Skip to main content

New Clause—(General Functions Of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission)

Volume 235: debated on Wednesday 26 February 1930

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

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 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.

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 two hon. and gallant Members who have 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.

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.

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.

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.

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) 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

Division No. 187.]

AYES.

[4.54 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Elmley, ViscountKennedy, 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. RobertKirkwood, D.
Alpass, J. H.Freeman, PeterKnight, Holford
Ammon, Charles GeorgeGardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Angell, NormanGeorge, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Lang, Gordon
Arnott, JohnGibbins, JosephLansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Aske, Sir RobertGibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)Lathan, G.
Attlee, Clement RichardGill, T. H.Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ayles, WalterGillett, 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 JohnGould, F.Lawson, John James
Batey, JosephGraham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)Leach, W.
Bellamy, AlbertGranville, E.Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. WedgwoodGray, MilnerLee, 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. EthelGriffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)Lloyd, C. Ellis
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)Logan, David Gilbert
Blindell, JamesGroves, Thomas E.Longbottom, A. W.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. MargaretGrundy, 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. FennerHall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Bromfield, WilliamHamilton, 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. VernonMacNeill-Weir, L.
Burgess, F. G.Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMcShane, John James
Burgin, Dr. E. L.Haycock, A. W.Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)Hayday, ArthurMander, Geoffrey le M.
Caine, Derwent Hall-Hayes, John HenryMansfield, W.
Cameron, A. G.Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)March, S.
Cape, ThomasHenderson, 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, DanielHirst, 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, LeslieMaxton, James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.Horrabin, J. F.Melville, Sir James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)Messer, Fred
Compton, JosephHunter, Dr. JosephMillar, J. D.
Cove, William G.Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.Mills, J. E.
Daggar, GeorgeIsaacs, GeorgeMilner, J.
Dallas, GeorgeJenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)Montague, Frederick
Dalton, HughJohn, William (Rhondda, West)Morley, Ralph
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)Johnston, ThomasMorris, Rhys Hopkins
Day, HarryJones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Devlin, JosephJones, 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, CharlesJones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Moses, J. J. H.
Ede, James ChuterJones, 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.

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.

Noel Baker, P. J.Sexton, JamesTinker, John Joseph
Oldfield, J. R.Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)Toole, Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)Shepherd, Arthur LewisTout, W. J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)Sherwood, G. H.Townend, A. E.
Palin, John Henry.Shield, George WilliamTurner, B.
Paling, WilfridShiels, Dr. DrummondVaughan, 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 JohnSimmons, C. J.Wallhead, Richard C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)Watkins, F. C.
Phillips, Dr. MarlonSimon, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnWatson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Picton-Turbervill, EdithSinkinson, GeorgeWellock, 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 JohnSmith, Frank (Nuneaton)Westwood, Joseph
Quibell, D. J. K.Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsay, T. B. WilsonSmith, 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, HarryWilliams, 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, CampbellWilson, J. (Oldham)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Rowson, GuyStrachey, E. J. St. LoeWinterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. WalterStrauss, G. R.Wise, E. F.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)Sullivan, J.Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Salter, Dr. AlfredSutton, 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, JamesThorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-ColonelEverard, W. LindsayNewton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Albery, Irving JamesFalle, Sir Bertram G.Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., w.)Fermoy, LordNield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)Fison, F. G. ClaveringOman, Sir Charles William C.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Forestier-Walker, Sir L.O'Neill, Sir H.
Astor, ViscountessFremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Peake, Capt. Osbert
Atholl, Duchess ofGanzonl, Sir JohnPeto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonPownall, Sir Assheton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Balniel, LordGlyn, Major R. G. C.Ramsbotham, H.
Bellairs, Commander CarlyonGrace, JohnReid, David D. (County Down)
Berry, Sir GeorgeGunston, 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 RoyHanbury, C.Ross, Major Ronald D.
Bourne, Captain Robert CroftHartington, Marquess ofRussell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartHarvey, 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 WilliamHoward-Bury, Colonel C. K.Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeHudson, 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 AlfredSmithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A.Lamb, Sir J. Q.Somerset, Thomas
Castle Stewart, Earl ofLane 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 BurtonLewis, 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 EricSueter, Rcar-Admiral M. F.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir GeorgeMcConnell, Sir JosephThomas, 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 PhilipMargesson, Captain H. D.Train, J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyMarjoribanks, E. C.Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Dr. VernonMerriman, Sir F. BoydTurton, Robert Hugh
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Dawson, Sir PhilipMonsell, 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 CliveWilliams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)Muirhead, A. J.Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel GeorgeWomersley, W. J.TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Winterton, Rt. Hon. EarlWood, Rt. Hon. Sir KingsleySir George Penny and Captain Wallace.
Withers, Sir John JamesWorthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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- 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.

