little difference between that and what we have decided beforehand. The safeguard is here in the Clause that has been put down by the Government and which in principle we have accepted.
    "Where such amalgamations appear to the Commission to be in the national interest."
    Either we are going to have faith in the Commission or we are not. There is nothing new in "saying it shall be left to a Commission to decide whether a thing is or is not in the national interest. It is already included in previous Acts of Parliament affecting the mining and the railway industries. Unless we are going to defeat the principle that we have already accepted, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will stick to the position he has taken up.
    Captain TODD: I had not intended to intervene, but I feel that I must speak

    2303
    on behalf of thousands of co-operators, not only in my division but throughout the country. The Government must be aware that the Co-operative Wholesale Society owns three pits in Northumberland and, if this Clause remains as it stands, the savings of all those thousands of poor people will be liable to be used for bolstering up he promises of the Government. I cannot believe it was the intention of the Government to use that money to pay for the promises they made at the last election. Unless they accept some form of revision of this Clause, there is nothing to prevent the Commission ruling that the Co-operative Wholesale Society shall be amalgamated with a variety of pits in their neighbourhood which are insolvent. On behalf of the co-operators I most sincerely beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision with regard to this Amendment.
    Mr. PERRY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman been asked by the co-operators to make this statement?
    Captain TODD: I was returned as the representative of the Berwick-on-Tweed Division. The moment I was returned here I dropped party politics and I am here to represent all classes.
    Mr. PERRY: Have the co-operators in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's division asked him to make this statement?
    Captain TODD: I will be quite honest. I have not had representations from the co-operators, but I know that in my own district the majority of them are not supporters of the present Government, and when I go there I have no doubt I shall be received with acclamation.
    Major GLYN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little more explanation in regard to the actual limits within which this can be interpreted, because everybody recognises that these vertical trusts or monopolies have been very fruitful in enabling workers in different branches of an industry to have employment which otherwise it would be much more difficult to ensure. I know a good many works on the Clyde where ship-building yards, engine shops and coal mines are all intimately connected, and it seems to me, when you are reorganising industry and doing all you can to get rid of inefficiency, if there is a phrase in a very important Bill like this which may sweep
    2304
    all kinds of interests into something that should be confined to one trade, we are entitled to ask within what limits the Government propose to sweep these outside businesses within the orbit of the coal trade. I once represented a constituency where there are a great many miners, and I was always told they were full of suspicion that the actual profits made, either in the pits or in the works, were being in some way hidden. What will be the confusion if this proposal of the Government is carried out? It will be almost impossible to trace what actually is the business that is going to be switched about within an area. I believe it will be a great blow at the reorganisation of British industry on modern lines, which is the practice in Germany and in the United States. I do not like the expression "vertical trust," but I am certain, if you are going to get active co-operation between the workers' organisations and the management, you are more easily going to get it if you have all these things, from the raw material to the finished article, under one umbrella, as it were. I am quite certain the President of the Board of Trade is the last man in the House who wishes to have any confusion in the matter and, if he could explain what are the limits within which he thinks this sort of adjustment may be made without doing harm to what is known as vertical trusts, he will remove a great main- doubts that exist in the minds of some of us on this side of the House.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think there is a slight flaw in the argument of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans). I understood him to say the House had already given its assent to the principle of compulsory amalgamation. But compulsory amalgamation of what? Of coal mines. As I understand the Clause without the Amendment, it is not merely compulsory amalgamation of coal mines; it is compulsory amalgamation of steel works, chemical works and other industries which have coal mines within their resources. That is a different principle, to which this House has not yet given its assent, and it takes the matter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales was using a few minutes ago

    2305
    out of the line of argument. If I may reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Captain Todd), I would state that the success of the German amalgamations in the Ruhr have largely been due to the fact that they are vertical and not horizontal. The Clause without this Amendment will do nothing whatever to encourage vertical amalgamations but will, unfortunately, discourage them. I think that the President of the Board of Trade would be well advised to accept the Amendment. If it is not accepted, the Committee should realise that an entirely new principle is being introduced. The principle of the compulsory amalgamation of coal mines is being made very much wider than the Committee has hitherto contemplated. I can understand the proposal being a welcome one to certain Members of the Socialist party who desire nationalisation to emerge from measures of this kind, because if this Clause is passed it will undoubtedly make the nationalisation of coal mines, and not merely coal mines but the heavy industries, very much easier.
    Major NATHAN: I do not suppose that there is in this Committee a Member who is a more strict adherent than I am to compulsory amalgamations in the mining industry. I share the fears and the apprehensions of those who dislike the idea of leaving an independent mine geographically in the middle of another group. I agree that it might seriously handicap the sound physical development of that group. But there are other considerations. Is this Committee prepared to set itself definitely to obstruct the processes of vertical combinations altogether? In vertical combinations is to be found one of the most fruitful opportunities for reconstructing British industry along the lines which it should proceed. I say quite frankly that it never entered my head as a possibility—and, as a convinced adherent of the principle of compulsory amalgamations I would never support the Bill unless the principle of compulsory amalgamations were inserted—that the Government had it in mind to include mixed mines in vertical combinations. That, it seems to me, is not a constructive but a destructive measure. If the President of the Board of Trade will refer to the terms of the
    2306
    new Clause and read the Clause side by side with Section I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, I may be able to bring him to the conclusion that he misinterpreted the position when he said just now in addressing the Committee that hon. Members above the Gangway were in a difficulty on account of the Act of 1926.
    What does the Act of 1926 do? Section I defines the organisations which come within its purview with a view to amalgamation. It defines them as "undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines." Those undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines are not the undertakings which are to be amalgamated necessarily. They are the undertakings which are to take the initiative in putting into effect the machinery for securing the amalgamation of something else—amalgamations of their undertakings either wholly or partially. I would refer the President of the Board of Trade to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the new Clause, and suggest that it is largely a drafting difficulty which has arisen, because here the "undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines" are not the properties which are to be amalgamated. It is merely to set the machinery of amalgamation in order. I think that, subject to the safeguarding of the final words of the Sub-section, the situation may be met by leaving the Clause as drawn and after the words "amalgamation of undertakings consisting," inserting the words "either wholly or partially," so as to leave it open to any Commission to refuse, if it should think fit, to amalgamate concerns which are not comparable. You might under this Clause have an iron manufacturing business amalgamated with a business which is purely a coal mining business. I, myself, would not support a condition of this character unless I was satisfied beyond any ambiguity that what was in mind was a compulsory amalgamation of coal mines in the coal-mining industry, and no other business whatever.
    Commodore KING: We are entitled, I think, to a further explanation from the President of the Board of Trade, because he has given us this new sidelight, and one which hon. Members who have been supporting these amalgamations did not realise when they were pressing for them. He has en-

    2307
    visaged the amalgamation of mines into trusts belonging to coke ovens, the steel industry and so on. Hon. Members opposite thought it was an extremely exaggerated view when ray hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Captain Todd) said that he spoke for co-operative societies. Under the terms of this Clause co-operative societies will be liable to be brought in if they own coal mines. Co-operative societies, in view of the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade, would come under this Clause in exactly the same way as iron and steel works, or any of the other vertical combines or amalgamations to which he has referred. Therefore, I ask him to give us more definite information on that point. With regard to his reference to any difficulty which we may have because of the words "or comprising" appearing in the Act of 1926, he leaves out of consideration the fact that agreement in all those things was one of the first principles. The hon. and gallant Member quoted from Section 1 of Part I of the Act of 1926, which reads:
    "The owners of two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines agree to amalgamate."
    The position is dealt with there. Subsection (2) of the same Section goes on to speak of undertakings which are unwilling to agree to amalgamate, and how they are to be absorbed. Sub-section (3, d) says:
    "No partial absorption scheme shall, without the consent of the owner."
    It is all consent. There has to be consent.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Where they disagree.
    Commodore KING: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look down the same Sub-section he will see:
    "No partial absorption scheme shall, without the consent of the owner of the absorbed company, provide for the separation … or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, provide for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object."
    Absorption schemes have to be by consent of the owner, and not otherwise. That does not raise any difficulty as far as we are concerned. It has always been by the agreement or consent of those
    2308
    concerned. Therefore, it is an entire innovation to bring in compulsion of undertakings comprising coal mines. It is quite a different situation which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to bring in under this Clause.
    Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: "Not once or twice in our rough island story "has there seemed to be disagreement among my own party. I submit to the Committee that there is really no substance in the Amendment which is now proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans) has pointed out, the Committee has already decided in favour of compulsory amalgamation. I agree that it is the compulsory amalgamation of mines. If hon. Members will look at the Sub-section which is now before the Committee they will realise that the primary function of the Commission is to further the reorganisation of the coal-mining industry. That is what they have to consider in the first place, with a view to facilitating the production, supply and sale of coal. But in considering that and in looking at the industry as a whole, they should not be defeated from furthering the industry by somebody suggesting that that industry is amalgamated or attached to some other small industry, and therefore saying that the whole amalgamation shall fall. We all know that there are, for example, coking industries attached to coal mines, and it might be that one coal-owner might come along and say: "You cannot bring me within your amalgamation scheme, because I have another industry, namely, coking, attached to it. You might have another one saying," I have bought a colliery and I am using the coal from that colliery in order to supply my steel works, and therefore you shall not bring that colliery into the scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Surely the Commission which is to be appointed is going to consist of men who will consider all these matters and will decide them fairly. The power is to be given to them, as is given to other Commissions, to decide fairly what is necessary to promote the interests of the industry as a whole, and they should not be defeated in their decision by the mere attachment to any colliery industry of some other business which might be used as a legal quibble to defeat the real objects of this Bill.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: We have never disputed that in introducing the principle of compulsory amalgamations the difficulties are enormous, but I am unable to accept the view that there is anything new in the principle, apart from compulsion, that the Government are now seeking to bring into force. For all practical purposes this decision was taken in the Act of 1926, and these words, "consisting of or comprising coal mines," were definitely inserted in the first Section. What is the real difference in the proposals which are now before the House and what was done under the Act of 1926? It is this, as I tried to explain last night, that you get here a guarantee of initiative in regard to amalgamations. Under the Act of 1926, there was provision for the voluntary submission of schemes before the Railway and Canal Commission. If one individual owner does not go forward, as he might go forward under the Act of 1926, to the Railway and Canal Commission, the new statutory commissioners under these proposals can take the step of initiating the amalgamation and carrying it, if necessary, up to the Railway and Canal Commission. That position is in no way changed.
    All that has happened here is that the initiative is supplied, and we proceed strictly under the terms of the Act of 1926. Under that Act a single owner might have come forward. He might propose a certain amalgamation scheme consisting, as that Act provides, of a mixed concern, and if he could establish his case before the Railway and Canal Commission they might sanction amalgamations exclusively of coal mines or amalgamations not only including coal mines, but mixed concerns. All that could take place under the Act of 1926, and it would be futile to go back upon that process by excluding the words "or comprising," because that would go to the heart of the scheme, and would destroy a considerable part of it. I appreciate the difficulty that many hon. Members have in mind, and I have never denied that a very great responsibility and discretion will rest upon the amalgamation commissioners. Several hon. Members have suggested that there might be concerns which are overwhelmingly iron and steel which, incidentally, own a single colliery, which forms a very small part of the undertaking. If that were brought into
    2310
    amalgamation, it would not be so much amalgamating a colliery, because it would be only an incidental part of the concern, but it would be amalgamating an iron and steel concern. I cannot exclude that possibility, I cannot put something into this legislation which takes away discretion from the commissioners, but it is perfectly plain that in a state of affairs like that, with very responsible men handling the problem, they would consider what is in the national interest and if the case went to the Railway and Canal Commission that Commission would have to decide whether it was in the public interest and whether it was fair to all parties. There would never be forced on the parties in such a case an amalgamation which would not be a coal amalgamation at all, but something that was overwhelmingly concerned with other industrial processes, with which, by accident or otherwise, a coal mine might be associated. What would be the position if this Amendment were accepted? There might be undertakings which are very largely coal undertakings, but not exclusively coal undertakings. They might own something other than coal, which might be a minor part of their undertakings, but if we do not insert these words, that concern would be placed beyond the reach of amalgamation. I have only to state such a case to show that it could not for one moment be accepted.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman in his general statement seemed to be coming near to the point of agreement, because his general statement was that the commissioners are to be such substantial people that they would not dream of enforcing an amalgamation which ought not to take place. If he could put that provision in the Bill, we should come much closer together. Instead of the words "or comprising," could not such words as "or primarily concerned in working" be put in? Provided that the undertakings are primarily concerned in working coal, then, if there is to be compulsion those would be proper subjects for compulsion. If they are not primarily concerned in working coal but are primarily steel works or other works, then, surely, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he does not want them in, and he does not expect the commissioners to put them in. Why

    2311
    not introduce that safeguard? If the words to which we object are left in, there will be a doubt for a long time, and we shall not be able to get rid of the doubt so long as the commissioners are going about and it can be said, as it might be said truthfully, that they have power to cause a forcible amalgamation. Then there will be doubt and difficulty, and interruption of business and interference with the expansion of business, and all that sort of uncertainty which helps to create unemployment. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman means what he has said, it ought not to be beyond his power to insert words which will remove doubts but which will give him what he wants, namely, power, if there is to be compulsory power, to deal with amalgamations.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I put a purely practical question? I am not a dodger of this Clause or any other Clauses of the Bill. When I have opposed them I have opposed them openly. I would remind the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. Evans) that I have not dodged them either in this House or elsewhere.
    Mr. EVANS: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that I was making any reference to him. All that I said was that I did not want other people to have any chance of dodging the operations of this Measure. I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will acquit me of being a dodger. I am not seeking to dodge anything. I want to prevent what I believe would be industrial confusion. My right hon. Friend does not want to bring steel works within the purview of the Bill. He says that he is sure that the commissioners, if they are sensible men, will not want to do that, nor do any of us want to do that. There is no necessity to do it. Surely some means can be taken in the Bill to separate an industry. One suggestion was made by an hon. Member that the words "wholly or partially concerned" should be inserted. As I read the Clause, the commissioners have to take the whole undertaking or nothing; it is one or the other. If the words "wholly or partially" were in-
    2312
    serted, it would be left to the discretion of the commissioners to exclude a portion of an industrial concern. I cannot now express an opinion about the proper drafting, but I am sure that must be the intention of the Government, for I cannot believe that they want to go any further than dealing with coal mines and that they do not want to step into the category of other industries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet the point in regard to the separation of an industry by a definition in the Bill or by leaving to the commissioners a sufficient amount of free play to deal with the whole problem that must arise in our growing organisation of industry on vertical lines.
    Mr. REID: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this point might be met if he would put in some words limiting the expression "undertaking," which would make it clear that, for example, an engineering works or a shipbuilding yard or anything of that kind would not be amalgamated. By a little care in drafting, some words might be found which would deal with the question in such a way as to make it certain that works in which a coal mine was only a subsidiary would not come within the Clause.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There have been a series of interesting speeches from below the Gangway, and it would not be courteous to leave them neglected. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans) was kind enough to say something verging on the impolite with regard to the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman).
    Mr. EVANS: I must protest against that statement. It is most unfair. I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman. I have already explained that what I said was that I did not want other people to have the chance of dodging the operations of the Act. It is most unfair of the hon. Member to make such an accusation.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Up to the present I have said nothing. I have accomplished one object, and that was to enable the hon. Member to make it clear that he was not saying anything in any way depreciating a representative of a Cornish Division.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must bear in mind that the hon. Member for the University of Wales had already disclaimed any such intention.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I will leave that point and come to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He said that as far as this Clause was concerned the object was to guarantee initiative, but as he proceeded it became clearer and clearer that the object of this Clause is to interfere in the largest possible way with the organisation and working of the industry. That is one of the reasons why I object to this provision. So far as the Amendment is concerned, one point has been neglected. We have heard about the advantage of a mine working in connection with a co-operative society or in connection with a steel works. One point which has been raised frequently during the Debates on this Bill and in other coal Debates has been the necessity for the elimination of the middlemen in the coal trade. If these words are left in the Clause, it will make it more and more difficult to bring about the amalgamation of industries where you can get the raw material of coal straight into the manufactured article. The right hon. Member for St. Ives, who has vast knowledge of business, sees that words of this kind in the Bill can only be meant to enable the Government to interfere in business at every turn. It may be that we shall be forced by the Government to accept the Clause as it stands, with the inclusion of the words in question, but it seems to me that the effect of these words will do more to injure the coal trade than would have been the case if they had left the matter alone. We do not know how these two words arose. It would be interesting to find who put them in. I do not think they came from any practical source, and I suspect that they have been put in by some person with very little knowledge of industry.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: We have an enormous number of Amendments before us, and I think the Committee might now come to a decision on this point. I just want to say two or three sentences in reply. Hon. Members must not read into my earlier statement anything more than it contains. The kind of case I visualised was an iron and steel under-
    2314
    taking or a large business which was only interested in coal to a small extent. In a case of that kind obviously the discretion of the commissioners would be exercised as to whether it was in the national interest or fair to the parties concerned to amalgamate such an undertaking with others. That stands. But it must be clearly distinguished from what is contemplated by hon. Members in various parts of the House. Hon. Members will recall that in the 1926 Act this was settled in plain and explicit terms; "consisting of or comprising coal mines." From that point you get all the protection—and this is the reply to the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman)—not only of the investigation of the statutory Commissioners but beyond them, the Railway and Canal Commission, who have to determine whether it is in the public interest and fair to the parties concerned. Observe the words which I am invited to put into the Bill. In place of these explicit terms, it is suggested that I' should accept the words "relating to an undertaking primarily concerned in the production of coal." What does that mean? What is the limit? Is it to be 50 per cent. or 65 per cent.? There is no instruction; and, of course, that goes back on the Act of 1926. The right hon. Member for St. Ives suggested the words "wholly or partially." There you get into a very vague field.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The President of the Board of Trade has said that there is great difficulty in adopting such words as "primary purpose." May I refer him to Clause 1 of the very Act from which he is quoting, the Mining Industry Act, 1926, where he will find in Clause 1 the words:
    "or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining."
    Those are the exact words suggested by the distinguished lawyer on this side, and are exactly the point raised in the Amendment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate in this Bill the very words which are found in the Act of 1926.
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is not the view I take. All I am concerned with at the moment is that I cannot modify the words "consisting of or comprising coal mines." I will consider the other requests which have been put before me

    2315
    when, we reach later Amendments; but I cannot now or on Report Stage go back on the words in the 1926 Act which we are using for the purpose of compulsion as opposed to the modified compulsion which was possible under that Act.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one point in regard to the position of the pottery industry? A very large amount of coal is used in the pottery industry and many of the firms have amalgamated together and bought their own colliery. Would that colliery come under the scheme of amalgamation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was in the House when I made my earlier statement. If the colliery is merely one small incident on the lines I described I should not think, although I cannot bind the commissioners, that it would be in the national interest to amalgamate, but if it is a large part or a substantial part it clearly comes within the Act of 1926 or the extension of that Act which we now propose, and they might regard it as being in the national interest to amalgamate.
    Sir J. LAMB: The commissioners may. That is what I want to avoid. The colliery is bought for the purpose of supplying the potteries with coal for their industry. They do not sell to the general public; it is used entirely in the industry, and for the purpose of the industry they have to get coal of a particular quality and have bought a particular mine to secure the supply. Would that colliery he taken over, or may it be taken over, and amalgamated with other collieries in the district?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner)rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put," but THE CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Major NATHAN: I only intervene for the purpose of pointing out that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. May I again direct his attention to Clause 1 of the Act of 1926, to which he has referred, where he will find the words, in just such a context as they are here, "wholly or partially". He has told us that this Bill follows the terms of the 1926 Act. I ask him to follow it in its terms.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The present Government seem to be always anxious to shelter themselves behind the last Government, and now they are sheltering themselves behind the Act of 1926; an Act which they opposed. The right hon. Gentleman says that these words were in that very Ace. We are supposed to be passing a Coal Mines Bill and to be dealing with a Clause enabling amalgamations of the coal mines to be undertaken. It seems to me that the Clause, as drafted, will enable every other sort of industry to be amalgamated. If the Amendment is not accepted it will be perfectly possible for the commissioners to amalgamate co-operative societies and broken down steel companies, and coke ovens. We are passing laws but they should be reasonable. The commissioners may be a most worthy body of men but we ought not to trust them entirely, and we ought to see that they do not have power to do a thing which would be completely wrong. I maintain that it would be completely wrong to amalgamate a co-operative society and a steel factory. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further attention to this matter and will take out these words or find a more suitable form of words.
    Mr. TURNER Mr. TURNER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES.

    [6.9 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ayles, Walter

    Benson, G.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Bunden, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Batey, Joseph

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Angell, Norman

    Beckett, John (Camberwetl, Peckham)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Arnott, John

    Bellamy, Albert

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Herriotts, J.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hint, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bromfield, William

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Bromley, J.

    Hoilins, A.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Brooke, W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Brothers, M.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Palin, John Henry.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Isaacs, George

    Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Perry, S. F.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Buxton, C. Ft. (Yorks. W. Ft. Elland)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk. N.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Caine, Derwent Halt-

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Cameron, A. G.

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Price, M. P.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Chater, Daniel

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Church, Major A. G.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Richards, R.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Kinley, J.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Compton, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Ritson, J.

    Cove, William G.

    Knight, Holford

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Daggar, George

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Dallas, George

    Lang, Gordon

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rowson, Guy

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lathan, G.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Day, Harry

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Dukes, C.

    Lawson, John James

    Sanders, W. S.

    Duncan, Charles

    Lawther, W, (Barnard Castle)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Leach, W.

    Scott, James

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)

    Sexton, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Egan, W. H.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sherwood, G. H.

    England, Colonel A.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shield, George William

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Foot, Isaac

    Longden, F.

    Shinwell, E.

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Lowth, Thomas

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Freeman, Peter

    Lunn, William

    Simmons, C. J.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Macdonald, Gerdon (Ince)

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McElwee, A.

    Sinkinson, George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Gill, T. H.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Gould, F.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McShane, John James

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Snell, Harry

    Granville, E.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gray, Milner

    Mansfield, W.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

    March, S.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

    Marcus, M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Markham, S. F.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Marley, J.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Marshall, Fred

    Sullivan, J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mathers, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Matters, L. W.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Melville, Sir James

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Messer, Fred

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Millar, J. D.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Harbison, T. J.

    Mills, J. E.

    Tillett, Ben

    Harbord, A.

    M liner, J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Toole, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Tout, W. J.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morley, Ralph

    Townend, A. E.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Turner, B.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Walker, J.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Muff, G.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Wise, E. F.

    Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Wright, W, (Rutherglen)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Albery, Irving James

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Astor, Viscountess

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Grace, John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Richardson, Sir P. W (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Balniel, Lord

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Berry, Sir George

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Savery, S. S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hanbury, C.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Boyce, H. L.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Train, J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Edmondson, Major A J.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Fielden, E. B.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    George Penny.