I had not intended to intervene, but I feel that I must speak 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.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman been asked by the co-operators to make this statement?

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.

Have the co-operators in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's division asked him to make this statement?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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- 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.

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 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.

"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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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- 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.

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

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- 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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Division No. 188.]

AYES.

[6.9 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Aske, Sir RobertBenn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)Attlee, Clement RichardBennett, William (Battersea, South)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. ChristopherAyles, WalterBenson, 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 JohnBunden, James
Ammon, Charles GeorgeBatey, JosephBondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Angell, NormanBeckett, John (Camberwetl, Peckham)Bowen, J. W.
Arnott, JohnBellamy, AlbertBowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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.

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.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 162.

Broad, Francis AlfredHerriotts, J.Nathan, Major H. L.
Brockway, A. FennerHint, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)Naylor, T. E.
Bromfield, WilliamHoffman, P. C.Noel Baker, P. J.
Bromley, J.Hoilins, A.Oldfield, J. R.
Brooke, W.Hore-Belisha, LeslieOliver, 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. JosephPaling, Wilfrid
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.Palmer, E. T.
Buchanan, G.Isaacs, GeorgeParkinson, 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, ThomasJones, 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, DanielJowitt, 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, ThomasRichardson, 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, JosephKirkwood, D.Ritson, J.
Cove, William G.Knight, HolfordRoberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Daggar, GeorgeLambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)Romeril, H. G.
Dallas, GeorgeLang, GordonRosbotham, D. S. T.
Dalton, HughLansbury, Rt. Hon. GeorgeRowson, Guy
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)Lathan, G.Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Day, HarryLaw, Albert (Bolton)Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Denman, Hon. R. D.Law, A. (Rosendale)Salter, Dr. Alfred
Devlin, JosephLawrence, SusanSamuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Dukes, C.Lawson, John JamesSanders, W. S.
Duncan, CharlesLawther, W, (Barnard Castle)Sawyer, G. F.
Ede, James ChuterLeach, 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, ViscountLloyd, C. EllisSherwood, G. H.
England, Colonel A.Logan, David GilbertShield, George William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)Longbottom, A. W.Shillaker, J. F.
Foot, IsaacLongden, F.Shinwell, E.
Forgan, Dr. RobertLowth, ThomasShort, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Freeman, PeterLunn, WilliamSimmons, 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, JosephMcEntee, V. L.Sitch, Charles H.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)McKinlay, A.Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Gill, T. H.MacLaren, AndrewSmith, 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 JamesSmith, 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, MilnerMansfield, 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, FredSullivan, J.
Grundy, Thomas W.Mathers, GeorgeSutton, J. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Matters, L. W.Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)Maxton, JamesTaylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)Melville, Sir JamesThomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)Messer, FredThorne, 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, FrederickToole, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.Morgan, Dr. H. B.Tout, W. J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. VernonMorley, RalphTownend, A. E.
Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMorris, Rhys HopkinsTrevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Haycock, A. W.Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)Turner, B.
Hayday, ArthurMorrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)Vaughan, D. J.
Hayes, John HenryMorrison, 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, WilfredWilliams, 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, JosephWilson, 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.-ColonelGanzonl, Sir JohnPeake, Capt. Osbert
Albery, Irving JamesGault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonPeto, 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 JohnPreston, Sir Walter Rueben
Astor, ViscountessGlyn, Major R. G. C.Ramsbotham, H.
Atholl, Duchess ofGrace, JohnReid, 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 WalterRodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Balniel, LordGrenfell, Edward C. (City of London)Ross, Major Ronald D.
Bellairs, Commander CarlyonGritten, W. G. HowardRussell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Berry, Sir GeorgeGuinness, 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 DearmanHacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bird, Ernest RoyHamilton, Sir George (Ilford)Savery, S. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert CroftHanbury, C.Simms, Major-General J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartHartington, Marquess ofSinclair, 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 WilliamHeneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeHills, Major Rt. Hon. John WallerSmith-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. EdwardHurst, Sir Gerald B.Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Castle Stewart, Earl ofJames, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. CuthbertStewart, 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 AlfredThomas, 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 GeorgeLeighton, 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. GodfreyTurton, Robert Hugh
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)McConnell, Sir JosephVaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir PhilipMacquisten, F. A.Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyMacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Dr. VernonMakins, Brigadier-General E.Wells, Sydney R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)Margesson, Captain H. D.Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Dawson, Sir PhilipMarjoribanks, 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. BoydWinterton, 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. LindsayMoore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur CliveWorthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Fermoy, LordMuirhead, A. J.Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Fielden, E. B.Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Fison, F. G. ClaveringNicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir HerbertMajor 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."

Division No. 189.]

AYES.