    Question put accordingly, "That the words' or comprising' stand part of the proposed Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 160.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES.

    [6.20 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ayles, Walter

    Benson, G.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Blindell, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Batey, Joseph

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Angell, Norman.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Arnott, John

    Bellamy, Albert

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Bromfield, William

    Hollins, A

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Bromley, J.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Brooke, W.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Brothers, M.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Palin, John Henry.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Isaacs, George

    Palmer, E. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Burgess, F. G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Perry, S. F.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Caine, Derwent Hail-

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Cameron, A. G.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Price, M. P.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Chater, Daniel

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Raynes, W. R.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Kenworfhy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Richards, R.

    Compton, Joseph

    Kinley, J.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Daggar, George

    Knight, Holford

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dallas, George

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)

    Ritson, J.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lang, Gordon

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Romeril, H. G.

    Day, Harry

    Lathan, G.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Rowson, Guy

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Dukes, C.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Duncan, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Leach, W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Scott, James

    Egan, W. H.

    Lees, J.

    Sexton, James

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    England, Colonel A.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Foot, Isaac

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Longden, F.

    Shield, George William

    Freeman, Peter

    Lowth, Thomas

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Lunn, William

    Shinwell, E.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McElwee, A.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gill, T. H.

    McKinlay, A.

    Sinkinson, George

    Gillett, George M.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Gould, F.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Granville, E.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Gray, Milner

    Mansfield, W.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine).

    March, S.

    Snell, Harry

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Marcus, M.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Griffith, F. Kingtley (Middlsbro' W.)

    Markham, S. F.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Marley, J.

    Stephen, Campbell.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Marshall, Fred

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mathers, George

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Matters, L. W.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Sullivan, J.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Melville, Sir James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Messer, Fred

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Millar, J. D.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Harbison, T. J.

    Milts, J. E.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Harbord, A.

    Milner, J.

    Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Tillett, Ben

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morley, Ralph

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Toole, Joseph

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Tout, W. J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney. South)

    Townend, A. E.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Turner, B.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Muff, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Herriotts, J.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Walker, J.

    2322

    2323

    Wallace, H. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Wise, E. F.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'l'd)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Astor, Viscountess

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Grace, John

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Preston, Sir Walter Rucben

    Balniel, Lord

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Berry, Sir George

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hanbury, C.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney;

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Boyce, H. L.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Savery, S. S.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexkam)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Butler, R. A

    Herne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Christie, J. A.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Train, J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Fermoy, Lord

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

    Mr. REID: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 12, after "1921," to insert the words "other than paragraph (a) of section two thereof."
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I would be glad if the hon. Member would come a little nearer to me, in order that I may hear him.
    Mr. REID: This matter is not one which requires much explanation. The proposed
    2324
    new Clause provides that in respect of any meeting of the Commission at which a quorum of the commissioners is present for the purpose of any inquiry under this Measure, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, shall apply to the Commission. Paragraph (a) of Section 2 of that Act provides that a tribunal to which the Act is applied
    "shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless

    2325
    in the opinion of the tribunal it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given."
    I think it is quite obvious that a provision of that kind was never intended to apply to inquiries such as these concerning the question of whether various undertakings should be amalgamated or not, and I therefore move the Amendment that
    paragraph (a) should not apply in this case.
    Mr. TURNER: We accept the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Clause agreed to.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 150.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES.

    [6.34 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Egan, w. H.

    Kinley, J.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Elmley, Viscount

    Kirkwood, D.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    England, Colonel A.

    Knight, Holford

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Foot, Isaac

    Lang, Gordon

    Ammon, Charles George

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Angell, Norman

    Freeman, Peter

    Lathan, G.

    Arnott, John

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Ayles, Walter

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gill, T. H.

    Lawson, John James

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Gossling, A. G.

    Leach, W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Lees, J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Granville, E.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Benson, G.

    Gray, Milner

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Longden, F.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lowth, Thomas

    Blindell, James

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lunn, William

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    McElwee, A.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hall, G. K Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    McKinlay, A.

    Bromfield, William

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Bromley, J.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Brooke, W.

    Harbison, T. J.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Brothers, M.

    Harbord, A.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Hardie, George D.

    McShane, John James

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Mansfield, W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    March, S.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Marcus, M.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Markham, S. F.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Marley, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Marshall, Fred

    Caine, Derwent Hall

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Mathers, George

    Cameron, A. G.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Matters, L. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Herriotts, J.

    Maxton, James

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wontworth)

    Melville, Sir James

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Messer, Fred

    Chater, Daniel

    Hollins, A.

    Millar, J. D.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Mills, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Milner, J.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Montague, Frederick

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Morley, Ralph

    Cove, William G.

    Jsaacs, George

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Dallas, George

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Johnston, Thomas

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Mort, D. L.

    Day, Harry

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Muff, G.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Dukes, C.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Nayfor, T. E.

    Duncan, Charles

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Ede, James Chutar

    Jawitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Noel Baker. P. J.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Sexton, James

    Toole, Joseph

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Tout, W. J.

    Palin, John Henry.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Townend, A. E.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Palmer, E. T.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Turner, B.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Shield, George William

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Perry, S. F.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Shinwell, E.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Walker, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Picton-Tubervill, Edith

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Potts, John S.

    Sinkinson, George

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Price, M. P.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Pybus, Percy John

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Raynes, W. R.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Richards, R.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Snell, Harry

    Whiteley, William (Btaydon)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Ritson, J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Rowson, Guy

    Sullivan, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sutton, J. E.

    Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Wise, E. F.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Samuel Rt. Ron. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Tillett, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Scott, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Fermoy, Lord

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Balniel, Lord

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Berry, Sir George

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grace, John

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Boyce, H. L.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Bracken, B.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hanbury, C.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Butler, R. A.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Savery, S. S.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dine, C)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Train, J.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Tarton, Robert Hush

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendments of Part 1 of 16 and 17 Geo. V., c. 28.)
    (1) If it appears to the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission that it is expedient for the purpose of promoting the more economical and efficient working, treating, or disposing of coal that an amalgamation scheme or an absorption scheme, tinder Part I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1926"), should be prepared and submitted with respect to any two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines, but that the owners of such undertakings entitled under that Act to prepare and submit such a scheme are not prepared to do so, the commissioners shall themselves prepare and submit to the Board of Trade an amalgamation scheme or absorption scheme with respect to those undertakings framed in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Act of 1926, and for the purposes of that Part of that Act any scheme so prepared and submitted by the Commission shall he deemed to have been prepared and submitted in manner provided by sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of section one of that Act, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
    (2) Where a scheme prepared and submitted by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is referred by the Board of Trade to the Railway and Canal Commission under section six of the Act of 1926, the first-mentioned Commission shall be entitled to appear and be heard at any proceedings in connection with the scheme.
    (3) No scheme shall be submitted or certificate granted by the Commission under

    Division No. 191.]

    AYES.

    [6.45 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cove, William G.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Daggar, George

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Dallas, George

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Bromfield, William

    Dalton, Hugh

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Bromley, J.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Brooke, W.

    Day, Harry

    Ammon, Charles George

    Brothers, M.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Angell, Norman

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Arnott, John

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Dukes, C.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Buchanan, G.

    Duncan, Charles

    Ayles, Walter

    Burgess, F. G.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Batey, Joseph

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Egan, W. H.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Cameron, A. G.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Bellamy, Albert

    Cape, Thomas

    England, Colonel A.

    Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

    Benson, G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Foot, Isaac

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Chater, Daniel

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw vale)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Freeman, Peter

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Blindell, James

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Bowen, J. W.

    Compton, Joseph

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    this section except in pursuance of a decision made at a meeting at which a quorum of the commissioners is present.
    (4) Where an amalgamation scheme submitted to the Board of Trade by the owners of two or more undertakings under sub-section (1) of section one of the Act of 1926 is certified by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission to be in the national interest, and the owners submitting the scheme represent to the Board that it is unnecessary for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme that it should be confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission under the Act of 1926, it shall not be necessary for the Board to refer the scheme to the Railway and Canal Commission under that Act, but if the Board certify that the provisions of the scheme as to any debentures or as to the issue of any share or loan capital are reasonably required for the purpose of the amalgamation, sub-section (2) of section five of the Act of 1926 (which grants certain exemptions from stamp duty in respect of schemes confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission) shall apply in respect of the scheme and of anything done in pursuance thereof as if the scheme had been confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission.
    (5) This section shall be construed as one with Part I of the Act of 1926.—[Mr. W. Graham.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 2S7; Noes, 148.

    Gill, T. H.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Gillett, George M.

    Longden, F.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Gould, F.

    Lunn, William

    Scott, James

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sexton, James

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Shakespeare, Graffrey H.

    Granville, E.

    McElwee, A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Gray, Milner

    McEntee, v. L.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Shield, George William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Shillaker, J. F

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Shinwell, E.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McShane, John James

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Mansfield, W.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    March, S.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Marcus, M.

    Sinkinson, George

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Markham, S. F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Marley, J.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Harbison, T. J.

    Marshall, Fred

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Harbord, A.

    Mathers, George

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Hardie, George D.

    Matters, L. W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Melville, Sir James

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Messer, Fred

    Snell, Harry

    Haycock, A. W.

    Millar, J. D.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mills, J. E.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    M liner, J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Montague, Frederick

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Morley, Ralph

    Strauss, G. R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Sullivan, J.

    Herriotts, J.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Hollins, A.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Muff, G.

    Tillett, Ben

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Tout, W. J.

    Isaacs, George

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Townend, A. E.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Turner, B.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Palin, John Henry.

    Walker, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Wallace, H. W.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Perry, S. F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Kelly, W. T.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Kinley, J.

    Potts, John S.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Price, M. P.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Knight, Holford

    Pybus, Percy John

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Lang, Gordon

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lathan, G.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneliy)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Richards, R.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lawson, John James

    Ritson, J.

    Wise, E. F.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Leach, W.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Rowson, Guy

    Lees, J.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Albery, Irving James

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Boyce, H. L.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

    Berry, Sir George

    Bracken, B.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Butler, R. A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Savery, S. S.

    Christie, J. A.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Falie, Sir Bertram G.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Train, J.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Fielden, E. B.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Ganzonf, Sir John

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otlcy)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    O'Neill. Sir H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georgs

    Grace, John

    Peake, Capt. Osaert

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Preston, Sir Waller Rueben

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

    Hanbury, C.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 3, to leave out the word "treating."
    I am moving this Amendment in order to find out from the President of the Board of Trade what is in his mind in putting this word in the proposed Clause. This is a Bill which applies to the sale of coal, but it does not suggest any means of dealing with coal other than by sale. I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do in granting this permission to promote amalgamations. Does he desire to give power to set up low-temperature carbonisation plant or any other of the various processes for dealing with coal? It seems to me that we are going a long way further than we know and may be putting on the shoulders of the Commission something far greater than was intended. There are a large number of methods of treating coal, but they have not got far beyond the laboratory stage. That being so, a great difficulty arises in the matter of treating coal on a commercial scale, and we should be very careful not to give to the Commis-
    2334
    sion powers, which this seems to suggest. In order to get the matter clear and an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, I have put down this Amendment to the proposed Clause.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid I cannot say that there is anything new in my mind on this subject. The words included in this Section are on all-fours with the provisions of the Act of 1926, which, of course, covers the treating of coal as well as its production and other processes. If these words were left out, it would limit the Act of 1926 and make it impossible for these commissioners to prepare a scheme which was directed not only to the production but to the treating of coal, and it would severely limit the commissioners in an important branch of their work. After this explanation, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Clause negatived.
    The following Amendments to the proposed Clause stood upon the Order Paper:

    2335
    In line 6, leave out from the word "mines" to the word "the," in line 8.
    In line 8, leave out the word "themselves," and to insert instead thereof the words "require the owners of those undertakings to."
    In line 11, after "1926," to insert the words:
    "and if the owners fail so to submit such a scheme within such a time as may have been specified by the commissioners, the commissioners shall themselves prepare and submit such a scheme to the Board of Trade."—[Mr. C. Davies.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The discussion on these three Amendments to the proposed Clause may be taken together.
    Mr. C. DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, to leave out from the word "mines" to the word "the," in line 8.
    The object of these Amendments standing in my name are that as the Clause stands at present it puts power in the hands of those who might defeat the whole object of the Commission, for they can now prepare their scheme and submit it to the Commission, and then the Commission can refuse the scheme. Then they can prepare another one again. They can go on doing that, saying that they are about to prepare one and not preparing one until the whole object of these Clauses, which are intended to bring about compulsory amalgamation, is completely defeated. What I propose here is that the Commission, once they have made up their minds that there should be an amalgamation, should then communicate with the owners and ask them to prepare this scheme. They give the owners time to prepare such a scheme, and, if the owners prepare it, the Commission will consider it, and, if they think fit, adopt it with the necessary modifications. If the owners do not put forward a scheme, then the Commission can do so, and it can go to the Board of Trade and to the Railway and Canal Commission. That is the object the Committee had in view in giving a Second Reading to this Clause, namely, that, if compulsory amalgamation is assented to, then it should be a proper scheme which should be reasonable and practicable and not one which can be defeated by those who can devise ways and means of defeating an Act of Parliament. As it stands at present, the
    2336
    Clause would enable capable people to defeat the very object which the Committee has in view.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not easy to follow a proposal to leave out certain words and insert others, but I think I am clear as to what is in the mind of the Mover. I am not very clear, however, as to whether the words he is proposing will give effect to what is in his mind. The intention of the President of the Board of Trade, as I understand it, is that, before the Commission starts preparing a scheme themselves and putting it before the Railway and Canal Commission, they should ask what are the views of the owners and see if the owners or some of them are themselves prepared to work such a scheme. If that is the intention, it is one with which I agree, because obviously it is only common-sense that you should, first of all, ascertain the views of the people whose undertakings are to be amalgamated and find out from them before you start trying to make a scheme, what are their views and whether in their opinion an amalgamation will tie worth while and whether they are prepared to put forward such a scheme. That, I gather, is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, and the Commission will not frame a scheme until they have first consulted the owners and found out whether they will father a scheme themselves. That is obviously common-sense, and I cannot understand any body of intelligent men proceeding in any other way.
    I do not contemplate the possibility of a number of owners putting forward a great many fantastic schemes of amalgamation in which they do not believe and then producing one more fantastic than the other. If we approach this problem of amalgamation in the expectation that everybody is going to do something more fantastic even than what the commissioners are invited to do, we cannot have very much faith in these proposals. I do not believe anybody is likely to put themselves to that trouble. I am not sure however, that, if the President of the Board of Trade accepts the words of the proposed Amendment, it would not be in the power of the Commission to frame a scheme before they had consulted the owners in the first instance. If that would be the effect, it is bad. If all the words

    2337
    of the Amendment do is to re-write in a more convenient form the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade that the owners are to be consulted first and are to express their opinion and to have an opportunity of promoting a scheme before the commissioners get busy, then the most convenient phraseology should be adopted. If, however, there is a difference of substance, I am on the side of the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: There is no difference of substance in this proposal. Quite briefly, as I have explained on previous occasions, amalgamations can proceed under the ordinary company law, or as a purely voluntary act by the owners of the district before bringing this machinery into force. My hon. Friend who has proposed this Amendment has dealt with circumstances under which there might be a suggested scheme by the owners and, as I understand his words, they merely remove doubt in the Government's draft, and, later, by the insertion of a time limit, bring it to more concrete form. For that reason, the Government are prepared to accept these Amendments, and I think there will be no difficulty in the Committee passing them in the amended form.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause," put, and negatived.
    Further Amendments made to proposed Clause: In line 8, leave out the word "themselves," and insert instead thereof the words "require the owners of those undertakings to."
    In line 11, after "1926," insert the words:
    "and if the owners fail so to submit such a scheme within such a time as may have been specified by the Commissioners, the Commissioners shall themselves prepare and submit such a scheme to the Board of Trade."—[Mr. C. navies.]
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 14, after the first word "Act," to insert the words:
    "and for the purposes of sub-section (2) (a) of section seven of that Act (which provides, inter alia, that the Railway and Canal Commission shall confirm a scheme if satisfied that it would be in the national interest to do so) confirmation by the Railway and Canal Commission of any scheme prepared by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission and submitted to the Board of Trade shall be deemed to be in the national interest."
    2338
    The Committee will recall, on reference to the first of the new Clauses which we have been discussing, that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is given the discretion to frame schemes subject to a condition, that condition being—
    "if the amalgamations appear to the Commission to be in the national interest."
    Subject to that over-riding condition, the new Commission have, under the Clause which we are now discussing, to place before the Railway and Canal Commission, which, for clarity's sake, I call the tribunal, a scheme for amalgamation under the Mining Industry Act, 1926. It goes to the tribunal by way of the Board of Trade and, when it goes before the tribunal, that tribunal is under a mandatory obligation by para, (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act to confirm the scheme, if satisfied that it will be in the national interest to do so. My Amendment to the proposed Clause is designed to clarify what appears to me may be a rather odd situation, because, if the matter be left where it stands at the moment without my Amendment, this peculiar situation will arise. First, this Reorganisation Commission, which with so much pomp and circumstance we have at last succeeded in establishing, will sit in solemn conclave to decide that a scheme is in the national interest. It is to be a Commission of men of high standing and great technical ability. The responsibility is reposed on them of determining whether the scheme is in the national interest or not. Having done that and framed the scheme, it comes, under the provisions of the Act of 1926, before the Railway and Canal Commission, and the first question the Railway and Canal Commission have to decide is whether the scheme is in the national interest. There will then be two tribunals deciding what is and what is not in the national interest.
    My Amendment is designed to overcome that difficulty and, if passed, the result will be that the decision of the new Reorganisation Commission will be conclusive, and that the tribunal will accept the decision of the new Reorganisation Commission as determining that the scheme is in the national interest under Section 7 (2, a) of the 1926 Act. It is not a very exciting and is possibly a dull Amendment, but I believe it is essential in order to maintain the

    2339
    authority of the Reorganisation Commission that, when it has once determined that a scheme is in the national interest, it shall not be open for any other commission to question that decision.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have much less doubt about this Amendment to the proposed Clause, because it is certainly much more than a drafting Amendment. I was not sure I understood it until the hon. Gentleman explained it so clearly. It seemed to me either unnecessary or that it took away from the established court, the Railway and Canal Commission, an important discretion. He has explained that his Amendment is to take away a very important jurisdiction from the Railway and Canal Commission. The President of the Board of Trade, in rejecting certain proposals of ours earlier in the evening, defended himself on the ground that the whole structure of his new Clause was to leave in the full powers and the safeguards which found their place in the Act of 1926. Perhaps the most important safeguard of all in the Act of 1926 was the double safeguard that, wherever an amalgamation scheme was put forward, the Railway and Canal Commission, the judicial tribunal which bad to decide the issue, had to be satisfied with two things, namely, that the scheme was in the national interest, and that it was fair and equitable to the parties concerned.
    Obviously, that is the case to be tried, and, if it is necessary and desirable to give that jurisdiction to the Railway and Canal Commission in the case of schemes put forward by willing parties, or at any rate where some of the parties are willing, it is doubly important that we should have that safeguard absolutely unrestricted in the hands of the Railway and Canal Commission. When they come to consider any proposals which are being put forward by these commissioners, it may be they are against the opinion of the whole of the parties concerned. In such a case, you will be absolutely ousting the main jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission if you do not allow the parties to lay before them the question whether the proposal of the Commission was in the national interest and was fair. Indeed, if this Amendment
    2340
    to the proposed Clause were carried, you would oust the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, and you might just as well leave them out altogether. What this Amendment would do would be to make the commissioners judges in their own cause of the very thing to be tried, which is whether the commissioners' proposals are in the national interest and whether they are fair and equitable. The whole framework of these proposals would be undermined, and all the safeguards upon which the President of the Board of Trade has based himself and defended his plan would go by the board, if you take away the jurisdiction from the Railway and Canal Commission. I hope, therefore, that the President will not accept the Amendment to the proposed Clause.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I find it difficult to appreciate the point which is strictly before the Committee, because, as I explained, these proposals would appear to take away the functions of the Railway and Canal Commission, which make the whole of the structure of the Act of 1926. I will read the actual words which are proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman:
    "For the purposes of Sub-section (2) (a) of Section seven of that Act,… confirmation by the Railway and Canal Commission of any scheme prepared by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission and submitted to the Board of Trade shall be deemed to he in the national interest."
    That plainly is the function of the Railway and Canal Commission and their duty is to approve on the ground that it is in the national interest and fair and equitable to the parties. This would not happen according to the Amendment to the proposed Clause so far as I can follow it and it appears quite unnecessary.
    Sir B. PETO: The Amendment proposes to take away from the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission one of their principal functions, which is consider whether schemes put before them are in the national interest. The hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) tells us that if this august Commission, which he congratulates himself on being set up, brings a scheme before the Railway and Canal Commission, it is to be deemed to be in the national interest, and no more is to

    2341
    be said about it. We have already heard on the previous Clause that the Liberal party think that these new commissioners are better able than anybody in the industry to decide what is in the interest of the industry. Now in this proposed Clause they want to say that the commissioners are better able to decide than the Railway and Canal Commission what is in the national interest. It is another step towards nationalisation, and it will be instructive to see how far the Liberal party will go in that direction; what divides them from nationalisation now is next to nothing. The new Commission will, in fact, be merely a branch of a Government Department, and therefore we have this new doctrine, that, although we have an independent Court in the Railway and Canal Commission, yet on these questions of vital public interest, the members of the Liberal party would wish to take away from the Court all jurisdiction, and invest the whole authority in what is, in effect, a branch of a Department of the public service. I cannot conceive anybody who believes in individual enterprise possibly voting for the Amendment to the proposed Clause.
    Major NATHAN: I am sorry that I have not made the object of the Amendment to the proposed Clause clear. May I make another attempt? It seems to me essential to preserve the dignity of the Courts of Justice in this country, and I ask the Attorney-General if he will express his view on this matter. Here we have set up by this Bill a Commission consisting of five men, whose first function is to say whether a scheme is or is not in the national interest. That scheme has then to be sent to the Tribunal under the Act of 1926. It is not a scheme prepared under that Act; it is expressly stated in the Bill that it is to be deemed to be prepared under the Act of 1926, which is a different thing. Then it goes before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to consider a number of matters—whether the scheme is fair and equitable to all the parties concerned, and whether it is in the national interest. In other words, they have to consider exactly the same question which has already been considered and determined by the Commission before the scheme ever goes before the Tribunal at all.
    2342
    You have on the new Commission five technical men; you have on the Tribunal three eminent lawyers. I would recall to the learned Attorney-General a dictum of the present Lord Chancellor, when as Mr. Justice Sankey, he sat as Chairman of the Railway and Canal Commission in considering just such a case as this under the Mining Industry Act of 1926. In that case, after considering the whole of the evidence—and in another case, too—and when delivering judgment on behalf of the Railway and Canal Commission, he said that this very question of whether or not a scheme is in the national interest is not a suitable subject for a judicial tribunal. His words were:
    "This is a matter, not for the High Court of Justice, but for the High Court of Parliament."
    He expressed some regret that this question, which he considered it was impossible for a judicial tribunal to answer, should have been remitted by the Act of 1926 to the Railway and Canal Commission in its judicial capacity. Here is an opportunity for meeting the criticisms of the Lord Chancellor of the present Government. A technical tribunal set up by the High Court of Parliament should decide whether or not a scheme is in the national interest, and we should relieve the Railway and Canal Commission of the responsibility of making a decision which that Tribunal itself has said is a constitutional question which they regretted should have been remitted to it.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLANO-TROYTE: I am glad that the Government have resisted the Amendment to the proposed Clause, for it would have removed all safeguards. These commissioners are, after all, human, and, being human, they will be keen on their work; and, as it will be their business to bring about amalgamations, they will naturally tend to consider an amalgamation to be in the national interest. It is all the more important, therefore, that there should be the safeguard of the Railway and Canal Commission. It will be very interesting, if this Amendment goes to a Division, to see the Liberals vote for nationalisation, and the supporters of the Government vote against nationalisation.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment to the proposed Clause. The

    2343
    scheme under which this Bill is framed is that you can only get compulsory amalgamation if the amalgamation is approved by this Commission. That is the whole scheme of the Bill.
    Amendment to proposed Clause negatived.
    Captain PEAKE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that no such scheme of amalgamation shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the separation of the treating and disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object."
    This afternoon we have been sticking very close to the words of the 1926 Act and as the words of this Amendment to the proposed Clause, which stands in the name of myself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Home), are taken direct from that Act, I hope that will commend them to the President of the Board of Trade. The new Clause enables the commissioners to prepare and submit either an amalgamation scheme or an absorption scheme. The difference between an amalgamation scheme and an absorption scheme, if we refer to the 1926 Act, appears to be this: an amalgamation scheme is one where all the parties are willing, and an absorption scheme is one where some one or other of the parties is not willing. I am glad to see the learned Attorney-General agreeing with my construction of the law, because such law as I know I learned in his chambers. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms to have an amalgamation scheme in which all the parties are unwilling proposed at all by these commissioners. If the scheme propounded by the commissioners is an absorption scheme, then these words which I am asking the Committee to insert are unnecessary, because they are already imported, they exist in the 1926 Act. If the scheme be an absorption scheme, then we have this proviso, which I suggest should be included, applied. On the other hand, if the commissioners call the scheme an amalgamation, scheme, this proviso would not apply. Therefore, we
    2344
    have this position, that although everybody may be unwilling to come into an amalgamation, the commissioners, if they call it an absorption scheme, will have this proviso applying; but if they just call it an amalgamation scheme the proviso will not apply. I suggest, therefore, that it is reasonable to insert this proviso where a scheme is an amalgamation scheme, so as to put the two things on exactly the same footing.
    On the merits of this proposal, I want to say this: The object is exactly the reverse of the Amendment on which we had a discussion earlier this afternoon, because the idea here is that it shall not be in the power of the commissioners to split up into its component parts an undertaking already existing which is of a mixed nature. The earlier discussion sought to prevent an undertaking of a mixed nature being brought into a purely coal mining amalgamation. If we are to have a compulsory amalgamation, the commissioners ought not to be in the position of being able to pick and choose the plums of any particular undertaking for amalgamation, or for exclusion from the amalgamation. If you are going to have compulsion, and are saying to a man that he has got to come in, you should be compelled either to take his whole undertaking or not to take it at all.
    Mr. BATEY: How can you do that?
    Captain PEAKE: That is exactly what you can do, as the Bill now stands. The commissioners can propound a partial amalgamation scheme or a partial absorption scheme, taking, we will say, all the by-product plants in a particular district and making them into an absorbed or amalgamated undertaking, and that is exactly what I say should not be done.
    Mr. BATEY: But how would you do that? There are collieries belonging to Dorman Long and Company; they have blast furnaces at Middlesbrough and work collieries in order to supply those blast furnaces.
    Captain PEAKE: That is exactly the case which I am trying to meet. I am saying that in a case such as that of Dorman Long and Company you shall not amalgamate their collieries with collieries which are simply putting coal on the open market. It is perfectly obvious they

    2345
    could never get on. The object of Dorman Long and Company is to produce and sell their coal as cheap as they can, and the object of an ordinary coalowner is to sell his coal as dear as he can, and an amalgamation of the two would never work. The view which I am putting forward received considerable support, when the Mining Industry Act was being discussed in Committee in 1926, from Members representing mining constituencies who are now on the opposite side of the House. These very words were discussed in Standing Committee. What happened then was that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Secretary of State for War added to the 1926 Bill an Amendment containing these words, and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who, I am sorry to say, has just left the Committee, said, speaking on the Amendment:
    "I hope the Government are going to stand by their printed Amendment rather than by the suggested alternative, which allows the owners, if they think fit, to agree to the separation of the treating and the disposing from the working of the coal. Those closely associated with the industry and the conciliation boards and wages boards know that one of the burning questions over the last 20 years has been, not only the selling, but also this question of the treating of coal."
    He went on to say:
    "If the separation of treatment is allowed to go on under the amalgamation schemes, which enlarge the size of the concerns and make them much more effective from our point of view, the net result of the suggested alteration in the Amendment would be to intensify this question of transfer prices rather than to minimise it."
    That is exactly what my Amendment to the proposed Clause is going to prevent. It will prevent these commissioners separating the treatment of coal from the working of it or the disposing of it. It will prevent the very evil which hon. Members opposite have been arguing against for so many years. That is the first wing of my Amendment to the proposed Clause. The second wing is to meet the case of the vertical undertaking which at present has its own coal mines for its own purposes. It is to prevent the absorption of such coal mines into a group of mines whose interests must be immediately and completely opposed to the interests of the group with whom it is proposed to make them work.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot help thinking there is a good deal of misapprehension about this matter in various quarters of the Committee. May I put the matter quite simply, as I understand it? Before you can get any compulsory element at all—I am not dealing with voluntary schemes which any two people may make—you must get an order of the Railway and Canal Commission Court. Whenever the Railway and Canal Com mission Court functions, it does so under the terms and provisions of the Act of 1926. All these terms of the Act of 1926 are, therefore, operated here, and this Amendment is wholly unnecessary. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the terms of the Clause we are discussing, he will see that line 14 expressly provides
    "and that Act shall apply accordingly."
    and he will see that the last words of the proposed new Clause are:
    "This section shall be construed as one with Part I of the Act of 1926."
    Whenever, therefore, you go to the Railway and Canal Commission Court and ask it to approve something which could not be done without its approval, you operate under the Act of 1926—that is the territory and the ground upon which they have to act. As the hon. Member has told its, he borrowed the words from the Act of 1926.
    Captain PEAKE: My point is that in the 1926 Act this proviso applies only to absorption schemes and not to amalgamation schemes, and what I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is, Will a scheme proposed by the commissioners to which any single party is an unwilling party fall within the definition of an absorption scheme under the 1926 Act—if that is so, I am perfectly well satisfied—or will it be deemed to be an amalgamation scheme, in which case this proviso does not apply?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Surely the distinction between absorption and amalgamation must be looked at from the point of view of the person who is being taken over. The distinction is simply this. If a person is being taken over against his will, he is being absorbed, and there is a provision in the 1926 Act to the effect that you cannot take a person over against his will unless you take him over in such a way that you do not separate the concern. You must not provide for the separation of the treating and the disposal from the working. That

    2347
    is the whole point of absorption. A man who is being taken over against his will has a right to insist on those provisions in the 1926 Act. We are dealing in the hon. Member's Amendment with a case in which neither party is willing, and it is quite manifest that the provisions of the 1926 Act, which apply to a man who is being taken over against his will, must apply then. We are advised, and I personally consider it is so, that there is no need to accept the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment because it is unecessary.
    Captain PEAKE: This Clause appears to me to pre-suppose that some one party at any rate is unwilling, because the commissioners are only going to promote the scheme where the owners entitled to submit schemes are not prepared to do so. If that is the case, are not the words "an amalgamation scheme" in this new Clause unnecessary? Whatever scheme they prepare is bound to be an absorption scheme, there is no possibility of its being an amalgamation scheme, and therefore would it not be more reasonable to leave out the words "an amalgamation scheme" and simply leave it as an absorption scheme, in which case we should know where we stand?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It seems to me that it ought to be made perfectly clear that wherever there is a dissension, and somebody does not want to be brought in to these amalgamations, that will be an absorption, and it could not be an amalgamation. I rely upon the Attorney-General to instruct the Committee as to what is the right position. Let us assume that the commissioners have made a scheme which includes one undertaking that does not agree. Will that constitute an absorption or an amalgamation? If it is an absorption scheme, then it is covered by the last part of Section 1 of the Act of 1926. If it is covered, why use the words "amalgamation scheme" in the proposed new Clause? For what reason is this being done, if whenever there is a dissentient it must be an absorption scheme to be treated under the Act of 1926? I ask the Attorney-General to advise the Committee on that point.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am advising the Committee to the best of my ability.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not mean to do anything more than call attention to the fact that I did not know what the qualifying words are, and I want to be told.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman used the words which he did use. The position is this: You may have a scheme in which A, B, C and D wish to come together. A, B and C may be willing, and D may be unwilling. The first three would say, "We are being amalgamated" and D would say, "I am being absorbed." The provisions of the Act would protect D, and therefore these words are unnecessary from his point of view.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That seems to me to be a satisfactory explanation. If the single dissentient is being brought in and that is an absorption scheme, and that is covered by the Act, then I think this part of the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is the first part of the Amendment. The second part of the Amendment provides that the amalgamation shall not provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking,
    "for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object."
    I understand from what the Attorney-General has said that amalgamation may bring in not only undertakings of which the primary object is not coal mining, but also a coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object. I do not see how you could possibly separate a company of that kind from the scheme or undertaking. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that no undertaking which is a coal mine worked as ancillary to its main purpose could be forced into an amalgamation without its consent? Is the Attorney-General satisfied on that point?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am quite satisfied that that is so.
    Captain PEAKE: After that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 14, at the end, to insert the words

    2349
    "Provided that no such scheme of amalgamation or absorption shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the taking by the amalgamated or absorbing concern any investments, securities, money, or other property belonging to such undertaking and not essential for the coal workings of such undertaking."
    I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). The point is quite a short one, but it is one of some substance, and if it is not carried it may cause a sense of injustice, or, at any rate, dissatisfaction amongst a good many colliery companies. I have in mind the case of such a company which has been in operation for some considerable time, and the termination of its life is now within measurable and foreseeable distance. This company has naturally in the past provided full reserves, regarding its property as a wasting asset, with the result that it has large sums invested in outside securities such as War Loans and Treasury Bonds, with the intention, when the colliery is no longer workable, of replacing the shareholders' money out of its investments which have been prudently made for a number of years.
    As the Bill stands at present, its funds quite possibly would be taken over by the collieries absorbing the undertaking, possibly with a view to providing themselves with much needed working capital, and they might offer in exchange debentures or other securities in the amalgamation. My remarks also apply to land or other investments made outside the collieries, and not essential for its workings. Perhaps it may be said that this is covered by Section 7 of the Act of 1926, but I doubt if that is the case. While provision is made for the holder of any securities, if he is going to be absorbed, to lodge an objection, and if the Commission are satisfied that the substitution would not be fair, they can order in lieu of the proposed substitution that the securities shall be purchased at a price to be determined by the Commission. In the first place, it seems rather a waste of time for the Commission to purchase gilt-edged securities or Treasury Bonds from the absorbed company as not being essential to its business, and it would be very unjust should they purchase other securities such as land and investments which the colliery may not wish to sell, and which are not
    2350
    essential to the working of the new group. My Amendment will cover those points if it is accepted by the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: From many points of view this is a very difficult question. I notice that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) suggests that in any scheme of amalgamation or absorption it should be provided:
    "that no such scheme of amalgamation or absorption, shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the taking by the amalgamated or absorbing concern any investments securities, money or other property belonging to such undertaking and not essential for the coal workings of such undertaking."
    I gather that the hon. Member wishes to protect the interests of a concern from being appropriated by amalgamation in order to provide cash for other parts of the amalgamated undertaking. A question of that kind would be under the terms of the Act of 1926 for the Railway and Canal Commission to decide. I quite see the point raised by the hon. Member, but, strictly speaking, I do not think that an Amendment of this kind is necessary under the Act of 1926, and, although I do not think there is the slightest doubt about this matter, I am quite willing to reconsider it. With that explanation I hope the hon. Member will he satisfied.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then I understand that the President will reconsider this point before the Report stage, because it is a very important question. I am not quite sure whether without some direction in the Bill the Reorganisation Commission will have to perform that duty or whether the Railway and Canal Commission have any such power. I do not think that Parliament has provided any means of securing working capital for amalgamations, and whatever working capital is invested in the undertakings will form the working capital of the new undertakings. I do not think there is any provision that if two undertakings are Compulsorily amalgamated any provision has been made to find the working capital. I know that in the case of voluntary schemes when one undertaking sets out to amalgamate with another it has always been up to the one proposing the amalgamation to find the working capital. Now that the com-

    2351
    missioners are going to arrange these amalgamations, there is no power to carry out this object, and unless we give some direction in the Bill there will be a great temptation to amalgamate undertakings not so much for the coal as for the working capital they will bring in to strengthen the amalgamation. That is not fair and it is not the intention of the Bill. If the President of the Board of Trade will say definitely that he will meet this point between now and the Report stage, I shall be prepared to recommend my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment further to-night.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am still of the opinion that there will be no difficulty in this matter, but I will certainly give such an undertaking, because I have no doubt about it in my own mind.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. C. DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) For the purposes of any scheme under Part I of the Act of 1926 the value of the undertaking of every constituent or absorbed company shall be assessed upon the basis of what would have been the value thereof as between a willing buyer and a willing seller if this Act had not been passed, and no such scheme "hall be submitted to the Board of Trade under the said Part I unless the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission have certified that such values have been so assessed for the purposes of that scheme."
    8.0 p.m.
    This proposed Clause is, I think, the most important of the many new Clauses proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. Probably what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he put this Clause on the Paper, as it was also in my mind, was that an amalgamation should be on a fair basis, and the speeches in this Committee against amalgamation have been directed more against financial combinations such as have been disastrous to the coal trade. The purpose of this Amendment is that there shall be a definite instruction to the Commission and to those who propose to amalgamate under the powers conferred by this Measure that they shall
    2352
    only do so on a fair basis, and not on a purely financial basis with watered capital—that the constituent companies which form or are absorbed into the new amalgamation shall come in upon their fair valuation as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, shall pool their resources in the new undertaking, and shall hold in it the exact equivalent of what they have contributed. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that there shall be no financial juggling in the future with these amalgamated undertakings, but that, if there is to be compulsion, it shall be fair to everyone.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If we were dealing only with the ordinary amalgamations which have hitherto taken place—which, indeed, are the only kind of amalgamations contemplated by any-practical business man that. I have ever encountered, namely, amalgamations where at any rate some of the parties are willing—this, I think, would be a reasonable Amendment. But we are invited to contemplate the strange business proposition that we should have amalgamations which may include collieries which the so-called buyer does not in the least want to buy—that a colliery may be amalgamated, in what the Government are pleased to call the national interest, with its neighbours, although those neighbours may consider that their association with that colliery will depreciate and not enhance the value of their existing undertaking. I understand very well what is meant by the value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, where the one wishes to sell and the other wishes to buy; but how are you going to value in a case where the buyer, as he is in fact, does not in fact desire to buy the undertaking which is being thrust upon him, and considers that it is a liability and not an asset? I do not see how any valuer could attempt to make such a valuation under this or any other Clause, and I should like to know, before we part with this Amendment to the proposed Clause, how a valuation in that case is going to be made.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In everyday practice valuers have to make valuations as between a willing buyer and a willing seller where in fact there is no evidence that there is actually a buyer or a seller at all. Take the ordinary case of the valuation of land for the pur-

    2353
    pose of Estate Duty. It may be that there is no question of buying or selling at all, but the valuation has to be carried through on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller. The phrase is perfectly well understood. I understand that the object of this Amendment is merely to provide safeguards against watered capital, and, as such, I am authorised to say that the Government are prepared to accept it.
    Amendment to proposed Clause agreed to.
    Mr. C. DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 15, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the word "is," in line 16.
    This Amendment is purely consequential upon the last Amendment. The object is to provide that in the case of any scheme the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission shall be entitled to appear and be heard at any proceedings in connection with the scheme.
    Amendment to proposed Clause' agreed to.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 17, to leave out the word "first-mentioned," and to insert instead thereof the words "Coal Mines Reorganisation."
    This Amendment also is consequential on those which have been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). The result of his Amendments, read with mine, will be that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission will be entitled to appear as a party before the tribunal under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, whenever any scheme for amalgamation or absorption is presented to that tribunal, irrespective of whether the scheme is brought forward by the Reorganisation Commission or by other parties.
    Amendment to proposed Clause agreed to.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(3) The Railway and Canal Commission shall have power in their absolute discretion to order that the costs of and incidental to any proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission in connection with any scheme prepared and submitted under this
    2354
    Section shall be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament to the owners of any undertaking included in the scheme who successfully object before the Railway and Canal Commission to the confirmation of the scheme, and the payment of such costs shall be deemed to be an expense required to be defrayed for the purpose of this Act."
    I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin). The object is to make some provision for cases in which the Railway and Canal Commissioners decide that a scheme presented to them is not an appropriate scheme, and desire to award costs against the Reorganisation Commissioners for at any rate part of the expenses incurred in presenting the scheme. Unless I am very much mistaken, there is nothing in the Bill which provides for what this Amendment seeks to do, nor, indeed, is any fund provided out of which these costs can be obtained. Obviously, it would produce great injustice if parties were haled before the Railway and Canal Commission by these Reorganisation Commissioners, and the Railway and Canal Commission were not satisfied that a good case had been made out for the proposed amalgamation, and yet, in spite of all the expense involved, there was no power to award costs and no fund at the disposal of the Court from which costs could be awarded to the successful party and against the unsuccessful commissioners. I am fortified in asking for this by the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade last night, when he said:
    "Where the statutory commissioners have formed a scheme and taken it to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who have to decide, and those commissioners decide that the scheme is not an appropriate one, the Railway and Canal Commission will give costs against the statutory commissioners." [OFFICAL. REPOT, 25the February, 1930: col. 2190, Vol. 235.]
    I am sure that that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I move this Amendment in the hope that we may be assured that there is provision for the Railway and Canal Commissioners to give costs against the Reorganisation Commissioners, should they not approve' of a proposal, and that there are also resources from which such costs can be provided.
    Commodore KING: I only rise because I am afraid that we are going to get no reply from the Government. It really would be an intolerable situa-

    2355
    tion if, certain unwilling parties having been taken before the Railway and Canal Commission by the Reorganisation Commissioners, and the Railway and Canal Commission having turned down the scheme, those unwilling parties should have to bear their own expenses without any redress or possibility of' obtaining the expenses which they have been compelled to incur. This is a very reasonable and, if I may say so, just Amendment, and I can hardly think that the Attorney-General will disagree with it. I think he will agree that in the ordinary way, if people are needlessly put to the trouble and expense of defending an action, and if they successfully defend it, there should be some source from which they can be repaid the expense to which they have been put.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Amendment to the proposed Clause asks for that which is perfectly-reasonable, but it is wholly unnecessary. There really is a very large measure of misapprehension. If a compulsory scheme is made, the whole of the provisions of the Act of 1926 apply, and one of the provisions of the Act is that the Railway and Canal Commission have full discretion as to costs, the only qualification being by reason of the first Clause on the Order Paper. The proviso at the end of the Clause says:
    "Provided that a sum equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the employment of such agents as aforesaid for the purpose of promoting or assisting the amalgamation of any undertakings shall, in the event of the undertakings being amalgamated, be repaid to the board by the owners of the amalgamated undertaking."
    It is plain that the qualification, in express terms, only applies where the undertakings are amalgamated. The Amendment deals with a case where the application foe amalgamation or absorption is not successful, and consequently that qualification does not apply. I will trace the exact steps by which the Railway and Canal Commission get their complete and absolute discretion and power over costs. First of all, in Section 19 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, there is this provision:
    "The costs of and incidental to every proceeding before the commissioners shall be
    2356
    in the discretion of the commissioners, who can order by whom and to whom the same are to be paid and by whom the same are to be attached and allowed."
    That Section gives in terms a very wide and complete discretion. Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, says:
    "In proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commissioners other than disputes between two or more companies, the commissioners shall not have power to award costs on either side unless they are of opinion that either the claim or the defence has been frivolous and vexatious."
    That imposed a bar, and, if the matter had stood so, the bar would have remained. Then you come to Section 10 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, which provides:
    "The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactments relating to the procedure for the determination of questions under that Act (including the provisions relating to appeals), shall apply to the determination of questions relating to applications under this Act as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the provisions of this Act. Provided that (c) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall not be limited in the manner provided by Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894."
    I have given three steps. The first is a perfectly wide discretion, the second a limitation in certain events and the third removing for the purposes of the Mines Act the limitations imposed by the Section. Then you come to the Mining Industry Act of 1926. Section 24 (1) says:
    "The jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission under this Act shall be deemed to be part of their jurisdiction under and for the purposes of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. 1888, and Section 10 of the Mines Working Facilities and Support Act, 1923, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply in respect to proceedings under this Act in like manner as it applies to the determination of questions relating to applications under that Act."
    Under the last words of Sub-section (5), there is that qualification to which I have referred but for the reasons I have given it does not apply. The hon. Member may take it from me that there is ample power and discretion in the Railway and Canal Commission Court to award costs so long as the application is unsuccessful. I was also asked out of what funds will those costs be provided. Last night, we passed this Clause.