[6.20 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Aske, Sir RobertBenn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)Attlee, Clement RichardBennett, William (Battersea, South)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. ChristopherAyles, WalterBenson, 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 JohnBlindell, James
Ammon, Charles GeorgeBatey, JosephBondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Angell, Norman.Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)Bowen, J. W.
Arnott, JohnBellamy, AlbertBowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 160.

Broad, Francis AlfredHirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)Naylor, T. E.
Brockway, A. FennerHoffman, P. C.Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bromfield, WilliamHollins, ANoel Baker, P. J.
Bromley, J.Hore-Belisha, LeslieOldfield, 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. JosephPalin, John Henry.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.Paling, Wilfrid
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)Isaacs, GeorgePalmer, 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, ThomasPeters, 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, ThomasJones, 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, DanielJowitt, 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, ThomasRaynes, W. R.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.Kenworfhy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.Richards, R.
Compton, JosephKinley, J.Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cove, William G.Kirkwood, D.Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Daggar, GeorgeKnight, HolfordRiley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dallas, GeorgeLambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)Ritson, J.
Dalton, HughLang, GordonRoberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)Lansbury, Rt. Hon. GeorgeRomeril, H. G.
Day, HarryLathan, G.Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.Law, Albert (Bolton)Rowson, Guy
Devlin, JosephLaw, A. (Rosendale)Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Dudgeon, Major C. R.Lawrence, SusanRussell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Dukes, C.Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)Salter, Dr. Alfred
Duncan, CharlesLawson, John JamesSamuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Ede, James ChuterLawther, 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, ViscountLewis, T. (Southampton)Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
England, Colonel A.Lloyd, C. EllisShaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)Logan, David GilbertShepherd, Arthur Lewis
Foot, IsaacLongbottom, A. W.Sherwood, G. H.
Forgan, Dr. RobertLongden, F.Shield, George William
Freeman, PeterLowth, ThomasShillaker, J. F.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Lunn, WilliamShinwell, 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, JosephMcElwee, 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, AndrewSitch, 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 JamesSmith, Rennie (Penistone)
Granville, E.Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gray, MilnerMansfield, 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, FredStewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Grundy, Thomas W.Mathers, GeorgeStrachey, E. J. St. Loe
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Matters, L. W.Strauss, G. R.
Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)Maxton, JamesSullivan, J.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)Melville, Sir JamesSutton, J. E.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)Messer, FredTaylor, 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, FrederickThurtle, Ernest
Harris, Percy A.Morgan, Dr. H. B.Tillett, Ben
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. VernonMorley, RalphTinker, John Joseph
Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMorris, Rhys HopkinsToole, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)Tout, W. J.
Hayday, ArthurMorrison, Herbert (Hackney. South)Townend, A. E.
Hayes, John HenryMorrison, 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.

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, WilfredWilliams, 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, JosephWilson, 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 JamesFremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)Ganzoni, Sir JohnNicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'l'd)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonNield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Astor, ViscountessGibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)O'Neill, Sir H.
Atholl, Duchess ofGilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnPeake, Captain Osbert
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Glyn, Major R. G. C.Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)Grace, JohnPownall, Sir Assheton
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)Preston, Sir Walter Rucben
Balniel, LordGrattan-Doyle, Sir N.Ramsbotham, H.
Bellairs, Commander CarlyonGreaves-Lord, Sir WalterReid, David D. (County Down)
Berry, Sir GeorgeGrenfell, Edward C. (City of London)Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)Gritten, W. G. HowardRichardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Birchall, Major Sir John DearmanGuinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bird, Ernest RoyGunston, 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. VansittartHanbury, C.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney;
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.Hartington, Marquess ofSandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Boyce, H. L.Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)Savery, S. S.
Brass, Captain Sir WilliamHaslam, Henry C.Simms, Major-General J.
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeHeneage, 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 WallerSmith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Burton, Colonel H. W.Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Butler, R. AHerne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. EdwardHoward-Bury, Colonel C. K.Smithers, Waldron
Castle Stewart, Earl ofHudson, 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. CuthbertSteel-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 GeorgeKnox, Sir AlfredThomson, 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 PhilipLewis, Oswald (Colchester)Turton, Robert Hugh
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyLlewellin, Major J. J.Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. GodfreyWard, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davies, Dr. VernonMcConnell, Sir JosephWaterhouse, Captain Charles
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.Wells, Sydney R.
Dawson, Sir PhilipMaitland, 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. BoydWood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Everard, W. LindsayMitchell, 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, LordMoore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Fielden, E. B.Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fison, F. G. ClaveringMorrison-Bell, Sir Arthur CliveSir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

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."

I would be glad if the hon. Member would come a little nearer to me, in order that I may hear him.