    2357
    "The Board of Trade may appoint a secretary to the Commission, and the Commission may employ such officers and servants as the Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine, and there shall he paid by the Board such remuneration to the commissioners and to the secretary, officers and servants of the Commission, and such other expenses of the Commission, as the Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."
    It is obvious that any costs which the Commission might be ordered to pay clearly fall within the words "other expenses of the Commission." If they do not, the unhappy commissioners of course will have to pay them out of their own pockets, and in that case we shall have to take steps to reimburse them, but it is plain that they fall within those words, and you have here ample discretion in the Railway and Canal Commission Court to do what is proper and a fund out of which the costs shall be paid. For these reasons I quite agree that the steps here proposed are reasonable, but I oppose the Amendment, not because I quarrel with the principle which it seeks to set forth, but because it is wholly unnecessary.
    Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I hope the Attorney-General will give an undertaking that the wording of this matter shall be considered before Report, because it seems to me to be more than doubtful whether we can possibly say that the costs to be paid to a successful party before the Railway and Canal Commission are expenses of the Commission. It seems to me to be a very dangerous prop for those whom everyone wants to safeguard to lean upon. As long as we are agreed about the principle, it is not necessary to take up time about it, but I consider that this Clause, or something like it, is necessary.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and learned Gentleman entertains any doubt about it I certainly will reconsider it Doubt in such a quarter should be a matter for consideration. But it is only fair to say that I have already considered the matter and I have had the very able assistance that one gets on these occasions and I entertain not the smallest doubt. But I will gladly reconsider it.
    Amendment to proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 30, after the word "Act," to insert the words
    "except for the purpose of determining any question upon an objection lodged under proviso (b) of section seven (2) of that Act."
    Sub-section (4) of the Clause provides that, as long as the coal Mines Reorganisation Commission certifies a particular scheme to be in the national interest, it shall not be necessary to refer it to the Railway and Canal Commission, and so far I agree that that is perfectly reasonable. But in Section 7 of the Act of 1926 it is obligatory upon the Railway and Canal Commission, to whom a scheme is referred, to confirm it provided they are satisfied that it is in the national interest and that its terms are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby. It is clear, therefore, that merely for the purpose of having the question determined whether or not a scheme is in the national interest, it is unnecessary to go to the Railway and Canal Commission if we have already the certificate of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. But there is an omission. One point has either been overlooked or intentionally left out. If it has intentionally been left out it is a very serious point which ought to be dealt with. It is this: The Railway and Canal Commission, of course, have also to be satisfied that the terms are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby.
    Let the Committee remember that the persons affected thereby are not merely the owners of the various units which may be amalgamated, but the shareholders in any given unit. In paragraph (b) of the same Section it was provided that if, upon an objection lodged by the holder of any securities in one of the constituent or absorbed companies to whom by the scheme securities in the amalgamated or principal company were allocated in substitution therefor, the commissioners were satisfied that the substitution would not be fair in his case, they might order that, instead, his existing securities should be purchased. You have there the case of the shareholder or the class of shareholders whose interests might be unfairly affected by what was otherwise a perfectly proper amalgamation between the units concerned protected by the Railway and Canal Com-

    2359
    mission having power to order the purchase of his shares. In the case in which the Goal Mines Reorganisation Commission say that the scheme is in the national interest, we are agreed that it is not necessary that for that purpose it should go before the Railway and Canal Commission. Indeed under the proposed Clause the scheme has not to go before them at all. That automatically deprives the shareholder or class of shareholders who might be injured by such a scheme of this very necessary protection which is provided in paragraph (b) of Section 7 of the Act of 1926.
    The words which I propose to insert are designed to safeguard and to maintain that provision in the interest of those shareholders. It may be said in answer, "It is not only when merely the Commission certifies that a scheme is in the national interest that this has not to go before the Railway and Canal Commission, but you have also the owners submitting a scheme representing that it is not necessary to go to the Railway and Canal Commission." It might be said that that is a safeguard to the shareholders. That does not really cover the point at all. The particular unit, the colliery company as a whole, may very definitely wish to be amalgamated. That was so in the Act of 1926, yet where there were voluntary amalgamations, pure and simple, it was thought necessary to protect the minority of shareholders. The mere fact, therefore, that the owner, that is, the colliery itself, desires to be amalgamated and does not think that the matter need go before the Railway and Canal Commission, is not in itself any protection at all. The interests of shareholders or groups of shareholders which have to be protected are separate from the interests of the colliery unit.
    What we are discussing is the substitution of shares in a colliery with which a man may be perfectly satisfied to hold for shares in a compulsory amalgamation in which it is uncertain as to who is to find the working capital, and an amalgamation which may be handicapped at the start by the obligation to pay all the costs of amalgamation, if there is an amalgamation, to which the learned Attorney-General referred in the course of the discussion on the previous Amend-
    2360
    ment. I would point out further that this may affect, not merely dissentient shareholders, and minority shareholders, but, in the case obviously of a great many persons engaged in the coal mining industry, it may affect banks and others to whom shares may have been mortgaged. Up and down the country there must be a great many instances where shares in existing colliery undertakings have been mortgaged as security to banks, and their interests have to be protected as well as the interests of the shareholders. I submit that this Amendment is really necessary to afford protection, and that it is at least as necessary under the present Measure as it was when it was put into the Act of 1926.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Were it not that this Amendment has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), for whose legal acumen and powers I have such a profound regard, I should have ventured to say that there was here a complete misapprehension. Perhaps he will allow me to see if I cannot do that most satisfactory of all things, convince even him.
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: Why "even"?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Because it is so very difficult for a man to be convinced that he is wrong. In his concluding words, the hon. and learned Gentleman said something about the man who might have to exchange his shares in an undertaking which he liked very much for shares in some compulsorily amalgamated undertaking. I would point out to him, first of all, that this Sub-section (4) with which we are dealing, and in the middle of which the Amendment which he proposes comes, deals with this. It deals with the amalgamation scheme submitted to the Board of Trade by the owners of two or more undertakings under Section I (1) of the Act of 1926. Let us be quite clear about that. The hon. and learned Member will agree with me that this Clause applies only to wholly voluntary schemes where everybody agrees. These are the only schemes which come under Section I (1) of the Act of 1926. The words are:
    "Where… two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines agree to amalgamate their undertakings wholly or partially."

    2361
    What happens at the present time? It two or more people agree to amalgamate their undertakings, there is no earthly reason in the world why they should go before the Railway and Canal Commission at all, save for one purpose, and for one purpose only. It may be considered necessary by the amalgamated undertaking that there should be some new issue of capital and the Railway and Canal Commission have the power in such cases as are proper to provide that such new capital or issue shall be exempt from certain Stamp Duties and so on. That is the sole reason today why two people who are agreeing to amalgamate go before the Railway and Canal Commission Court at all. The sole object of this Clause is that, without having the trouble of going to the Railway and Canal Commission Court, you can effect the purpose and the sole purpose for which the Canal Commission exists in this matter, namely, the remission of Stamp Duty. It has nothing to do, as the hon. and learned Member, I hope, will realise, with any other case at all. That is the sole purpose for which this Sub-section is here inserted.
    I entirely agree with him that, although we are dealing here with a case where undertakings agree, and want to amalgamate, we must remember that the undertakings may be companies, and that there may be a dissentient shareholder or a group of dissentient shareholders who, although the two companies as a whole wish to be amalgamated, dissent, and dissent vigorously. The hon. and learned Member said that we must provide for such a case as that, but I would point out that the protection of the right of a dissentient shareholder, who regards himself as being prejudiced by the action of the majority of the shareholders of the company, is provided for, altogether apart from this legislation, in the recent Companies Act. In the Companies Act, 1929, Sections 154 and 155, there is set out an elaborate code which prevents a dissentient shareholder in cases such as these from being "put upon," if I may use such a phrase, by the majority. Section 154 makes
    "Provision for facilitating reconstruction and amalgamation of companies."
    Section 155 gives:
    "Power to acquire shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority."
    2362
    There is set out a very elaborate code under which a dissentient minority, who regard themselves as being ill-treated in the case of any proposed amalgamation, have the right to go to Court and to ask the Court to protect them. That can be done under he ordinary law of the land which applies to companies. We are dealing simply and solely in this Clause with a purely voluntary matter, where two companies agree, and any relief to which a dissentient shareholder is entitled, by virtue of holding shares in the company, can be got under the Companies Act, 1929, where his position is fully provided for. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he has not appreciated quite clearly that the sole object of Sub-section 4 is to enable the Board of Trade to give remission from Stamp Duty without it being necessary to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, which previously was the only body that could give it.
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: I followed the first part of the Attorney-General's explanation, with which I thoroughly agreed, but I am reluctantly compelled to say that I am not convinced by the second part, because we have here, admittedly, a case which, but for this proviso, would have to go before the Railway and Canal Commission.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would only have to go before the Railway and Canal Commission if the new amalgamated company wanted to issue fresh capital. Otherwise, there is no earthly reason for going before that Court.
    Sir B. MERRIMAN: In a great many cases it would be necessary. My point is that you are taking away from a dissentient shareholder, in a case where he now has to go before the Railway and Canal Commission, the right which he would have under Section 7 (2, b). If he has to go before the Railway and Canal Commission I suppose there can be no doubt that they would have powers, which they have under Section 7 (2, b), of protecting minority shareholders. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the right which shareholders in any ordinary company have under the Companies Act is really an efficient substitute for the right that exists when you have the Railway and Canal Commission in a position

    2363
    to give a particular form of compensation in a case which they themselves think just. I would invite the Attorney-General to consider whether it is not right that in a limited class of case in which that
    protection would otherwise be available, that protection should be maintained.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 271.

    Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)

    McKinlay, A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Hamilton, Sir H. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Shield, George William

    Harbison, T. J.

    McShane, John James

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Harbord, A.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Shinwell, E.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mansfield, W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Harris, Percy A.

    March, S.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Marcus, M.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Markham, S. F.

    Sinkinson, George

    Haycock, A. W.

    Marley, J.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Marshall, Fred

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Mathers, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Melville, Sir James

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S)

    Messer, Fred

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Millar, J. D.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Mills, J. E.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Herriotts, J.

    M liner, J.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Montague, Frederick

    Snell, Harry

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Morely, Ralph

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Mort, D. L.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Isaacs, George

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Sullivan, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Muff, G.

    Sutton, J. E.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Johnston, Thomas

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Toole, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Tout, W. J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Townend, A. E.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Palin, John Henry.

    Turner, B.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Perry, S. F.

    Walker, J.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Kinley, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Potts, John S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Knight, Holford

    Price, M. P.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Lang, Gordon

    Pybus, Percy John

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Lathan, G.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Westwood, Joseph

    Law, A (Roesendale)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Richards, R.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Leach, W.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Lees, J.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Rowson, Guy

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Longden, F.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Lowth, Thomas

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Lunn, William

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    McElwee, A.

    Scott, James

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sexton, James

    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 41, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the word "are" in line 32.
    This proposed Clause has already been the subject of much discussion. The learned Attorney-General, in answer to the late Solicitor-General, if I understood him aright, said that the object of Section 5, Sub-section (2) of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, was to exempt an amalgamating concern from the application of the duty in respect of capital, but that is by no means the whole of
    2366
    the relief given by Sub-section (2). It also relieves the amalgamating concern of Stamp Duty in respect of conveyances, assignments or transfer of any of the property or securities of any constituent or absorbed company in pursuance of any scheme. It is one of the great advantages of the Act of 1926 that there is this exemption not only from capital duty but also from transfer and conveyance duties, which are sometimes far in excess of the capital duty involved. The scheme of Sub-section (4) of this new Clause, as I understand it, and as I

    2367
    followed the explanation of the Attorney-General, is this; that where an amalgamation scheme is voluntarily agreed to and the amalgamating concerns do not require to go to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Act of 1926, then, subject to a condition, the amalgamating concerns will have certain advantages under that Act. Those conditions are two. In the first place, the Reorganisation Commission shall certify that the scheme is in the national interest and, in the second place, the Board of Trade shall certify, as regards certain particulars—namely, capital, new share capital and debentures; that the scheme is reasonable. Then, and only then, is the concern to be entitled to the advantages of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 1926. If that is so, a concern which voluntarily comes together to form an amalgamation, and which decides to avail itself of the opportunity of settling its own affairs instead of troubling the Railway and Canal Commission, is in a worse position than if it actually had to go through all the routine and embark upon all the expense of proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission.
    My Amendment to the proposed Clause simply involves the deletion of the limiting words that the Board of Trade's consent shall be required in reference to share capital and debenture capital. The Clause would read, with my Amendment incorporated, that if the Board of Trade certify that the provisions of the scheme are reasonably required for the purpose of the amalgamation, then all the advantages of the Act, under Section 7, Subsection (2), shall flow to the amalgamated concern. It seems to me that coal mining undertakings ought to be encouraged to make their own arrangements voluntarily without recourse to the new Organisation Commission, and without recourse to the long and difficult and expensive procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission. If the learned Attorney-General's object is to safeguard the revenue as regards the capital duties, that is not affected by the Amendment, because the Sub-section as it remains will read that the Board of Trade must be satisfied that the proposals are reasonably required for the purpose of the amalgamation. If they be in the national interest as certified by the Organisation Commission, and if they be
    2368
    certified by the Board of Trade to be reasonably required for the purpose of the amalgamation, I cannot understand why those concerned should be in a worse position than if they had embarked upon all the circumlocution of proceedings before the tribunal.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Notwithstanding the discussion which we have had, there still seems to be some misapprehension with regard to the effect of this Sub-section (4) of the proposed Clause. May I state again, in order to make matters clear, that this applies and applies only where two concerns voluntarily agree to amalgamate. There is no element of compulsion in this at all. Where two concerns voluntarily agree to amalgamate, the only reason why they come before the Railway and Canal Commission Court is to get the benefits of exemption from certain Stamp Duties which they otherwise might have to pay if the amalgamated concern issued additional capital.
    Major NATHAN: Will the Attorney-General allow me to draw his attention not only to the explicit provisions of the Section, but to my own practical experience in operating the Act? If I understood aright the information which he has just given to the Committee, I fail to see how it complies with the provisions of the Statute, because it is not merely for the sake of saving on capital duty that willing amalgamators voluntarily proceed under the Mines Act of 1926. It is for other and larger benefits, of which some are comprised in Sub-section (2) of Section 5. These are in a sense capital duty, but they relate to what may be far more important, namely, conveyance, assignment, or transfer. It is not merely for the purpose of obviating the payment of further capital duty.
    9.0 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite agree, and I am sorry if I said anything to the contrary. I used a general word, and I was about to give details. They do get certain financial concessions. That is the sole reason why two concerns, each of whom wants to amalgamate, go before the Railway and Canal Commission Court. Under the new scheme of this Sub-section (4) all that happens is this: We say, "You can get your financial concessions without taking the trouble to go to the

    2369
    Railway and Canal Commission Court. The Board of Trade can, in given circumstances, give you those same concessions." if the hon. and gallant Member read the words he will see that it is provided that Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 1926 shall apply. Therefore, if the Board give their certificate, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 applies in toto. Part of it is capital, and part of it is financial concessions in regard to conveyance and assessment and transfers. We have to guard against one possible contingency: Stamp Duty, as the Committee realises well, is payable on nominal capital, and not only on issued capital. Suppose you have two companies agreeing to amalgamate. They might, in view of possible contingencies of future requirements, put in a very large sum as the nominal capital, and if the Board of Trade then approves they will get the benefit of that nominal capital without any Stamp Duty at all.
    To prevent any misuse being made of that, we say that the Board of Trade is to look at this thing not from one point of view only, just as the Railway and Canal Commission Court looks at these agreements from one point of view only; we say that the Board of Trade has to consider any debentures, or the issue of any share or loan capital. We say, in substance, that so long as the Board of Trade is satisfied that the nominal capital which the amalgamated concern is proposing to have is not in excess of requirements, the Board of Trade can do that which previously the Railway and Canal Commission Court used to do, and confer on the amalgamated concerns the whole benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 1926. If any further answer was needed, I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that under Section 55 of the Finance Act of 1927 it is now only necessary to deal with additional capital, since this other relief can be given under that Section. With all respect, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved his Amendment under a misapprehension.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am very much obliged and I am sure all the Members of the Committee are obliged, to the Attorney-General for the explanation which we have just heard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise how extraordinarily difficult
    2370
    it is for any person who has not had a legal training to follow the various ramifications of these proposals, and we would be further obliged to him if he could state in language, shall we say, fitted for childish readers, what is the actual effect of this Amendment. To me it seems to make absolutely no difference, but apparently there is some subtle difference involved in the retention or otherwise of these words in the Clause. Does this proposal mean that any fresh capital which was raised would not be chargeable with Stamp Duty, but that existing capital transferred would be chargeable?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Only additional capital.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Then what would be the effect of leaving out these words? Would it have an adverse effect upon the receipts of the Treasury, and if so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any estimate of the amount involved in normal transfers concerning those collieries which will probably come under this scheme? Is it possible to give the Committee any indication of what the loss would be? I am only asking that this matter should be explained because we may be called upon to vote on the Amendment in a very short time and I should like to be as clear upon it as it is possible for a non-legal mind to be on a complicated subject of this character.
    Amendment to proposed Clause negatived.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 35, after the word "Commission," to insert the words
    "and sub-section (4) and (5) of section seven of that Act (which provide, inter alia, that a scheme under the Act of 1926 shall, when confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission, be binding on all persons, and that trustees may hold securities of the amalgamated company in substitution for securities in a constituent company)."
    It will be observed that the proposed new Clause as it stands provides that certain provisions of the Act of 1926 shall apply to an amalgamation scheme, even though that scheme has not been submitted to the Railway and Canal Commission, subject to the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (4). Now Section 7, Sub-section (4) of the Act of 1926 provides that a scheme when confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission shall be

    2371
    binding on all persons and Section 7, Subsection (5) of the same Act authorises trustees to hold securities in the amalgamated concerns:
    "any trustee… who at the date of the amalgamation held… any securities of the constituent or absorbed company, shall be entitled to hold the securities of the amalgamated or principal company."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is hardly necessary for me to repeat that this Sub-section (4) of the proposed new Clause deals simply and solely with voluntary amalgamations and it would be quite improper to make such amalgamations binding upon all persons. The whole scheme of this legislation is that if you are going to make these schemes binding on persons who do not consent, they must have the protection of being able to go before a court of law—the Raliway and Canal Commission—and it is the Railway and Canal Commission, and that Commission alone, which can make a scheme binding on a person who does not want it to be made binding upon him. If we did what is suggested, we should be, in fact, usurping the proper functions of the court, and allowing the Board of Trade by executive order to make these schemes binding on all sorts of persons. I cannot state too plainly that the Subsection of the proposed new Clause which we are now discussing derives its whole force and effect from the fact that it deals only with cases in which all the parties concerned voluntarily come together and say that they want to amalgamate. That being so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman I am sure will appreciate the fact that it is quite impossible for us to accept here an Amendment whch is, I think, quite out of place.
    Amendment to proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    Commodore KING: Before we part with this Clause, I should like to register one more protest against the arguments which we have heard from the Government with regard to the procedure under this compulsory scheme, as compared with the procedure laid down in the Act of 1926 where a certain measure of agreement was contemplated. We have under this Measure to deal with cases where
    2372
    every single unit of the proposed amalgamation disagrees with it. We have been told several times to-day that all these cases—even though there is complete disagreement and though everybody is being compelled—are covered in the terms of Section 1 of the Act of 1926. I cannot see how that argument can be maintained. In the first place, in the proposed new Clause itself we are specifically told that where
    "the owners of such undertakings entitled under that Act to prepare and submit such schemes, are not prepared to do so, the commissioners shall themselves prepare and submit to the Board of Trade an. amalgamation scheme or absorption scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Act of 1926 and for the purposes of that part of that Act, any scheme so prepared and submitted by the commissioners shall be deemed to have been prepared and submitted in manner provided by Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 1 of that Act.'"
    We know that the law does peculiar things and sometimes we think it does very stupid things, but when there is a Section of the Act of 1926, which applies only to cases in which there is a measure of agreement, how can the Government say that a case where everybody disagrees, shall be deemed to come within that Section. The Attorney-General quite clearly pointed out to us what was laid down in Section 1, Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1926. It most distinctly applies to coal mines which agree to amalgamate. Where everybody disagrees, it is futile to refer us to the procedure under a Section which contemplates cases where everybody agrees. Again we find that Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1926, to which we are also referred, deals with cases where a certain number of the units proposed to be amalgamated, disagree, but even there a certain number of the units which wish to be amalgamated, have to put forwar a scheme. Under the Act of 1926 absorption is dealt with. One can understand, where you have at least one willing concern wishing to be amalgamated, that such a firm would be capable of absorbing the others. But when no one agrees, how can you point to that procedure and say there is to be absorption schemes? Who are to do the absorbing? It might be said that the Commission are to pick out one of the unwilling owners and say he must do it. How is that unwilling owner going to meet the burden? I maintain that it is

    2373
    futile. It is hardly giving due regard to the common-sense of the Committee to be told that one matter is white and that it shall be deemed to be black because the Government put it into the Clause of the Bill. You cannot make that cover the case of the present Clause, where it is agreed that in some cases every single owner may be in disagreement. I have not been convinced, from the opinion expressed, as to how that procedure is going to be made to apply, and therefore I make this final protest before we take the Clause.
    Major HARVEY: I do not speak as a coalowner or as one who has anything to do with coal, but I submit that a Clause of this kind is an extraordinarily dangerous one to pass without protest by one, or more than one, Member on these

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES.

    [9.19 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Watt)

    Day, Harry

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Alpass, J. H.

    Dukes, C.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Duncan, Charles

    Isaacs, George

    Angell, Norman

    Ede, James Chuter

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Arnott, John

    Edge, Sir William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Atke, Sir Robert

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Ayles, Walter

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Egan, W. H.

    Jones, J. J. (west Ham, Silvertown)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Batey, Joseph

    England, Colonel A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Freeman, Peter

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Benson, G.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Gill, T. H.

    Kinley, J.

    Blindell, James

    Gillett, George M.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Knight, Holford

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gould, F.

    Lang, Gordon

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lathan, G.

    Brockway, A. Fennar

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Bromfield, William

    Granville, E.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Bromley, J.

    Gray, Milner

    Lawrence, Susan

    Brooke, W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridgs)

    Brothers, M.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lawson, John James

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Leach, W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lees, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N)

    Halt, G. H, (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Caine, Derwent Hall.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkneys & Zetland)

    Longden, F.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Harbison, T. J.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Charleton, H. C.

    Harbord, A.

    Lunn, William

    Chater, Daniel

    Hardie, George D.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Harris, Percy A.

    McElwee, A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    McEntee, V. L.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    McKinlay, A.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Haycock, A. W.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Compton, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Cove, William G.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    McShane, John James

    Daggar, George

    Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Dallas, George

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Mansfield, W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    March, S.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Herriotts, J.

    Marcus, M.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Markham, S. F.

    benches. The question raised by my hon. Friend seems to be one of great substance, indeed. As an ordinary backbencher I must join with him in registering a strong protest against a Clause of this kind for compulsory amalgamation, even where every party disagrees. I say that it is a dangerous proposition. Another matter that seems not to have been sufficiently considered is that of capital. Perhaps they are not familiar as to the way in which capital is raised for these undertakings. I do not wish to extend the Debate, but will content myself with these few words of protest.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 115.

    Marley, J.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Sullivan, J.

    Marshall, Fred

    Romeril, H. G.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Mathers, George

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

    Messer, Fred

    Rowson, Guy

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Mills, J. E.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Toole, Joseph

    Morley, Ralph

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Tout, W. J.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Scott, James

    Turner, B.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Sexton, James

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Muff, G.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Walker, J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Shield, George William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Palin, John Henry.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Sinkinson, George

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Perry, S. F.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Potts, John S.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Price, M. P.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Snell, Harry

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Richards, R.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Ritson, J.

    Strauss, G. R.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Penny, Sir George

    Albery, Irving James

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Reid, David U. (County Down)

    Atkinson, C.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Balniel, Lord

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Savery, S. S.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Boyce, H. L.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Train, J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Long, Major Erie

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Womersley, W. J.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Captain Margesson and Major the

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 50, s. 5 (2).)
    The expenses of the Board of Trade which are by this Act directed to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament shall not be taken into account in computing the amount of the expenses of the Department of Mines for the purposes of the limit imposed by sub-section (2) of section five of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, upon the expenses of that department.—[Mr. W. Graham.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    As hon. Members are aware under the Mining Industry Act, 1920, there is a limit to the animal expenditure of the Mines Department of £250,000. Clearly, if the expenditure incurred under this Bill upon amalgamation schemes were included in the ordinary Mines Department Vote, that amount would be very greatly exceeded, and in order to get rid of that difficulty we separate that expenditure, that is to say, we take it outside the limitation altogether. The Clause is necessary for that purpose.
    Captain BOURNE: I have only one question to ask. If the expenditure is not to be shown under the Vote of the Mines Department, where will it be given in the Estimates and where will the House have an opportunity of discussing it? I have no objection to the Clause, but I wish to know where it will be discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman says it will not come on the Vote of the Mines Department.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say precisely off-hand on which Vote it will be borne. I am in a little doubt, at the moment, as to whether it may be on the Board of Trade Vote or which Vote, but in any case it will be shown in one Vote or the other. The only object of the Clause is to get round the restriction in the Act of 1920.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is vital that there should be the fullest opportunity of discussing any expenditure which may take place under this Clause. The hon. Gentleman defeated, on a Division, a Motion of mine that certain matters should be put in order, and he defended his resistance to the proposal on the ground that there would be the fullest opportunity of discussion, on some Vote or other, of every single thing spent under
    2378
    this provision. I, equally, have no objection to this Clause going through, as long as it is clearly understood that we cannot let it go through without a Division except on the clear understanding that the whole expenditure will be shown on the appropriate Vote and the proper Parliamentary opportunity will be available for discussing it.
    Mr. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend need not have the smallest hesitation on that point. Whatever the precise Vote may be, the expenditure will be shown and against that expenditure, in so far as these expenses are recovered from the amalgamated undertakings, they will be shown in the form of an Appropriation-in-Aid. At the moment it is a little difficult to say on what precise Vote it will be, but it will be shown on a Vote for which there will be an opportunity for discussion in this House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Selling-price of coal for export.)
    No owner of a coal mine shall sell for export any class of coal at a price lower than the price charged by him for such class of coal when sold for bunkering ships, [Sir B. Chadwick.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir BURTON CHADWICK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), myself and others, is on a matter of most vital interest to the shipping industry. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has had a conversation with the President of the Board of Trade, who desires that this particular Clause should be moved in the latter part of Clause 1 of the Bill. If that is so, and he will assure me that there will be every opportunity then of moving it, I am quite willing to withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The explanation, subject to the Ruling of the Chair, of our preferring to take this Clause with Part I of the Bill, is that Part I has not yet been reached, and that it clearly relates to Part I. It deals with a class of coal with a particular definition and, strictly speaking, this is not a new

    2379
    Clause, but an Amendment which should come at an appropriate point in Part I of the Bill. If the hon. Member will withdraw it, he will have a full opportunity of discussion when Part I is reached.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  POOR LAW BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and re ported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read to and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes before Ten o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  SKILLED WORKMEN, DOCKYARDS.
  SKILLED WORKMEN, DOCKYARDS.
  DOCKYARDS (TENDERS).
  DOCKYARDS (TENDERS).
  PULVERISED COAL FUEL.
  PULVERISED COAL FUEL.
  CHATHAM DOCKYARD (EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES).
  CHATHAM DOCKYARD (EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES).
  NEW SURVEYING VESSEL.
  NEW SURVEYING VESSEL.
  ATLANTIC FLEET UNITS (VISIT, TYNESIDE).
  ATLANTIC FLEET UNITS (VISIT, TYNESIDE).
SCOTLAND.
  TEACHERS.
  TEACHERS.
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
  STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
  KENYA (ESTIMATES).
  KENYA (ESTIMATES).
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT.
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT.
  COLONIAL OFFICE CONFERENCE.
  COLONIAL OFFICE CONFERENCE.
  BESSARABIA (TREATY).
  BESSARABIA (TREATY).
  BRITISH AIRCRAFT (FOREIGN TERRITORIES).
  BRITISH AIRCRAFT (FOREIGN TERRITORIES).
  TIBET (BRITISH OFFICIAL RESIDENTS).
  TIBET (BRITISH OFFICIAL RESIDENTS).
  CYPRUS.
  CYPRUS.
RUSSIA.
  BRITISH EMBASSY.
  BRITISH EMBASSY.
  DIPLOMATIC VISAS.
  DIPLOMATIC VISAS.
CHINA.
  ANGLO-JAPANESE RELATIONS.
  ANGLO-JAPANESE RELATIONS.
  EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.
  EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.
  OUTER MONGOLIA.
  OUTER MONGOLIA.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  PROTOCOLS (RATIFICATION).
  PROTOCOLS (RATIFICATION).
  INTERNATIONAL BUREAUX.
  INTERNATIONAL BUREAUX.
  CARMARTHEN TOWN BRIDGE.
  CARMARTHEN TOWN BRIDGE.
  HYDE PARK.
  HYDE PARK.
  WESTMINSTER HALL (EXHIBITION).
  WESTMINSTER HALL (EXHIBITION).
  PARKHURST PRISON (LECTURES).
  PARKHURST PRISON (LECTURES).
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1914 (APPROVED EMPLOYMENT).
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1914 (APPROVED EMPLOYMENT).
  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.
  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (CHATHAM).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (CHATHAM).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
HOUSING.
  PARK LANGLEY ESTATE, WEST WICKHAM.
  PARK LANGLEY ESTATE, WEST WICKHAM.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
  FOREIGN CEREALS (SUBSIDISED DUMPING).
  FOREIGN CEREALS (SUBSIDISED DUMPING).
  SUGAR BEET AND CROP DRIERS, LTD.
  SUGAR BEET AND CROP DRIERS, LTD.
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Preamble
The Lord Kilmarnock (E. Erroll)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I desire to inform your Lordships that the following letter has just been received by me from Sir Arthur Thring:—
"My dear Lord Chancellor,
"It is with great regret that, owing to a severe illness, I have been unable since last Christmas to attend to my duties in the House of Lords; and it is further with great regret that I have to ask your Lordship to announce to the House that the time has come for me to lay down the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I have felt it right that, in accordance with precedent, this announcement should, in the first instance, be communicated to the House.
"I have had the honour to hold the office of Clerk of the Parliaments for over twelve years, and I would ask you to express to their Lordships my deep sense of the extreme consideration and kindness which I have invariably received from them, collectively and individually, the memory of which will always be to me a source or heartfelt gratitude and satisfaction.
"I have the honour to be,
"My dear Lord Chancellor,
"Your obedient servant,
"ARTHUR T. THRING."
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move that Sir Arthur Thring's letter, which the Lord Chancellor has communicated to the House, be considered to-morrow.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, 'Motion agreed to.
Letter ordered to lie on the Table and to be entered on the Journals.

HOUSING CONDITIONS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK rose to call attention to recent annual reports of medical officers of health on bad housing conditions, and to ask His Majesty's Government to state when it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with the slums; and to move for Papers. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, from time to time I have drawn the attention of this House to the serious condition which exists through large numbers of people living in overcrowded and insanitary conditions. If I venture to do this again, it is because these conditions still continue and are proving a menace to the health and to the welfare of the people of this country. It is difficult, if not impossible, to produce any official figures which cover the whole of the country to show the extent to which overcrowding prevails at the present time. We still have to turn to the figures of the last census, which at that time showed that there were three and a half million people living in overcrowded conditions. If a slightly higher standard had been adopted there would have been found no fewer than nine million people living under these overcrowded conditions. But, of course, these figures are many years old and they cannot be taken as authoritative to-day, for in the interval a very large housing scheme has been carried into effect and during the last three years 1,480,000 houses have been built in England, Wales and Scotland.
That is a magnificent achievement of which any country might rightly be proud. Other countries may have tried more picturesque and imaginative experiments, but no country has faced the problem so thoroughly as has been the case in our own country. The success of the scheme has been largely due to the enthusiasm, the leadership and the thoroughness of the late Minister of Health. But notwithstanding this there is reason to believe that the slums are almost as overcrowded as they were some ten years ago and in many cases their condition appears to be even worse. The new houses have provided homes for tens of thousands of artisans, mechanics and clerks; but they have failed to draw away to any appreciable extent the population from the great overcrowded centres which are occupied by the wage-earners whose wages are at a low level. There

681
are, as I have said, no figures to which we can turn with any confidence. There is, however, one official report which throws a significant light on the situation. It is known that there must be several hundreds of thousands of houses in these slum districts—the estimate, I believe, varies between 500,000 and 1,000,000 houses—which are in an insanitary condition, not taking into account those which are overcrowded. There is a figure which throws light on what has been done in the clearance of slum areas. Last week, in another place, the Minister of Health announced in reply to a Question that since the War only 139 slum clearance schemes have been submitted. Of these 121 have been confirmed, but only 43 have been completed, and some of the schemes are comparatively small.
There is another source of official information to which we can turn with considerable advantage. I refer to the reports which are made year by year by the medical officers of health throughout the country. The medical officers of health form a body of capable, public-spirited servants of the State. They have done great work for health in their localities and they know their own districts thoroughly. They Approach this particular problem of housing simply from the standpoint of the health of their districts, and again and again in their reports we find them referring to bad houses as one of the causes most detrimental to the health of their districts. A number of these reports have been collected by the National Housing and Town Planning Council—rather over forty of them—and in addition I have read a large number myself which I have collected from various quarters. In a few of these reports there is mention of some improvement in the position. In others the writers declare that the position is worse. In all of those which I have read, or in nearly all of them, emphasis is laid on the fact that the situation is extremely serious. I would invite the Government to consider the advisability of making a return of the reports furnished by the medical officers of health in the last two years on the subject of overcrowding and bad housing. We should in that way gain a great deal of very valuable information.
I do not wart to weary the House with quotations from an interminable
682
series of these reports, but I want to take illustrations from three or four groups, and first from the group of boroughs which are included under the heading of London. Nowhere, I suppose, is the problem of housing more difficult than in London. The difficulty of obtaining sites, the high cost of sites, the huge population all make the problem extremely complicated. The London County Council have with great heroism and courage faced the problem. Huge housing estates have come into existence on the borders of north and south London, and lately the London County Council have been building large estates nearer the place of occupation of those who are likely to occupy those houses. But even in London the problem is very far from solved. In the last report on the housing estates of the London County Council it was stated that in one year there had been 90,000 applications in person for accommodation on the housing estates and 66,000 letters had been received asking if accommodation could be found for the writers.
If we turn to the reports from the various boroughs, we find that a serious position is reflected. From Stepney there comes the report:
"Overcrowding was worse in 1928 than in any previous year, and in most cases it was impossible to abate it."
The medical officer of health for Hammersmith writes:
"In recent years the shortage of housing accommodation has greatly increased in connection with working class property. Overcrowding still exists in a number of houses in the Borough, and there seems little prospect of any appreciable improvement in the situation for some time to come."
In Bermondsey we are told that there are over 2,000 families living in overcrowded conditions. From Battersea there comes the following report:
"It is impossible, except to a very limited extent, to remedy these insanitary and otherwise undesirable conditions. There is still a large number of families living under conditions which are, on sanitary and social grounds, deplorable."
From West Ham it is stated that overcrowding of a gross nature is still prevalent.
I can give your Lordships one striking instance of the way in which overcrowding still prevails. Some four or five

683
months ago the Press gave considerable publicity to a statement that in a house of sixteen rooms there were living twelve families comprising seventy-two persons in all. A day or two ago I made inquiries about the conditions in that house and found that there had been no improvement. I am told that the situation remains exactly the same with one difference: that one family, consisting of a man, wife and six children, have moved away from the one room that they were occupying into four basement rooms, which they are renting at the exorbitant rent of 27s. a week. The basement is dark and damp, but they are thankful to have these four rooms to themselves.
I made inquiries about another street which for years has been condemned. I am told that it is still crowded. In one of the houses, a seven-roomed house with rooms of an average size of 10 feet square, thirty-three people are living: on the attic floor, in two tiny back rooms, a man, wife and three children; in the front room of the attic, a man, wife and two grownup sons of eighteen and twenty; on the first floor in the front room, man, wife and three children; in the back room, man, wife and seven children, aged from thirteen years to a few months; on the ground floor in the front room, man, wife and five children; and in the back room, man, wife and one child. The house is in an insanitary condition and is within five or six minutes walk of your Lordships' House. I have quoted those instances to show how grave the condition of overcrowding is. Here are cases of overcrowding that have been known for some time. The medical officers of health in those districts are doing their work most thoroughly; but, when they are asked why they take no action, their answer is always the same: "If these people are evicted there is no place to which they can be sent."
If we turn from London to the North, we again find overcrowding extremely serious. From Newcastle-on-Tyne comes this report:
"There is still much overcrowding in the City, particularly in the poorest type of house. Very little relief has been afforded to occupiers of this kind of property by the Corporation housing scheme."
In Sheffield the overcrowding in the City is still deplorable, and the number of
684
families on the waiting list when the report was drawn up was 7,000. In Manchester there are 26,000 houses below a reasonable standard of fitness for human habitation. In Liverpool 123 cellars are still occupied as separate dwellings, while, in view of the shortage of dwellings, no closing orders have been made under the Housing Acts. In Bradford—
"Many very serious cases of overcrowding continued to come to the knowledge of the department during the year, but, despite the increase in the provision of houses, there still remains great scarcity of housing accommodation."
There are two illustrations out of many that I will take from the Midlands. The medical officer of health for Coventry says:
"It has again not been possible to put into operation the sections of the Housing Acts relating to the closure of unfit houses, owing to the absence of alternative accommodation for displaced tenants."
The medical officer of health for Stoke-on-Trent says that many of the conditions are still deplorable, and adds:
"Until a greater number of houses are built per annum nothing can be done to abate overcrowding. The greatly increased liability to infection of persons living in the old overcrowded conditions, with their lack of sunlight and proper sanitary conditions, is well seen when one realises that the vast majority of the small pox cases have occurred in areas of the City where housing is at its worst."
If we turn to the South, we find conditions that may not be worse but are sufficiently serious. I have no report from the medical officer of health of Bristol, or rather there is no mention of this matter in the report that I have, but I am told that there are 2,000 houses in unhealthy areas, while another 3,000 ought to be closed. In Portsmouth it is said that, in spite of the large number of houses that were built last year and are now being constructed, the housing question remains the most serious problem of the day. From Ipswich, Hastings, and Bath—towns of a very different character—there come reports of overcrowding. I have given your Lordships selections from a few of these reports. There is only one other that I want to quote, and that is from the town of Blaenavon, in Monmouthshire, which is a small town of some 12,000 inhabitants. The medical officer of health in his report states:

685
"Crowding is becoming rampant. This matter of overcrowding is not only harmful and detrimental to the health of the occupants, but requires serious consideration from the standpoint of decency and morality."
He goes on to state that in some of these overcrowded houses, when the birth of a child takes place in the morning it has to take place with the children still in the room. He has had that experience on more than one occasion. On the other hand, in the case of death occurring in these houses the corpse is usually laid out in the living room. In addition some of these houses are so badly infested with vermin and rats as to make the lives of the inhabitants almost unbearable.
These reports—and there are many others from which I could quote—show that the conditions of housing are still nothing less than deplorable. They emphasise the extent of the evil conditions, the danger to health, and also—I think this is a very important point—that it is impossible, while the shortage of houses continues, to put closing orders into force. The most insanitary houses often have to continue in existence because it is impossible to find room elsewhere for the tenants. The question naturally arises: How does this happen in view of the vast building programme that has been carried out? There are various reasons why the slums still remain crowded. Partly, no doubt, this is due to the fact that in some cases the slum tenants dislike moving from the homes to which they are accustomed. In many cases it is due to the slow and expensive process of slum clearance. I believe that, on the average, it takes eight years to carry through a slum clearance scheme, and the cost is considerable. It was stated last week in another place that the loss per year for every person removed under a slum clearance scheme was £2.
A much more serious difficulty and a fact which explains why these people so often dislike moving from their homes, is that very often the new houses are at a considerable distance from their work. The cost of travelling to and from their work means an additional item in their small budgets. The inconvenience often is great. I have known of many districts in which at first there were a number of tenants from the slums. After two or three years the majority of these
686
have moved back again to the neighbourhood of their old haunts. They could not afford either the time or the money incurred in the long journey twice a day. There is another reason which is much more fundamental. It is an economic reason. The man who dwells in the overcrowded house or slum cannot, as a rule, afford the rents required for these larger houses. It is very difficult to give an exact statement of what the rents are for the kingdom as a whole, but, exclusive of London, the average rent paid by the slum dweller is probably 7s. In London it is often much more. Sometimes in the Provinces it is less than 7s., but I think that 78. is a fair average to state as the rent of urban slum dwellings. It is almost impossible to get one of the new houses, with decent accommodation for a man and his family, at under 12s. and, as a rule, the rents range between 12s. and 18s. There is an admirable estate which now stands upon what was once a bad slum. When the people lived in the slum they paid about 7s. or 7s. 6d. for their houses. The rents of the new houses vary from 17s. to 21s. The new buildings are excellent, and they are full; but the old tenants are not living in them. They are overcrowding houses in the neighbourhood which were already overcrowded. In Manchester the gross rent of a slum house averages 7s. 6d. The average rent of the new houses is 15s. In Birmingham the gross rent of a slum house is about 7s., and that of a new house between 11s. 2d. and 15s. 6d.
You therefore have a gap between what a slum dweller can afford to pay and what is asked for a new house. How can that gap be bridged? It can either be bridged by the tenant paying more or by the cost of the new house being reduced. In some cases a slum tenant can pay more than he is paying at the present time. In many cases it is quite impossible. There are many men earning under 50s. per week and some under 40s. per week. Each has a wife and family to support on that. It is impossible for them to move into a house where the rent is 12s. or 13s. per week. On the other hand, it seems impossible to reduce the rent below 11s. per week. From time to time it is stated that this ought to be done, and can be done; but how can it be done? If a house is to be built as a minimum standard house with three bedrooms, with

687
a living room underneath, and with a superficial floor area of 760 ft., which I believe is the standard set forth by the Tudor Walters Report, and also by the manuals of the Ministry of Health, you cannot build such a house for less than £400, including site and road charges. You may be able to reduce the amount a little—last month, I see the figure was smaller—and there are many who say that the amount ought to be reduced, but nobody shows how it can be appreciably reduced.
You might be able to reduce the rent by reducing the rate of interest. If the interest were reduced from 5 per cent. to 4½ per cent. it would make a difference of 1s. per week in the rent; or if the rates were reduced, again it might be posible to charge a smaller rent; but there is little hope of the rates being reduced. AB things stand to-day it is impossible to see how a house can be built, with the utmost economy, which will let at less than a rent of 10s. 6d. or 11s. per week. There are in the slums numbers who can afford this, but there are a large number, and I am thinking especially of those who have families, who find it quite imposible to afford this sum. If they pay more in rent they and their children must suffer both in food and clothing, and the real problem before the housing reformer is how we can bridge this gap.
Various suggestions have been made. One suggestion, of course, is that an increased subsidy should be given all the way round, but that would mean a very heavy expenditure. There is another proposal which needs careful consideration—namely, that there should be a children's rent allowance; that when a man has wages of not more than 50s. per week, and has to support a wife and three children, he should be allowed 1s. per week off his rent for each child until the rent reaches the figure of 7s. 6d. per week. I know there are serious objections to such a course. It will be said at once that this will mean an increase in the birth rate among those who already have unduly large families. I am doubtful whether a shilling off the rent really 'enters into calculations in a matter of this kind, but I would remind the House that the census figures showed that fertility decreases regularly as the size of the tenement increases until six or seven rooms are reached, and then remains constant.
688
The criticisms of this proposal are no doubt very serious, but it is difficult to see where else there can be found a solution of this extremely difficult problem how to provide for the men with small wages and large families, and I hope that the Minister of Health in preparing his Bill will go very carefully into this question.
I should be sorry, however, if the House thought that this was the only reform which was needed in connection with this whole problem. There are many other reforms which are required. For instance, a simpler method of carrying through a clearance scheme and some different method of compensation. The present methods penalise the good landlord as well as the bad landlord. A larger subsidy is required from the Government in smaller clearance schemes. I think also that there should be some legislation which would penalise the tenant who deliberately and persistently damages the house in which he is living, though in this connection I would add that it has been found that the great majority of tenants who are moved from the slums make perfectly good tenants in the houses to which they are moved and keep their houses at a very high standard.
These and other reforms are undoubtedly required; but what we are anxious about at the present time is this: when is the Bill to embody these reforms going to be introduced? We have, I think, reason for some anxiety and some impatience. In the last Parliament, in the first Session, in the gracious Speech from the Throne, a Bill dealing with slums was foreshadowed. Session after Session we waited for that measure. We asked from time to time when it was to be introduced. We always received very sympathetic answer, but the answer was: "Not this Session, but you may hope for it next Session." And last Session even that hope was taken away from us. I am quite certain that the late Minister of Health regrets as much as any one else that he was unable to crown his work by bringing in a Bill dealing with this matter. The new Government have corm' into power, and again the slums were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. There were rumours that a Bill would have been introduced last autumn. Then again we had hopes that it might