This matter is not one which requires much explanation. The proposed 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 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

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. ChristopherElmley, ViscountKirkwood, 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, IsaacLang, Gordon
Ammon, Charles GeorgeForgan, Dr. RobertLansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Angell, NormanFreeman, PeterLathan, G.
Arnott, JohnGardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)Law, Albert (Bolton)
Aske, Sir RobertGeorge, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Law, A. (Rosendale)
Attlee, Clement RichardGibbins, JosephLawrence, Susan
Ayles, WalterGibson, 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 JohnGossling, A. G.Leach, W.
Batey, JosephGould, F.Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Bellamy, AlbertGraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)Lees, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. WedgwoodGranville, E.Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Benson, G.Gray, MilnerLogan, David Gilbert
Bentham, Dr. EthelGreenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)Longbottom, A. W.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)Longden, F.
Birkett, W. NormanGriffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)Lowth, Thomas
Blindell, JamesGriffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)Lunn, William
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. MargaretGroves, 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 AlfredHall, G. K Merthyr Tydvil)McEntee, V. L.
Brockway, A. FennerHall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)McKinlay, A.
Bromfield, WilliamHamilton, 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. VernonMansfield, W.
Buchanan, G.Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMarch, S.
Burgess, F. G.Haycock, A. W.Marcus, M.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.Hayday, ArthurMarkham, S. F.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)Hayes, John HenryMarley, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)Marshall, Fred
Caine, Derwent HallHenderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)Mathers, George
Cameron, A. G.Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)Matters, L. W.
Cape, ThomasHerriotts, 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, DanielHollins, A.Millar, J. D.
Clarke, J. S.Hore-Belisha, LeslieMills, 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. JosephMorgan, Dr. H. B.
Compton, JosephHutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.Morley, Ralph
Cove, William G.Jsaacs, GeorgeMorris, Rhys Hopkins
Daggar, GeorgeJenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Dallas, GeorgeJohn, William (Rhondda, West)Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Dalton, HughJohnston, ThomasMorrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)Mort, D. L.
Day, HarryJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Moses, J. J. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)Muff, G.
Devlin, JosephJones, 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, CharlesJowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ede, James ChutarJawitt, 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)

paragraph ( a) should not apply in this case.

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.

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)Sexton, JamesToole, Joseph
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.Tout, W. J.
Palin, John Henry.Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)Townend, A. E.
Paling, WilfridShepherd, Arthur LewisTrevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Palmer, E. T.Sherwood, G. H.Turner, B.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)Shield, George WilliamVaughan, D. J.
Perry, S. F.Shillaker, J. F.Viant, S. P.
Peters, Dr. Sidney JohnShinwell, E.Walkden, A. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)Walker, J.
Phillips, Dr. MarlonSimmons, C. J.Wallace, H. W.
Picton-Tubervill, EdithSimon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)Wallhead, Richard C.
Pole, Major D. G.Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)Watkins, F. C.
Potts, John S.Sinkinson, GeorgeWatson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Price, M. P.Sitch, Charles H.Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Pybus, Percy JohnSmith, Alfred (Sunderland)Wellock, Wilfred
Quibell, D. J. K.Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)Welsh, James (Paisley)
Ramsay, T. B. WilsonSmith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Rathbone, EleanorSmith, 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, HarryWhiteley, 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, CampbellWilliams, 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. LoeWilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.Strauss, G. R.Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Rowson, GuySullivan, J.Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. WalterSutton, J. E.Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)Wise, E. F.
Salter, Dr. AlfredTaylor, 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, JamesTinker, John JosephMr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)Margesson, Captain H. D.
Albery, Irving JamesEverard, W. LindsayMarjoribanks, E. C.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Falle, Sir Bertram G.Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Astor, ViscountessFermoy, LordMerriman, Sir F. Boyd
Atholl, Duchess ofFielden, E. B.Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Fison, F. G. ClaveringMoore, 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, LordGanzonl, Sir JohnMuirhead, A. J.
Bellairs, Commander CarlyonGault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonNewton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Berry, Sir GeorgeGibson, 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 RoyGrace, JohnO'Neill, Sir H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)Peake, Captain Osbert
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartGrattan-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. HowardPreston, Sir Walter Rueben
Bracken, B.Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.Ramsbotham, H.
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeHacking, 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 ofRichardson, 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. EdwardHeneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Castle Stewart, Earl ofHennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John WallerSamuel, 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 GeorgeHurd, 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. CuthbertSmith, 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 PhilipLaw, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyLeighton, Major B. E. P.Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davies, Dr. VernonLlewellin, Major J. J.Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. GodfreySteel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Dawson, Sir PhilipMcConnell, Sir JosephStewart, 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 HushWilliams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir KenyonWilson, 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. LambertWinterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.Wolmer, Rt. Hon. ViscountSir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.