689
have been introduced immediately after Christmas. Already the Session is halfway through. Many claims are made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Parliamentary time is already becoming very congested, and we are not a little anxious lest this Session shall also pass without this Bill being introduced and passed in both Houses. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will give us some assurances on this matter.
Delay does not mean only the postponement of overdue reforms. It is a positive hindrance in the way of housing reform. There are many local authorities which delay bringing in their own measures, for they say they are waiting to see what the Government will do. In some cases it may be an excuse; in other cases it is a perfectly legitimate reason. This is not a Party matter. I hope it never will be a Party matter. Men of all Parties are agreed that something ought to be done, and done on a large scale, towards the reduction of overcrowding and the 'abolition of the slums. I hope, if the Government introduce a Bill in the near future and appeal to men of all Parties to support them, that they will obtain such a measure of support that the Bill will be passed into law this Session, and that before many years are over those who are now living in the slums may themselves and their children be able to move to surroundings which are both healthier and happier. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers with reference to recent annual reports of medical officers of health on bad housing conditions.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am sure you will all have listened to the right rev. Prelate's most excellent speech with great interest. He has made this subject especially his own. He has asked me to support him, and it is only in a few words that I will do so. Naturally I have the same difficulty on my side of the ricer as he finds on his side. I want to emphasise two points that he has made. It is surprising—and I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has himself expressed surprise at it—that the vast number of new houses which have been erected has not done more than has been the case to diminish overcrowding. I hope it will do so in time.
690
It has been a very great effort, and it is a very great thing to have done what has been accomplished, but I can myself bear witness to this, that at the present time these slums are as overcrowded as they have ever been.
We have had two expert surveyors who have taken house by house a census of the dwellings in Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Westminster and Fulham, and I believe they are now taking one in Walworth. These experts have published their report. Therefore it is not a mere general statement that we have to go on; we have the actual housing of the people shown house by house. If your Lordships studied these reports you would be absolutely certain that the right rev. Prelate was right in what he said. We have father, mother and six children living in one room in case after case, and in many houses there is terrible overcrowding. The right rev. Prelate was perfectly right in saying that the great increase in the number of houses has not relieved the situation. The County Council kindly sent a motor car for me recently and took me all round their housing estates to show what they have done. Yet, great as that is, it has not so far relieved the congestion. The second point is that these people cannot pay the rents. They have returned to the diocese of the right rev. Prelate after having gone to live for a time at Dagenham and Becontree, and when they have come back they have said they could not afford to pay the rents out of the wages they receive. They say they cannot afford to pay rents higher than 7s. or 8s. a week and at the same time keep their children. Those are the two great points that are to be faced.
May I put before your Lordships an actual inspection that I myself made only a week or two ago? As many of your Lordships know, I lived for nine years in Bethnal Green and, therefore, I know very well what were the conditions during that time. I am not, however, speaking of those old days. A week or two ago I went and saw thirteen houses in what is supposed not to be the worst slum in Fulham. They were verminous, they were filthy. There was one large family On each of the landings. We bought each house for £150 and spent £150 on making it self-contained. Instead of one water tap for the whole of these people,

691
and one w.c. in the backyard, we made them all self-contained with requirements for each family. We have made a self-contained fiat in each house by building out a scullery, and the tenants, instead of paying 6s. or 7s. a week, have willingly paid an extra 1s. a week for the improvements. The rent they pay is equivalent to 2½ per cent. upon the money that was borrowed to buy the houses and carry out the improvements. That is only an illustration of what can be done. I agree it is charity, because 2½ per cent. is not the market interest in these days.
That is going on all over London. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who, I dare say, will speak presently, has one of these societies in Kensington and there are others in different places. But these public utility companies are only a drop in the ocean. They set an example of what can be done, and they stir up the public conscience of the locality. Let me show what happened in Fulham by way of an illustration. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, most kindly came and made an excellent speech. I was in the chair and the Mayor sat by my side. There is no reason why public utility companies should arouse any bitterness or misunderstanding on the part of the local body. We had a pretty warm meeting, because we put the matter warmly to the locality. The council itself was stirred up and the Mayor saw what could be done. Following this, the council bought, for I think £150,000, a large brewery and upon the site 400 houses are to be put up. I mention that as an illustration to show that the whole thing is not so impracticable and impossible as some people represent it to be.
What can we do? One thing I think we can do—and I hope the Government will do it—and that is to simplify the way in which the ground landlord can get at his property. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and I, as members of the Charterhouse Council, were horrified when we had a report to say that on our land there was slum property. Recently two or three members went to see it, but we could not get at the property to deal with it. Any Bill which may be brought in ought to make it much simpler for the ground landlord, who often has to bear the imputation of owning bad property, to get at his
692
property. At one time the Bishop of London was the ground landlord of the Paddington estate. That passed away from the Bishop some ninety years ago, but even now people write to me asking hat their rates may be reduced. I am not responsible for their rates. Even if I were the ground landlord I could not get at my property in order to deal with the matter. As I have said before, I think that ought to be simplified. Then it seems to me that very much more encouragement ought to be given to borough councils. These authorities have the powers, but they are not encouraged to use them and are timid about doing so. If the Government could do something to encourage borough councils to put their powers into force it would be a very good thing and a very great help indeed.
What is wanted really is to House the conscience of the country. At the beginning of last year I made every parson in my diocese preach a housing sermon on a particular Sunday. That had a great effect. It seemed really to go home, and the Press took the matter up. We want to House the conscience of the country so that the people will say that it is an intolerable thing that their fellow countrymen should have to live in verminous houses, that parents and six children should live in one room and that people should live in rooms infested with rats. A clergyman said the other day that he saw in Stepney a rat as big as a cat squatting by a baby's cradle. Such things ought not to be allowed to happen, and I believe that if the Government took the matter in hand with real courage and determination they would have the country at their backs.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the right rev. Prelates in reference to this question. I think your Lordships are under an obligation to the Bishop of Southwark particularly for bringing this question forward on so many occasions and putting before the whole country the deplorable conditions which exist. He has been a very honoured member of a strong committee which has been considering this problem. Any one who read the report of that committee could come only to one conclusion—that no man or woman in this country can be happy if they feel that

693
such conditions exist. There is not the slightest doubt about the truth of the statements that have been made, as to the verminous conditions of so large a proportion of the horses in this country, the fact that many children are born in surroundings which we must deeply deplore, in which a mother has to have her child with a very large number of people in the same room, and that children are laid out dead in rooms where other children are taking their food.
Only the Government can deal with this question. It has been said that if many of these people were moved from the slums into better houses they would turn them into slums again. But the committee of which I have spoken went very carefully into the question and came to the conclusion that about 90 per cent. of such people, if moved to better houses, would not do that. They consider that it would be possible to overcome the problem if sufficient houses were supplied at a rent of is. 6d. per week. I do not wish to go into the morality of the subject this afternoon, but anyone who knows what human nature is will realise that it is impossible to allow grown boys of eighteen and girls of fifteen to sleep in the same room without immorality. That is a very serious problem which we must really take to heart. It is impossible to feel satisfied from a Christian point of view when we hear the right rev. Prelate say that such conditions as those exist within five minutes of your Lordships' House. How can we expect to prosper as a nation if we allow these terrible evils to exist?
It may be said, of course, that the difficulties should be overcome by the local authorities. From some experience I may say that the local authorities are very much alive to the subject. In many towns of England one finds men and women who spend much of their lives trying to find a solution of this problem. The report I have mentioned shows that a most terrible state of things exists not only in London but in many provincial centres. I will give your Lordships two quotations. The medical officer of health for Norwich says in his report for 1926, which is the latest I have:
"There is a side to this picture of the City's life which shows many people living in dirty dwellings, often in one room, in congested courts and yards where the sun
694
and air cannot penetrate, except perhaps in summer…."
He goes on to mention the terrible conditions which exist in Norwich—that there is an inadequate proportion of window space to sleeping accommodation, that terrible difficulties exist from want of a proper water supply and other conditions which are so desirable. If one turns to other communities one finds very much the same thing.
I would like to make one or two practical suggestions to your Lordships this afternoon which might be applied to the question. If this were a question of shells which we had to make to defend ourselves we should find some way out of the difficulty. There is not the slightest doubt that if, as a nation, we desired to overcome this terrible evil we could overcome it. Your Lordships will remember the magnificent speech made by Lord Weir not very long ago on the question of making steel houses in this country; and the making of houses from cement blocks has often been discussed. There is no reason why there should be 150,000 men idle in the building trades at the present time. It was stated in The Times a few days ago that the number of unemployed in this country was 1,500,000, which I think is 60,000 more than the number this day last year. Is there no way by which these men can be employed to build houses or to do some work for the benefit of the nation in this respect? I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to-day to say, if he can, whether there is any possibility of meeting the need in this particular way. I know the difficulties; I know very well that the Party to which I belong would find it almost impossible at any time to overcome them. But as a Party man, as one who was in the House of Commons for nearly a quarter of a century, may I say that I should not mind another Party being in power for many years to come if the Party in power to-day could overcome this terrible evil which exists.
In conclusion, may I refer again to the question of individual effort? The Bishop of London mentioned utility societies and I should like to tell your Lordships of a little experience that I had in connection with this question. A society with which I am closely connected received a call one day from a lady who

695
said that she had £500 which she was willing to spend in any direction that seemed best in order to try to overcome the housing problem. Many of us thought that possibly the society was not the best fitted to deal with the question. However, as a result of her action we formed a utility society, which received her £500 and has since received very large sums from various directions at 2½ per cent., and has been the means of building no fewer than 250 houses which are very much appreciated by many of these people who really are absolutely unable to live in any house unless there is some kind of subsidy in connection with it. I realise that I am speaking this afternoon to many noble Lords who know much more about housing questions than I do, but I felt I should like to say these few words in order to see if one could not do some little thing towards getting rid of a terrible position which we all deeply deplore.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just spoken in his expression of gratitude to the right rev. Prelate who brought this matter before the House. We have not had a discussion on the subject of housing for eight or nine months, I believe, and I do not think it has been talked about in another place either, so that an opportunity for debating the housing question, and especially the question of slums, is one which I think we all welcome. The speeches which your Lordships have heard have shown that there is general agreement among all Parties on two things—on the necessity for dealing with this problem and also on the great difficulties which it presents. I saw a report of a speech made by the Minister of Health sometime last autumn—I think it was at Brighton—in which he said that slums could not be destroyed in a year, but that before the Government left office he believed a great step would be taken. I am sure he has our best wishes if he is able to press forward with a solution of this problem. I am glad to see that he recognised also the work done by his predecessor, and he said last November at Manchester that he was most anxious to complete that work especially with regard to slum clearance.
696
The right rev. Prelate who brought forward this Motion brought to your Lordships' attention the great problem which presented itself some ten years ago, that is to say, the shortage of houses all over the country. When I went first to the Ministry of Health—I think that was nine years ago—that was the most urgent matter which we had before us. It was impossible to deal with the question of slum clearance, of course, until something had been done at least to relieve the shortage of houses which existed all over the country. As the right rev. Prelate told your Lordships, since the War close upon 1,500,000 houses have been built. That, of course, has done a great deal to relieve the shortage, but—as pointed out by the right rev. Prelate—slum clearance has not progressed so much as might have been expected because these houses which have been built have been mainly for those able to pay a higher rent than is possible for those now occupying slum tenements. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London expressed some surprise that the building of these houses had not produced a greater effect in slum clearance, but, of course, the shortage of houses still continues and it is a little bit depressing to find that during the last quarter of last year considerably fewer houses were built than in the corresponding quarter of 1928, also that there was a slight increase in the cost.
That point was emphasised by the right rev. Prelate, as it has a very important bearing on the whole question. I see that in the December quarter of 1928 26,858 houses were built and 25.305 authorised; whereas in the last quarter of 1929 only 14,521 houses were built and 19,829 authorised. That was in England and Wales. In Scotland for the corresponding period, or nearly the corresponding period, up to November, 1928, there were 16,228 houses and for the same period in 1929 the figure was 9,613. I do not quite know how that reduction can be explained except, possibly, by the general depression all over the country. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to give us a little information as to the number of houses which are being built now or are authorised, and reassure us on that point.
Then, on the question of cost, I see that in March, 1929, the cost was £339—I am quoting figures given in another place on January 23—and the cost in December

697
was £349. That increase of £10 is not very much, but as there had been a continual fall in cost from £451 (I think it was) to £339, it is a little bit disturbing that there should have been even a slight rise. Of course it has not been a continual rise because in the September quarter there was a fall from £349 to £343 and then the cost rose again to £349. We have now passed the turn of the year and the season is approaching when building operations are more easy to carry out. Therefore I trust that in the next few months we shall see a considerable change and a great many more houses built.
I think I may say that during the term of office of the late Government more progress was made in slum clearance than has ever been made before in a simliar period of four and a half years. But although that was the case we should have liked to have done a great deal more. To be perfectly frank we found that progress was somewhat disappointingly slow. Your Lordships have heard from the right rev. Prelate many of the difficulties which attend the solution of this problem. The main difficulty, of course, is the provision of temporary accommodation for those living in the slums. People do not live in slums because they want to, but because they have nowhere else to go, and they choose the particular area in which they live because they must be near their work. The right rev. Prelate pointed out the difficulties met with in one case, where people had been actually provided with better accommodation but, had to return to the slums because of the difficulty of getting to their work. That is one problem—to find suitable accommodation near the original area. The other problem is to find accommodation at a suitable and moderate rent. You cannot when you are clearing a slum take away the people and put them at a great distance away. You must find accommodation for them near their work.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark told your Lordship's that 121 schemes of slum clearance had been confirmed since the close of the War. During the four and a half years of which I spoke just now, that is during the term of office of the late Government, there were fifty-eight schemes initiated involving the reconditioning of houses and the re-housing of 34,396 people. Up to the
698
end of 1928 nine of these schemes were completed, and in fifteen others houses for people living in the unhealthy area had been provided, affecting some 7,000 persons. But I do not think it has been mentioned that slums are found not only in the large cities. Unhealthy areas exist in country districts as well. I am glad to say that a good deal of success has attended the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which enabled cottages in the villages to be re-conditioned at a small price and made available for the country population. I am glad to say that more than sixty county councils have adopted schemes under that Act.
Another point regarding rural sanitary conditions struck me very forcibly when I was taking evidence for the Royal Commission on Local Government. I refer to the very insanitary condition that exists in a large number of quite rural areas, small villages in the country where people very often take their holidays and are very much surprised to find that they are not at all the healthy places that they appear to be on the surface. The real reason for the insanitary conditions in rural areas is that rural district councils cannot raise money to provide proper sanitary arrangements. It is not that they do not want to do it; they are very anxious to do it, but a penny rate sometimes produces as little as £11. They have very small resources for dealing with the difficulty. Fortunately, the solution is not a very difficult one. In the Local Government Act which your Lordships passed last year measures were taken (in Sections 56 and 57) to enable county councils to spend money on sanitation, and in certain cases, where necessary, to exercise default powers if the rural district council did not carry out proper sanitary schemes.
I think your Lordships will agree that the measures taken by the late Government have assisted and will continue to assist the solution of this problem, but I readily agree that improvement in the present procedure for slum clearance is very necessary. As noble Lords opposite know, schemes were drawn up by the late Minister of Health and are now, no doubt, available at the Ministry of Health. These schemes were well advanced at the time of the General Election. As your Lordships have been told by both right rev. Prelates, a great

699
part of the difficulty and delay in the solution of this problem is caused by the present unfair basis of compensation to owners and the ground landlord's difficulty in obtaining the property. I remember one case in which there were seventeen tenants between the ground landlord and the rack-renter. As the Bishop of London said regarding the estate that he mentioned, the ground landlord often has no power whatever. He cannot touch the houses until the leases that stand between him and the actual tenant have expired. I think that new powers are required by local authorities to enable them to acquire and recondition old houses.
The right rev. Prelate who raised this question did not speak of re-conditioning. I think he spoke only of the provision of new houses. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, however, gave us a very interesting experience of his own regarding the re-conditioning of a very bad house that was turned into comfortable and convenient quarters, and I think your Lordships will have heard this with great interest. He told us that it was a charitable scheme which brought in only 2½ per cent., and the extra rent amounted to 1s. a week. If it had been 2s., which, after all, is not a very great sum, it would have brought in 5 per cent., which would have been almost on a business basis. I think the opportunities of re-conditioning are an important means of getting over the difficulty of slum clearance. Scientific schemes of re-conditioning will help a great deal, because they enable you to get houses in a proper condition without having to disturb the tenants, and you are able to complete schemes very much faster than by pulling down old houses and building new ones. You have to build new houses before you can turn out the tenants in order to pull the old houses down. I think that much might be done, and should be attempted, in the way of re-conditioning, wherever possible.
But, of course, the main demand is for new houses. The right rev. Prelate told your Lordships that one of the difficulties was the cost; I think he said it was something like £2 per head for the people who were moved from slum areas. The cost is, of course, a very great consideration, but it is by no means the only consideration. Expenditure
700
will be wasted if it is not undertaken with great care, wisdom and knowledge and, above all, with a very sympathetic consideration for the people who are affected. I think that this is a most important condition. You will not solve this problem simply by spending money on bricks and mortar or on building new houses, re-conditioning old ones, providing good sanitation, more light and air and cheap rents. In addition you must have first-rate management of your property. The estates must be thoroughly well managed by people who understand their business and who are able to prevent the very great evil of the exploitation of subtenants who take rooms in a house, either furnished or unfurnished, and are overcharged without being able to protect themselves. The great thing is to have good management. Otherwise your new buildings may in a very short time relapse into slumdom. That is one of the things you have to avoid.
Perhaps the easiest way of getting the right sort of management is to combine the ownership of these properties into large estates. This can be undertaken either by private enterprise or by local authorities. If suitable legislation were introduced, either private persons or local authorities could undertake the management of these estates on a large scale, the cost of re-conditioning and re-building would be much less and more houses could be made available for the same expenditure of money. This would assist to solve the great difficulty—perhaps the greatest of all—that was mentioned by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—namely, the difference between the rents of slum tenements and of newly built houses. I think he said that in Manchester there was a difference between 7s. 6d. and 21s., which is almost three times as much. The Party to which I belong have formed their plans for shim improvement and clearance and the further steps that they would advise have been very carefully thought out. Therefore, when we are told by the present Government—I have no doubt that we shall be told this by the noble Lord who is going to reply—that they are anxious to complete the work of their predecessors in regard to this matter, we may hope that they will carry out a continuous policy,

701
which will not be likely to cause a violent break, and that they will follow the excellent counsel of the present Home Secretary, who, as I read, in the speech which he made at Bethnal Green last October, said:
"The slum problem has ceased to be a Party one: it is a national concern."
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL rose.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, it occurred to me, with due deference to the noble Lord who has just risen, that perhaps it would be well to summarise the debate so far as it has gone and—
LORD JESSEL: May I intervene for one moment, if the noble Lord will allow me? I have been asked by the London County Council, which is perhaps the biggest authority in the country, to say a few words. Perhaps he would—
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, surely, when the representative of the Government rises to reply at this stage—
LORD JESSEL: I only made a courteous request that he should allow me to say a few words.
LORD MARLEY: I think perhaps it would be well if the noble Lord spoke now.
LORD JESSEL: I am very much obliged.
LORD PARMOOR: It is very unusual.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as a good deal of the debate has turned upon London—I am sure we are very much obliged to the right rev. Prelate who introduced the subject and to the Bishop of London—and as I have been asked by the London County Council to say a few words upon this matter, I wish to say on my own behalf, and for many who are interested in housing, how greatly we appreciate the fact that the right rev. Prelate has once again raised this subject in your Lordships' House, because it is only by stirring up public opinion that we can arrive at some definite solution of this matter. I am very glad to think that neither the Bishop of London nor the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark had anything but praise for the manner in which the London County Council have done their duty as regards the question of houses. I am not going to weary your Lordships
702
with long statistics as to what has been done in the past in the erection of houses, but I would like to say what is being contemplated by the London County Council in the matter of slum areas.
The London County Council as late as June of last year decided to expedite their existing programme, and to embark upon a further programme to re-house about 30,000 people at a total estimated extra cost of £4,500,000. Pending the statutory or other removal of certain legal difficulties, several schemes have been held up under the new programme, and it is for that reason I was glad that the right rev. Prelate raised this question, because it will, I hope, accelerate the bringing in of the Government's Bill dealing with the matter. I would also point out that during the last two years the number of houses that have been completed has exceeded 10,000, making a, total altogether, with the 1928–31 programme, of 18,000 houses, which means re-housing for over 90,000 people. These are new houses and not merely re-conditioned houses.
I would also like for one moment—I have always taken a great interest in the matter because I happen to have been Mayor of Westminster in 1903, and in those days we put up houses costing over £100,000—to tell your Lordships what is happening at the present moment within a very short distance from this House. Your Lordships will all remember that in January, 1928, there occurred a great flood at Millbank, when, I think, unfortunately, two or three children lost their lives and the whole district was submerged. The Duke of Westminster's sympathies were aroused, and he gave to the Westminster City Council six acres of land for re-housing people on that spot. The amount to be expended by the City of Westminster altogether in housing nearly 3,000 people, is £645,000, of which the Duke has contributed £200,000 and is paying £113,000 towards the cost of buildings. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very fine scheme. In addition to that the City Council themselves are putting up 210 flats, housing 11,000 people, at a cost of £244,000, so I do not think that this part of London can be said to be behind hand.
In spite of all this new housing there is this difficulty about slum property.

703
We have ourselves in Westminster several small houses which we would like to condemn, but, as Lord Onslow said, it is difficult to find room in which to put the people during the time in which you are providing new houses. That is one of the advantages of having property in the hands of big landlords. I know that big landlords are often attacked elsewhere, but by arrangement with the Duke of Westminster he has given us additional land on which we are erecting houses, and in those houses the population of the Millbank estate will be decanted before putting them into the new houses which are being erected. The difficulties are very great about these smaller properties which are not in very good condition. If only something could be done by each borough council in London to keep some buildings for the purpose of decanting those removed from slum areas, it would be a very good idea, because then they could house people during the building of the houses in which they are eventually to go.
There is another difficulty which I do not think anybody has mentioned in the course of this debate. You find people come to a locality and clamour for houses. Their work is elsewhere but they remain in the locality, and other people who come into that locality are unable to find accommodation. I have recently been furnished with statistics by one of the big utility societies in Westminster which bear upon this point. Your Lordships must remember that working-class people are constantly shifting from one part of London to another, and this intensifies the difficulties. There is one point which I would like to urge upon the Government to consider when bringing in their Bill, and that is the necessity for dealing with Section 46 of the 1925 Act. That is really a matter which I know from personal knowledge keeps a great many local authorities from putting into operation plans for the reconstruction of small areas. The law as it at present stands is that if an area is condemned you can only get the site value, and no compensation is given for buildings. A man may have a perfectly good building in an area which has been condemned, and it has always seemed to me a great injustice that an owner who has looked after his property, although the surrounding area may be bad, should get nothing at all for his
704
property. It is one of the things which, in the view of a great many local authorities, is a great injustice.
I am not going to dilate upon it because there have been numerous letters in the Press from time to time, and representations have been made to the appropriate Minister. So far, however, nothing has been done and it is a great hindrance to the carrying out of reforms. Surely some of these regulations can be simplified. It is not so very many years ago that I went with a large deputation from all over the country to the Minister of Health, asking that the procedure be simplified. During the time of the late Government we went again and asked to have the procedure simplified. As I have already said, a good many of the plans now before the London County Council are held up because of these regulations, and I think the difficulties put in the way of these plans should be got over more speedily in the future than they have been in the past.
Your Lordships would all be very interested to hear the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, who dealt with another part of the problem which, if it is properly dealt with, will greatly help slum clearances. That problem is re-conditioning. There is no doubt that can be done more cheaply than the building of new houses. If the public utility companies could be assisted to a greater degree in the future than they have been in the past to enable them to get money more cheaply they would do that work much better than any local authorities. There is another method which I venture to suggest to your Lordships, and that is to get the building societies of the country interested in this matter. There is no doubt that sooner or later—I hope it will be sooner rather than later—the demand for new houses for the working classes, though not satisfied—that is impossible—will be lessened, and the building societies might find an outlet for their money by lending it to people who want to re-condition houses.
I may quote to your Lordships a speech made by the Chairman of the National Association of Building Societies, Sir Enoch Hill. He stated quite recently in a presidential address:
"I can claim in your name that any well conceived plan, on sound financial lines, to

705
provide proper sanitary and healthy, if small, homes for the people and the utter abolition of slum areas, without confiscation, will receive the heartiest support of members of building societies from one end of the country to the other, and we shall give gladly all help in our power."
That is a very important statement made by a very important person. As your Lordships know, these building societies are amongst the most flourishing institutions in the country. They are quite sufficiently democratic, I am sure, to enlist the sympathies of noble Lords who now adorn the Bench opposite, and I may venture to ask them if something cannot be done to enlist the help of these societies in this matter. The result of this debate will, I hope, bring about what we all desire without distinction of Party, and that is that a Bill may be speedily brought in that will be a just Bill, and one that will make a further contribution to what we all trust will eventuate in the future—the abolition of slums, not only in our large towns but all over the country.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am sure the House has listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken with great interest. He speaks in defence of London, an area whose slums are more often quoted, I think, than those of any other part of the country, and it needs a great deal of defending. And of all the areas in it the worst is his own City, the City of Westminster. I am surprised to hear he was Mayor of Westminster only seven years ago—
LORD JESSEL: Twenty-seven years.
LORD MARLEY: —and did so little to deal with the problem in his own area. I desire to summarise the debate in so far as it has proceeded and shall try to explain as a preliminary the attitude of the Government on this matter of slum clearances. I ask that the courtesy of this House may be extended to a newcomer who is attempting to make a maiden speech, and is very nervous in doing so. I have noticed that great courtesy is always extended to all speakers on these occasions. I think it has been stated on all sides that the thanks of the House are due to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for raising this matter, and certainly, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I express their gratitude to him for doing
706
so not only now but on the many occasions in recent years whereon he has spoken upon it.
The Convocation of Canterbury has just reported a resolution which they carried on this matter—a far-reaching resolution—and it is so hopeful that I look forward to a time when more sermons will be preached not only in London but all over the country in respect of the slum clearance scheme which His Majesty's Government will shortly be bringing in. It would be gratifying if noble Lords who are so keen on this matter would come over to this side of the House and support His Majesty's Government in their efforts. It has been supported by the most rev. Lord Davidson on a number of occasions, and I have a statement he has made which is so interesting that, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to quote it. He said:
"…no question of public or private money should be allowed to stand in the way of dealing with the conditions in some of the slums of our great cities. No stone should be left unturned and no effort unmade to find a solution for an evil so grave and utterly destructive of the mind's progress towards higher things."
That statement is directly contrary to that of the last speaker, whose main object appeared to be to save money, to get what improvement was possible with the minimum expenditure of money rather than to realise that you cannot attack a problem of this magnitude without spending money; and money will quite willingly, I am sure, be voted by the country for the purposes for which it is required.
The medical officers of healths' reports which have been referred to by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark are very seriously disturbing to the Government and we feel that there is not only no exaggeration in their reports but that they are under-stating the actual position. The conditions of the workers in these houses are of long standing and I think we should pay a tribute to the morality and the highmindedness of workers in that, in conditions which have been referred to by so many noble Lords this afternoon and on other occasions, they have managed to come through with the spirit and the highmindedness that we know characterises the great mass of our population. At the beginning of the War, noble Lords will remember, when

707
we examined men of military age we found that on an average only three out of every ten were fit for military service. The indictment of the system under which we live, which such a state of affairs discloses, should surely bring more support to the political feeling represented by the present Government. The question of health alone should appeal to those who are concerned with growing expenditure. I have figures showing that in one slum area one out of every four children born died every year. I have the figures for Durham, where 247 children per thousand died in a slum area of the City; while in the country as a whole the average in ten years for the years under question is only ninety-four. In other words it did not pay to be born in that part of Durham because your chances of living were about a third of what they were in the rest of the country, purely and solely because of the housing conditions in the area which has been examined. Tuberculosis is something like four times as serious in some slum areas, and we know that the cost of tuberculosis in this country runs into millions and millions of pounds.
Many noble Lords have quoted their own experience. I want to be brief, but we all have our own experiences. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will address your Lordships later. I should like to say that the Government recognise the great work he is doing in North Kensington and he, I know, would be the first to admit that a great deal of the success of the Kensington Housing Trust is due to the energy and skill of the secretary of that Trust. I went with the secretary a few days ago to see some of the buildings that have been erected there and some of the older houses which are still inhabited. I saw a room below ground with no natural light; the gas was always burning. A widow and three children were living in that one room all the time. It was not a question of money. She had a pension derived from the war service of her husband. It was a question of the inability of the local authority, because of inadequate Government help, to provide houses to replace the slums in which that woman and others are living.
The question of morality was touched on by a noble Lord speaking from the
708
Benches opposite Despite the difficulties the workers of this country are amazingly moral. I have a report from the Isle of Dogs about a bedroom measuring 8 feet by 8 feet 11 inches which is occupied by two boys of eighteen and fourteen and two girls of sixteen and fourteen, all four of them sharing one bed 4 feet 6 inches wide. There is only room in that place for one of these young people to dress at a time. That is an example of the state of affairs which renders morality very, very difficult. It is because of the knowledge such debates as this and the efforts of the right rev. Prelate and others are spreading over the country that we believe that the Government will be able to carry through its slum clearance scheme as soon as the time arrives. It would be wrong of me to suggest that nothing has been done. It is true that a large number of houses were built under the Addison and Chamberlain Acts and under the Act of 1924. Something in the neighbourhood of 1,400,000 houses have been built. But when it comes to the slum areas themselves the result of many years of work is disastrously disappointing. Certain figures have been given. We know that 139 slum clearance schemes have been submitted to the Government in the years from 1919 to 1930. Of these schemes, 121 have been confirmed and 43 have been completed. But the total number of houses in the confirmed schemes is only 15,000 and the persons actually to be re-housed under those schemes are just over 74,000. Roughly speaking. 8,700 houses have been abolished and 9,700 new houses have been put up in place of them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Does that also include re-conditioning?
LORD MARLEY: No, that is only the new houses. The local authorities have made many efforts, but I feel that it is no injustice to say that the late Government with its big majority failed to assist the local authorities to carry through slum clearance schemes in their areas. In the debate which took place in your Lordships' House in June, 1928, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that the Government were considering whether some better remedy could not be found than vast schemes of slum clearance and rebuilding, which were difficult, expensive and presented all sorts of obstacles. Re-conditioning, said Lord

709
Salisbury also, would be a shorter and cheaper road for achieving their ends. You cannot do this cheaply, and as long as we continue to suggest that we must not spend money on it, we shall never get any further. I am not alone in my criticism of the late Government in this matter. Their own supporters in another place voiced serious criticisms. I see that Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, speaking in the House of Commons in May last year, said:
"The slum policy adopted by the Government I think is disappointing… We are told that the proper course to pursue is to extend the policy of re-conditioning property. I wish to enter a protest against that policy, because many of the houses which it is proposed to re-condition ought to be pulled down because they are reeking with vermin and disease, and the best policy to adopt is to sweep them away altogether."
Your Lordships will be asked to support the Government in adopting a policy of that type.
A noble Lord referred in passing, and I was very interested in his remarks, to the effect on unemployment of the failure to deal adequately with slum clearance. It is true that we have at the present moment building trade operatives in house building and public works construction unemployed to the number of 192,000. Not a minor part of the effect of slum clearance work will be to help towards lessening tie volume of unemployment which exists in our midst to-day. There are very real difficulties in this question. A number of noble Lords have referred to the complication of procedure in dealing with slum clearance schemes. There is the question of the enormous cost. There is also the fact that we are dealing with the lowest-paid workers in the whole of the country. Therefore we have to face the fact that rents must not be higher than they can afford to pay; that they cannot afford the cost of travelling from a distance to reach their work; and, what is often neglected in this matter, that they cannot afford the time taken in such travelling. I know cases where men who have moved out of slum areas into houses built on the outskirts of towns have had to get up every morning at four o'clock in order to reach their work at seven or half-past seven. I would like to emphasise the fact—the surprising fact to many people—that something in the neighbourhood of 90 per
710
cent. of those previously dwelling in slums who were moved to new houses have proved themselves to be first-class tenants in their new houses.
The suggestion has been put forward that we ought perhaps to try to survey the extent of the problem. There are reasons against such an attempt to survey the problem. In the first place such a survey besides being exceedingly costly would be out-of-date almost immediately after it was carried through, and, secondly, we know that the problem is so serious at the present moment that the utmost energy of the Government and the nation put into a frontal attack on the slum problem will not be too much to deal with that problem for many years to come. I suggest that what we should do is to attack this question with the utmost energy and when we have dealt with the worst of the slum areas then we can have a survey to find out what is the further problem which the country has to face. There is of course the question of making use of the census figures. I do not propose to go into that except to say that it is under the consideration of the Government whether an alteration could be made in the questions contained in the census paper for 1931 so as to elicit a little more information to enable us to visualise the extent of the problem, As against that—and this is a point which I feel is a difficulty—it is advisable to alter the questions in the census paper as little as possible because if we alter them seriously we shall undermine the value of the comparison decade by decade, between the census results in 1931 and in 1921 and in 1911 and so on. That is an argument against altering the questions seriously.
The Government feel that the time is long past when a greater part of the energy hitherto concentrated on the provision of new houses should be directed to the replacement of unfit houses and the demolition of aggregations of such houses. The task does involve interfering with private property on a considerable scale. It involves great expense. It requires, as has already been mentioned, the provision of accommodation for a large number of persons who will be displaced, and it has to be remembered that these will be amongst the poorest of the population. The Government therefore in the Bill which it is preparing have

711
decided to simplify and shorten the procedure in dealing with slum clearance schemes. They will make provision for the necessary capital to deal with the cost of such clearances, and they will assist local authorities in the inspection of property and in its maintenance in proper repair. They are definitely prepared to encourage proper management of property in the replaced slum areas. The Government will also encourage the decentralisation of industry by taking factories out of closely-populated areas and putting them in more rural areas where town planning can ensure that they do not interfere with the amenities of those living there. Legislation dealing with this matter is also under consideration. There are difficulties in an overcrowded legislative programme, but I can assure the House that it is the full intention of the Government to introduce their slum clearance proposals very shortly indeed.
LORD DARYNGTON: Can the noble Lord say when?
LORD MARLEY: I cannot give a precise date, but I can say it will be very shortly and as soon as possible. It is one of those matters which is very close to our hearts in the Labour and Socialist Party and we shall make no delay in introducing that measure. We believe that public opinion is sympathetic. If as much energy were put into slum clearance propaganda as has been put by some noble Lords into—shall we say?—anti-Russian propaganda, we should very quickly secure an assisted passage for this Bill.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: Will this legislation be introduced in this House first?
LORD MARLEY: No, it will be introduced in the other House. May I join in thanking the right rev. Prelate for raising this question? There are a number of other speakers and there will be a final speech on behalf of the Government.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I only wish to say one or two words. The noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Government has given reason for encouragement in holding out the hope that the long-deferred legislation is now impending. I trust that he will show in the introduction of this legislation that energy which he described as essential to the proper carrying out of the reforms which we all
712
wish to see. It was of course difficult to gather from what the noble Lord has just said exactly what is proposed by the Government, and we must be content with the sympathy which he has shown and with the promise of early legislation.
Certainly one must feel the gravest possible anxiety and indeed disappointment that after all that has been done it should still be possible for my right rev. friend to have brought before us the statistics he did which carry their own tale. It is lamentable to know that still 10 per cent. of our people are living in grossly overcrowded conditions, and not less than 10 per cent. in conditions that cannot be described as decently healthy. It is even worse to know that in Scotland out of four and three quarter million people, or, excluding the larger houses, out of the remaining four and a half million, no less than 43 per cent. of the population are living more than two in one room. Of course what quickens our sympathy and our desire that the Government may as speedily as possible fulfil the promises that the noble Lord has just made, is our human sympathy with those who are condemned, through no fault of their own, to spend their lives and give their work for the benefit of us all under conditions so lamentable. I note with great satisfaction what the noble Lord has just said about the marvellous way in which, in spite of these conditions, this great mass of our fellow-countrymen is able to maintain a patient and decent life.
I have the greatest possible regard and respect for many slum dwellers. I have been a slum dweller myself. I spent the first three years of my ministry in a condemned tenement of two rooms, measuring, so far as I can remember, ten feet by nine. I must add that when that statement was reported some little time ago I received, two days afterwards, a letter announcing that, in virtue of my statement, I had been elected an honorary member of the Ananias and Sapphira. Club. But the statement remains true, and I could not help realising what it would mean to dwell in those conditions with a wife doing all the washing and cooking and five or six children. It is our sympathy with those who are living in those circumstances and with the gallant struggle they make against the conditions that are imposed upon them which makes us eagerly anxious to

713
see the relief which the noble Lord has promised to offer. The progress made hitherto in dealing with the slum problem has been lamentable. It is very depressing to know that, in the three years from 1925 to 1928, only 6,000 houses in condemned areas have actually been destroyed by virtue of all these schemes. In a part of St. Pancras that I visited there are still standing fifty two-storey houses which were condemned as unfit for habitation thirty-two years ago. It really is time, therefore, that the matter was undertaken in a thorough and drastic manner.
I very sincerely hope that the Government will not, as I fear was hinted, discourage proper surveys before this immense national task is undertaken. There is very great danger in dealing with it piecemeal, and while, of course, what is immediately necessary in the way of slum clearance or the re-conditioning of houses should be undertaken where it is possible, I think it would be most unfortunate if any assistance were given to local authorities before they were able to produce, not necessarily a report upon every single house, but a planned survey of what was necessary within their area in the way of re-conditioning or re-building. I am sure that the Government do not mean to restrict these operations merely to the demolition and removal of slum areas. I hope that they will address themselves to what my right rev. friend pointed out as the real heart of this problem—namely, how, under the conditions existing now and, so far as one can see, likely to exist for a long time to come, you are to enable those now living in the slum areas and paying about 7s. a week, in any circumstances to pay the rent which a new house, however cheaply it may be built, necessitates. That is the real heart of the problem, and if the Government, in tackling it, are compelled to make considerable demands upon us all, I hope we shall be willing to bear the burden, provided it is not overwhelming. Certainly that problem of building a bridge between the rent that can now be charged and the rent which, under new conditions, so far as one can see, must be paid, is a social problem of such magnitude that it calls not only for the full attention of the Government but also for the sympathy of the whole country.
714
Meanwhile, though we expect the Government to deal with the matter fully and on a large scale, let us not despise the day of small things, which is still full of opportunities. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will tell us what he has been able to effect in Kensington, and I am only sorry that a necessary engagement elsewhere will prevent me from listening to what he has to say, though I think I am familiar with what has been done. Do not let us despise what can be done, what has been done and what may be done more fully in the future by these voluntary public utility societies. It is true that what they have been able to effect is on a comparatively small scale. I think that, of the 159,000 houses built in London within the last three or four years, only 2,600 were built by these public utility societies. Yet they have a value of their own, not merely in giving adequate housing to a certain number of those whom we all wish to help, but also, and chiefly, in arousing public opinion and, what is more, in showing what can be done if the effort is made in a prompt and practical manner. They are a most useful stimulus to the activities of local authorities and, let me add, I hope they will never be a screen behind which the local authorities can conceal their inactivity.
I am very familiar with one of the best of those efforts, which is associated with the Mission of Magdalen College, Oxford, in St. Pancras. I have gone through it and inspected both the old premises and the new ones which have been very wonderfully and admirably erected in the very centre of the worst area, and I am satisfied that what they have done has not only been to re-house a large number of workers, with whom I have conversed in their new houses, about which they are most enthusiastic, but also to interest a very large section of the outside public. Here let me mention another admirable direction in which these public utility societies may show the way, which I hope that even local authorities, when they become possessed of many of these new houses, will follow, and that is to secure their management by intelligent and sympathetic rent collectors. It makes the whole difference in the life of the residents of a large block of houses if they are constantly visited by people having an interest in their affairs and sharing

715
their lives—by a man or, better still, a woman who not only collects the rent but gives every possible assistance in the management of the houses. I feel bound, as your Lordships are discussing this most important matter, to call to your remembrance the pioneer of this work, who fired my imagination when I was a much younger man than I am now; a name which I hope will always be honoured in this country, the name of Miss Octavia, Hill. I am glad to say that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their large house property in London have from the first followed the example of Miss Octavia Hill, and made use of these rent collectors for the assistance of people who dwell in their houses.
Let me close by sounding one note of hope in the midst of rather depressing atmosphere. After all, consider what the Bishop of Southwark rightly described as an achievement of which this country may well be proud, the building of 1,400,000 houses, and consider the character of those houses and the standard of comfort and appearance which they represent. Contrast them with what in the enlightened nineteenth century was considered to be a decent mode of housing the people. Contrast them with the back-to-back houses in Birmingham. Contrast them with the 72,000 back-to-back houses in Leeds, 33,000 of which are crowded together, seventy or eighty to the acre. Yet many of these, in the memory of people now living, were new houses and considered to be satisfactory. We have travelled an enormous distance in our conception of the kind of house which is right and proper for a great country like ours. Consider again the raising of the standard, which I hope will never be lowered under any conditions, even for the sake of making it easy for people to get out of their present slum properties. Let us consider the examples which have been quoted to us, and how quick and sensitive public opinion in this country now is. It is because there is this new standard of homes for working people once for all created, and because there is this quickness and alertness of public opinion, which is bound to stimulate local authorities, that we feel that when the Government give a strong and hopeful lead we may look forward to the future, with all the difficulties which it presents, with some measure of hope.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, it is always possible that when there is discussed in your Lordships' House any matter which closely affects the social conditions of large numbers of poor people, the business aspects of the matter may be overshadowed by the pity and compassion felt in all quarters for the needy and suffering. Your Lordships are not, however, called upon primarily to express sentiments of sympathy. It is the function of Parliament not so much to record evils as to enact remedies which will be equitable to all parties concerned. In my capacity as President of the National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers I have been associated with a large number of organisations the members of which have suffered very considerable hardship as a result of experimental legislation intended to bring about slum clearance. I am afraid I must take your Lordships rather fully into the history of legislation affecting this matter. So far back as 1890 Parliament took the initial stages of this matter in hand when the Housing of the Working Classes Act was passed. In 1915, as soon as was convenient after the outbreak of War, another attempt was made to stabilise the housing conditions of the poorer classes of people. I refer to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915. Then in 1919 there was enacted the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act. The "etc." in the title of this Act seems to have stood significantly for a large number of serious omissions from the Act. In this very same year an Act was passed which indirectly effected steps which might be taken to enable local authorities to clear slum areas—I refer to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
Then in 1925 we had the Housing Act, Section 46 of which, with its peculiar rules for compensation, has caused so much unhappiness and misery to a very large number of deserving and unfortunate people. With regard to Section 46 I would like to read what was said by the President of the Law Society: it is pretty scathing:—
"Thus, by the simple manipulation of a paint brush held in the nerveless fingers of the Minister of Health, guided by an irresponsible official, a man may be deprived of property without compensation. From this decision there is no appeal. If this

717
lamentable principle were applied only to insanitary property, it would be bad enough. But is it confined to insanitary property? By no means. The view of the authorities, which they frankly admit and for which they bitterly contend, is that for this purpose a property, however sanitary, is to be treated as insanitary if situate in an insanitary district. So a man may seek by his good efforts to improve a slum area by building there a modern and in every way desirable building, and having done so is liable to receive the insult of being treated as the owner of insanitary property and, in addition, the injury of being deprived of any compensation for the building, however valuable, which he has erected."
In spite of all this legislation your Lordships are to-day faced with a problem even more crucial than it has ever been before, and in the remarks which I propose to address to your Lordships I hope to draw attention to the salient fact that if the matter of slum clearance is to be dealt with on sound lines it must be tackled strictly as a business proposition and the balances of justice must be held evenly between all the parties who will be affected by new legislation.
It will be convenient if at this point I demonstrate how unevenly the balances have been held as a result of ill-considered legislation in the past. I need not refer to the Act of 1890 which has no bearing upon this aspect of the subject. I come, therefore, to the Rent Restrictions Act of 1915. That Act was forced upon the Government of the day at a time of national emergency. I am not prepared to say that in its time and in the circumstances which attended the passing of that Act, the Act was not justified as a temporary measure. I propose, however, to show that the effect of continuing this war-time legislation to the present time has created slum conditions and has had other relatively undesirable effects which should be borne in mind when new housing legislation is considered. The primary effect of the Rent Restrictions Act is to take the control of small dwelling-houses out of the hands of the owners, so that owners desiring to re-condition cannot obtain possession of their houses for that purpose. It is obvious that so far as the structural condition, both internal and external, of these houses is concerned, the tenants are not liable. The tenants can sublet the premises to the utmost of the premises' capacity and even much beyond what is warranted by decency.
718
Your Lordships will follow the necessary consequences of legislation having this effect. The small dwelling-house which is suitable for the occupation of a man and his wife and two or three children is not suitable for the multitude of people who often occupy it. Families increase, dirt and destruction follow in the wake, and the owner is powerless to deal with that evil. He finds himself between the tenant on the one hand demanding repairs and decorations owing to the destruction following an over-tenanted house, and the local authority who squeezes him on the other side demanding additional lavatory accommodation and continuous sanitary repairs. If you multiply this one dwelling into a thousand you get a slum area. This area has by this legislation been taken out of the control of the owners of the houses within it, both so far as overcrowding is concerned and so far as structural repairs and internal amenities are concerned. It was with this state of affairs in mind that the Rousing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, was introduced.
By this time the representatives of the people had thoroughly convinced themselves, or had been spell-bound by Mr. Lloyd George, who was always so much against property owners of every sort, into the belief, that the responsibility for the evils which existed in the overcrowded and insanitary areas was entirely upon the shoulders of the owners of property within those areas. There can be no question of this, because the rules for compensation which were provided both in the 1919 Act and the subsequent Act of 1925 penalised the owners of property within these areas. Thus Parliament may be said to have assisted in the creation of an evil in 1915, and visited their own sins upon the owners of property, who suffered as a result of the evils which Parliament itself has assisted to create.
Turning now to the Housing Act, 1925, which follows the 1919 Act very closely, and which will be sufficient to illustrate my point, it will be found that in spite of the intention to penalise owners for owning property within unhealthy areas, a precautionary procedure was provided by which it was intended that there should be certain safeguards for the owners of sound and sanitary property although so unfortunately situated. I say that these safeguards have been deliber-

719
ately evaded, on the one hand by the application of a doctrine of environment, and on the other hand by a large number of illegal orders made by successive Ministers of Health. The doctrine of environment may be explained in this way. Suppose there exists in an unhealthy area a dwelling house in itself sanitary and in sound condition; and suppose that around this sound and sanitary dwelling, in close proximity, there are a number of unsound and insanitary dwellings. By virtue of the application of the doctrine of environment to the rules of compensation no compensation is paid to the owner of the sanitary dwelling house, because it is alleged that the sanitary dwelling house is rendered in-sanitary by its environment.
May I give your Lordships a few examples of this? I will take out a few from the large number I have here:
"Freehold, adjoining L.C.C. School. Cost, £735. Property in sound and sanitary condition. Under operation of the Housing Act, house confiscated by L.C.C. 28th October, 1927. No compensation paid for the buildings; £250 paid for the site. The property, although taken on the pretext that it was needed for a housing scheme and was not worth compensation, has been used by the L.C.C. in connection with the school and the L.C.C. is now collecting rents from the premises."
I had the privilege of introducing a deputation the other day to the Minister and he said that sort of thing did worry him when rents continued to be received by local authorities. Here is another case:
"Seven houses for which owner paid £1,150. Property in sound and sanitary condition. Mortgaged for £500. Under the operation of the Housing Act no compensation paid for buildings. £340 paid for site. L.C.C. collected rents for eighteen months after confiscation, then pulled them down and built flats. L.C.C. is now drawing rent from fourteen flats on the site at 15s. 6d. per week per flat. Owner compelled to go to workhouse and threatened with proceedings to recover balance of the mortgage due."
Listen also to this case:
"No. 53, Soho Street of which the owner is Mrs. Burn. This property is situated within the area of the Queen Anne Street slum clearance scheme. It has been scheduled as a red property by the medical officer of health, that is to say, as a property in respect of which no compensation whatever will be paid for the building. The building is a registered milk-house. It is difficult to understand how the building can be sufficiently sanitary for the distribution of milk and at the same time so insanitary that the Corporation of Liverpool are un-
720
willing to pay compensation for the premises."
So far as the illegal orders of the Minister are concerned, when I say that these orders have been illegal I refer your Lordships to the case of Rex versus the Minister of Health, ex parte Davis. (1929) 1 King's Bench. That is a decision both by a Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. Your Lordships will remember that the compensation section of the Housing Act 1925—namely, Section 46—provides that if the land is acquired by a local authority for the purpose of rehousing the working classes there shall be a reduction in the amount of compensation payable to the owner, which in practice amounts to from 30 to 50 per cent. I do not know upon what principle of law or justice this rule was ever made. Be that as it may, successive Ministers of Health have by their illegal orders enabled local authorities to refuse to disclose for what purposes land so acquired was to be used. In consequence there has been a general assumption on the part of arbitrators that the land was to be used for the housing of the working classes, and compensation has been so paid—that is to say, subject to the reduction factor.
It is fortunate that the National Federation of Property Owners has been able by the use of funds at its disposal to prevent the further perpetration of this injustice. It must not, however, be thought that the Federation of Property Owners is in any sense responsible for any delay in the work of clearing slums, with which work they are in full sympathy. In fact, some of the people who have joined the Federation and have been found out to be harpies have been turned out very quickly. It is obvious that the blame for the temporary set back to this very proper work of local authorities is due entirely to the fact that successive Ministers of Health have not been properly advised by their legal Department, or else their legal Department have advised them to bluff. I say, then, that in considering the position as it exists the balance of justice no less than the balance of reason has hitherto been held unevenly in adjusting the relation of the three parties to the necessary work of slum clearance—that is to say, the local authorities, the owners and tenants.

721
By the Rent Act slums are being created. By the Rent Act decent owners who look only for a fair profit on the respectable business of housing the people, and who regard their responsibility seriously, and the upkeep of their property as sound business, are in course of being driven out of the business. There is a danger of their being replaced by speculators, whose object is to get as much as they can out of the property before the State intervenes. By the Housing Act, 1925, the balances are again held unevenly, with the consequences that inadequate compensation is given to the decent owners of property within unhealthy areas, and the leaseholders and small traders are given no compensation at all. I hope that when legislation is introduced compensation will be paid to such people. Moreover, no express provision is made that the actual persons who are displaced from one slum area shall be rehoused under a housing scheme. The consequence of the absence of this last provision is, for example, that a thousand slum dwellers may be displaced and accommodation may be provided for a thousand municipal officials. The thousand displaced slum dwellers overflow to the area adjoining the cleared slum and create new slums, to the manifest disadvantage of the owner.
Having, I hope, demonstrated some of the fallacies and mistakes existing in present legislation, may I be allowed to offer some constructive proposals which I think would be of assistance to your Lordships in considering any remedial legislation? I am given to understand by the Minister of Health himself that the two outstanding difficulties with which he is faced are the necessity for haste and the need for economy. I trust this dos not mean that some of the old mistakes are to be repeated in legislation. I trust that the Minister will not seek to overcome the difficulty of constitutional procedure by methods with which we are too familiar, as, far example, by taking all power into his, own hands and constituting himself the dictator for all purposes connected with this matter without giving an appeal to the Courts.
It is true that the local authorities should be satisfied that their financial resources are equal to the enterprise they have in mind, and for this purpose approximate estimates at least of the
722
cost should be submitted to the Ministry of Health, or, more properly, to the elected body of councillors who will be responsible for imposing a proportion of the costs upon their constituents. This brings me naturally to the main difficulty which, from a business point of view, presents itself in this matter. Housing is of great importance. Work for the people is also of great importance. It follows that if a burden is to be placed upon business and industry you may aggravate unemployment. You are, therefore, faced with the difficulty that you have an evil which cries aloud for remedy, but your remedy cannot be applied without the greatest circumspection lest you create the great evil of unemployment to replace the evil of bad housing. If you create unemployment you will create at the same time a population which cannot afford houses. In consequence, the only effect of your sympathetically conceived legislation will be to bring into existence houses which must be built at the expense of the taxpayers and ratepayers and subsequently maintained by both taxpayers and ratepayers. I am going to suggest that to a very great extent the difficulty arising from the expense of slum clearance can be met, and can only be met, by carefully considered schemes of re-conditioning all old property which is suitable for such treatment.
I turn now to the question of compensation for all the interests which must be acquired in order to enable local authorities to carry out clearance schemes. I would preface my remarks on this point with the submission that local authorities should acquire as little of the property as possible within these areas for the simple reason that I know of no local authority which can afford to pay fair compensation to all the interests which are involved. The main object should be to re-condition the area and acquisition should only be resorted to where re-conditioning is impracticable. There must, of course, be a large number of cases in which it will be necessary for local authorities to acquire all the interests within certain limited areas. It seems to me that the only safe rule for compensation is the rule laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which may be called the charter for compensation and

723
which was enacted after the most careful investigation of a Royal Commission.
There are in that Act safeguards against the payment of compensation in undeserving cases. For my own part I am at a loss to understand why there has ever been any deviation from the provisions of compensation enacted in that Act. It is particularly remarkable that there should have been deviations in the very year in which that Act was passed, because that Act provided that no Act passed either before or after, if inconsistent with it so far as compensation was concerned, should have any effect. It is my submission that so far as cost is concerned there could be no fairer measure of compensation than that provided in the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. I do not think local authorities should be called upon to pay more and I am morally certain that they should not be enabled to pay less. This is not only my own opinion but it was the considered view of the Royal Commission to which I have referred your Lordships. There is this additional advantage in following the rules for compensation laid down by this Act. The cumbersome procedure necessitating the difficult calculations involved by the Housing Act, 1925, are entirely avoided. The gaps in the Housing Act, which it is agreed on all hands should have been filled, would by the adoption of the Acquisition of Land Act be filled. When I refer to gaps I mean particularly the absence of any provision for the compensation of the small tradesman who may have paid £200 or £300 for the goodwill of his business or for the leaseholder who may have paid his life savings for a lease.
There will be this further advantage following from the adoption of the Acquisition of Land Act. Local authorities would be in no doubt when estimating their financial resources as to the costs involved in carrying out any scheme they might project. It would follow that you would reduce the danger of investing public money in the creation of insolvent housing estates—a danger which, as I have pointed out, would not only threaten the unfortunate occupants of houses within such estates, but would burden business and industry in such a way as to aggravate the evil of unemployment. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to express my gratitude to the right rev. Prelate for having raised this important question of clearing the slums. We are all greatly in sympathy with the question and I am sure we should all welcome a good solution of it. The tragedy, to my mind, is that when re-housing is taking place on the cleared ground tenements are nearly always put up. It may be necessary, but it is very hard on the poor wife who, whenever she has to go in or out or to bring anything in from the street, has to go up and down three or four flights of stairs. In clearing away the slums in so many cases we are not dealing with large landowners but with men of very small means who, in many cases, have put the whole of their savings into this class of house property. Land and houses, as we know, are the investment of the poor man who likes to put his money into something that he can see and which he thinks will not run away. He does not understand investing in War Loan or railway shares. He cannot believe that a small strip of paper is a guarantee that his money is still there. I would earnestly ask, therefore, that the Government should deal kindly in any new legislation with the amount of compensation that will be paid. Of course, I put wholly on one side all property which is in a bad state of repair or unfit for habitation. I have no sympathy at all with those owners.
My noble friend Lord Bertie dealt at some length with the question of the acquisition of property when slum areas are being swept away. I should like to remind your Lordships that local authorities and the Ministry of Health draw a red pencil line round an area and say, "This is slum property." In that area there are very often shops and good houses, but as their environment is not good they are swept away and no compensation is paid. The curious thing is that if there is a ground landlord he gets compensation, but the tenants and the lessees lose their interest and get no compensation at all, in addition to losing their goodwill. I have come across numerous cases of hardship. I will quote one to your Lordships to show what is going on. It is not a hearsay case; it is one

725
that was tried lately before the official arbitrator and was fully reported. I will state the facts briefly to your Lordships. It is called Lithman and the National Provincial Bank versus the London County Council, and it was heard at Westminster by an official arbitrator in December, 1928.
This is not a case of a ground landlord making a claim. It is a claim by a, lessee. A claim for compensation was made in respect of two blocks of property in Stepney acquired by the London County Council for an improvement scheme under the Housing Act, 1925, and the area had been marked by a red ring pencil. Mr. Lithman held a sub-lease for sixty years from September, 1919. The bank was interested as mortgagee, because they had lent £1,000 in 1920. The rent reserved was £276 a year and Mr. Lithman paid a premium of £5,500 for this lease. The arbitrator found that in the circumstances the value of Mr. Lithman's interest was nil. Could legislation go further than that I Of course, I am not blaming the arbitrator. He had to give his decision in accordance with the Act. So the lessee lost the whole of his £5,500 and presumably the bank also lost their £1,000. What is going to happen in the future to trustees and mortgagees of this kind of property I do not know, but I can assure the Government that when they bring in their new legislation if it is on good sound lines, as I hope it will be, they will receive nothing but help and encouragement, from this side of the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who opened this debate was careful to emphasise the fact that at this Lime of day the housing question is a non-Party matter. That really is the case, and I am bound to say that I did feel it to be rather a matter for regret that the noble Lord who spoke for the Government, while claiming indulgence for his maiden speech, which this House is always very ready to accord, thought it right to import a somewhat hot Party tone into his remarks. I think it is unfortunate because previous Governments, whoever they have been, since the War, and I do not exclude the Labour Government, have been doing all they could for the housing question. We have now reached the stage when something has got to be done about these
726
slums. It would, no doubt, have been desirable to deal with the slum question more drastically sooner, but, as your Lordships know, a great effort has been made to deal with housing and the slums have perforce, being the most difficult part of the question, had to wait.
I am bound to admit I was also a little bit concerned at the attitude of the noble Lord with regard to the question of the expenditure of money. I got the impression that he thought the expenditure of money was a good thing in itself. Now, great as is the importance I attach to housing, I am not prepared to see money spent where a lesser expenditure could achieve the same object. We are all pressed by constantly increasing expenditure, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by taunting other people for laying some stress on the necessity for economy. After all, it is going to be a matter of value for money. We are all of us willing to spend money in order to get the result which we desire, but none of us—and I hope this may apply to the noble Lord and the Government as well as to other people—are anxious to spend money unnecessarily.
Now, as has been emphasised earlier in this debate, we cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the real difficulty and the real need is the provision of houses at low rents. The problem can be put in a nutshell when we say that the houses which have been built up to the present have been houses for people who are earning a fairly substantial wage. The slum-dweller who can only pay a small rent has, as yet, hardly been helped. If we cannot get his wages increased, we must try to house him at a rent which he can afford. If there is no prospect of getting wages substantially up, then we have to get rents down. At the same time, we have to pay such attention as we can to the urgent need for economy. In the few remarks that I wish to make to your Lordships, I want to make one or two suggestions as to how this need for low rents can be met with due regard to spending as little money as possible.
Before I come to concrete proposals, however, I should like to suggest to the Government that the prevention of the creation of new slums is just as important as getting rid of the slums which exist at present. At the present time,

727
new slums are being created probably a great deal faster than slums are being done away with. The main cause of the creation of slums is the process which is taking place, as the right rev. Prelate knows very well, in Southwark and Shoreditch and other places, of industrialising areas which up to now have been working class dwelling areas. There is no more prolific source of the creation of slums than to have large factories springing up which, unless building is regulated, overshadow dwelling houses and shut out sunlight. Then, owing to rapidly rising site values, houses in these areas cannot be kept economically as dwelling houses, and they fall into decay. To prevent that going on there must be in London and other big towns a power of town-planning built-up areas. We have heard a great deal about regional town planning all over the country, but there is no power at present for town-planning built-up areas, and that is a most urgent necessity to which I hope the Government will give very careful consideration. In North Kensington, the district which I know best, the process I have described is precisely what will happen if powers are not taken to keep areas for working class dwellings. I imagine that the proper authority in the Metropolis will be the London County Council. In other parts of the country there are, of course, already town-planning authorities, but in built-up areas town planning powers do not exist and they are very urgently required.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to the question of census figures. He may have had in mind a question in which I suggested that in the next census particulars should be given as to the number of bedrooms so that the real extent of overcrowding should be brought to light. The noble Lord was not very encouraging. He spoke of the danger of vitiating comparisons with previous years. That really would not arise if my suggestion is put into effect, because it would really mean subdividing some of the information which is already there. It would not be a different form of inquiry but only a slightly more detailed form, and I very much hope that the Government will not give up the idea of getting that information unless they have some much better reason to produce than the one we have been told about.
LORD MARLEY: I may say that it is still under consideration.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very glad to hear it, and I may take the opportunity of returning to the point later in order to stimulate the noble Lord. We are told, and I was very interested to hear it, that by the Bill that the Government are going to bring in they are going to provide capital, to make capital available, to assist local authorities—
LORD MARLEY: I did not say they were going to provide capital.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I distinctly understood the noble Lord to say that.
LORD MARLEY: I said they were going to provide "for the capital." That is a different thing. You can provide capital or you can provide, by subsidy or by other means, for the necessary capital.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am bound to say that the distinction is not very clear to me, but if capital is forthcoming I do not mind whether it is provided or provided for. What I want to urge is that the Government should not neglect voluntary societies, public utility societies. Reference has already been made to the work done by these societies. I was rather surprised by the figures given by the most rev. Primate. I think the voluntary societies have really done a little more than the figures that he gave suggested. I earnestly hope that the Government do not think that, because these societies are run by private enterprise, they ought to be discouraged. As the noble Lord said, the problem has to be attacked from every angle, and these voluntary societies are doing excellent work and are capable of immense development. They can do some things which local authorities cannot do and, in particular, I think they can sometimes deal with questions of management in a better way than local authorities. They represent a, tremendous force of public opinion and good will which is being put into this work.
If I may refer to my own experience in North Kensington, in my small society, which has been referred to very kindly by more than one noble Lord, we find that new accommodation can be provided, allowing for the subsidy, so as to pay 2½ per cent., and reconstruction can be

729
made to return 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on the capital. Both these percentages could be increased if higher rents were charged, but the whole essence of the problem is to keep rents down. We find that if we keep rents down to the level which the more poorly paid working-class people can afford, we cannot get more than 21 per cent. on new buildings and 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on reconstruction. The most practical thing that the Government could do would be to make capital available for these voluntary societies. I know it may be replied that this is only another form of concealed subsidy, but I am not suggesting that the thing should be done indiscriminately. I think the voluntary societies, which will provide a sum to return 2½ per cent. and will keep the rents down to a level which will make that return, might be encouraged by the Government providing pound for pound of the capital. After all, this is a philanthropic effort. People who lend money at 2½ per cent. are practically halving the capital value of their money. A great deal could be done if the Government would give pound for pound at 2½ per cent. The societies would be under an obligation to keep down the rents to such a level as would make this return, or a return of 4 per cent. for reconstruction.
It is worth while calling your Lordships' attention to the difference that is made to the amount of rent when you have to pay 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent, for the money. In a building the, has just been completed by the trust with which I am connected in North Kensington the cost per flat was £665, including site. I know that this seems a good deal compared with the figure of £400 that was given by previous speakers, but, of course, they referred to the country. Even the London County Council cannot build flats in London in big blocks for leas than £600. These flats cost £665, and this, at 5 per cent., represents £33 5s. per annum, which is 13s. a week. If you can get this money at 2½ per cent., then this represents, instead of 13s. a week, 6s. 6d. a week, making a difference of 6s. 6d. in the rent for each flat. When you are dealing with a three-roomed or four-roomed house, that is almost the difference between what the poorest class of workers pay and what can be paid by the people who have already been provided for.
730
What we want to aim at in London—I am not speaking of the country, where they cannot pay so much—is to supply this accommodation at 3s. a room, inclusive of rates. This would mean 12s. for a four-roomed flat, and would meet the demand from the poorly-paid people. At present the rents charged for houses erected by the local authorities, even with the subsidy, in order not to put any further burden on the rates, amount to about 5s. per room. Accordingly, if you are dealing with a three-roomed flat, you practicallly save the difference between 3s. and 5s. per room if you can save 6s. 6d. That is the only way in which the problem can be solved. You have to provide a rent which people can pay, and the only way is to continue the subsidy and possibly to add something to it in one way or another.
The right rev. Prelate referred to the question of rent allowances for children. I should like to say that this also is an experiment which must be examined very carefully. In my trust, if I may once again refer to it, we have made what I consider a slight improvement in the way in which rent allowances are given. We give allowances so as to bring rent down to a sum equal to one-fifth of the family income. The principle is that it is reasonable for a family to pay one-fifth of its income in rent, and the moment any child grows up and goes to work or the family income is otherwise increased the allowance will be stopped. That is much more economical than an overhead rent allowance for children without regard to the family income. It certainly involves more careful selection of tenants, and that is a matter in which, I think, the voluntary public utility society is at an advantage compared with the local authority.
There is one other matter concerning which I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord. He referred to the fact that the Government intend to introduce legislation in connection with the decentralisation of factories. This makes me hope that at last we are going to have something done to encourage the promotion of garden cities. I suppose the garden city idea has been more talked about and theorised about than any other, but very little has been done. It is, however, a most important matter for the solution of slum clearance to have controlled decentralisation of the big towns. The fact is that the big towns, especially London,

731
are far too big, and instead of increasing them we ought to try to make them smaller, on account of all the problems of traffic and the other difficulties that arise. At present, as your Lordships know, industry is moving South. I believe the reason is that it is no longer necessary for industry to be near the pithead, owing to the development of transport and of electrical power. At any rate industry is moving South and adding to the congestion in London.
Regarding London as a centre, the situation would really be ludicrous if it were not so tragic. You have London as a centre; you have Becontree to the east, which is a dormitory practically without a factory; and you have Slough to the west, which is an industrial area without housing. You have thousands of workers who have to come into London from Slough, where there is work, because they cannot live there, and thousands more who have to come into London from Becontree because there is no work at Becontree. If an explorer were to find some tribe of aborigines which arranged its affairs in that way he would come back and lecture to the Royal Geographical Society and say that obviously they had no genius for organisation. The thing is really perfectly absurd.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is no longer here, because, though I have the greatest admiration for what the London County Council have done in the way of housing work in London, I think they have shown a most lamentable lack of imagination regarding the garden city idea. They have turned the thing down time after time, with the result that at Becontree they have really created something that is very far from what it might have been. They are trying to get industry to Becontree now, whereas, if they had started it on the lines of a garden city, they might have married Becontree and Slough and created a really fine satellite town. I know there are difficulties. There is the difficulty of rating, and I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, but I would like to say very briefly that I would wish to see this thing introduced into Government legislation—that they should create powers whereby urban authorities or large corporations could
732
carve out areas and include them in their rating districts; creating a colony detached if necessary, because at present if they buy land for a garden city outside their area they add to the rating value by which they do not benefit, and they throw a burden of public service upon a rural area which is unable to bear it. If, however, they were able to include such an area in their own rating area, the difficulty would be solved.
Lastly, with regard to garden cities, I would like to see the Government set up a special ad hoc body, which would work something on the lines of the Development Commission. The reason why there are no more garden cities than there are is that there is no body with the driving force to keep the thing going. There is plenty of work for such a body to do, and I do not believe it would cause overlapping with other authorities. I can only commend the idea to the Government, because it is of no use patching up the clearance work. You have got to decentralise your big towns, and I should like to think that this Government are going to tackle this job. They must remember that they are a minority Government, and therefore have got to try to tackle things in which they will get the support of other Parties. Here is the idea of garden cities. Nothing is being done, and I think they will achieve a great thing, and will get the support of all Parties, if they really get the garden city movement going, and set on foot a real cure for the slums.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Buck-master I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have no objection to the Motion if it is for the convenience of the House, and if the debate is to be adjourned I understand that Tuesday next will be suitable for everyone.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned until Tuesday next accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Deputy Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Scottish Central Electric Power (substituted Bill),

Fife Electric Power (substituted Bill),

Lochaber Water Power (substituted Bill).

Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Llanelly District Traction [H.L.],

Bromborough Dock [H.L.],

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
FIFE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.].—[SUBSTITUTED BILL],
LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL. [H.L.].—[SUBSTITUTED BILL],
SCOTTISH CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.].—[SUBSTITUTED BILL],
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported without amendment, with a Report from the Chairman of Committees under Standing Order No. 95, that in his opinion the Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill: Bill recommitted: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
FALMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL. [H.L.]
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:—

E. Lytton (Chairman),

V. Leverhulme,

L. Darcy (de Knayth),

L. Templemore,

L. Alvingham:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 5th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
MID KENT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
EAST KENT DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
EPSOM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SELSEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:—

E. Strafford (Chairman),

E. Iveagh,

V. Mersey,

L. Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway),

L. Monteagle (M. Sligo):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 18th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be pro-

735
posed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Halsbury,

L. Sandhurst,

L. Monk Bretton,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Atkin (Chairman);

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 12th of March next, at eleven o'clock; with leave to the Promoters to be heard by Counsel if they see fit.

ARCHDEACONRY OF SURREY MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
PARSONAGES MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
MARRIAGE MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.