692 STANDING COMMITTEE B Thursday, 13th November, 1919

SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS in the Chair.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
[OFFICIAL REPORT.] NEW CLAUSE.
—(Amendment of Section 26 of Act of 1882.)

Section twenty-six of The Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (which contains provisions for the protection of the Postmaster General) shall have effect as if the words "or the laying of connections with mains where the direction of the electric lines so laid down crosses the line of the Postmaster General at right angles at the point of shortest distance, and continues the same for a distance of six feet on each side of such point" were omitted, and as if for the words "not more than twenty-eight nor less than seven clear days" there were substituted the words "one month."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move: "That the Clause be read a second time." The object of this proposal is to bring the protection of the Post Office into line with the protection provided under the Railway and Tramways Order and Schedule 14 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act of 1899.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause standing in the name of Colonel Wedgwood (Water Supply) is now unnecessary. The new Clause in the name of Lieut.-Col. C. D. Murray (Stamp Duty) has already been dealt with under Clause 25. That standing in the name of Mr. J. Johnstone (Power to act through authorised undertakers) is a repetition of Clause 16, Sub-section (1), and therefore it is out of order. The new Clause put down by Major Brassey (Saving Proviso to Section 23 of the Act of 1909) derogates from the rights and powers under the Electric Light Act, 1909, and it seems to be unnecessary. The new Clause in the name 693 of Commander Dawes (Saving of Existing Contracts) is also unnecessary, because it was dealt with in Clause 7, Sub-section (5). That in the names of Mr. Kiley and Lieut.-Col. Sir P. Hall (Saving for Existing Contracts) is the same as the previous one and is not in order, and the following one, put down by Commander Dawes (Saving Proviso to Section 33 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909), is also a repetition, and is therefore out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.
—(Certified meters to be used.)

As from such date or dates as the Electricity Commissioners may by special order prescribe only such meters as are duly certified by duly appointed electric inspectors shall be used for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of energy supplied by any district electricity board or authorised undertaker.—[Commander Dawes.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Commander DAWES: I beg to move: "That the Clause be read a second time." The object of my proposal is to bring the Bill into line with the existing procedure which has been adopted by the gas companies with regard to the testing of meters. That procedure does not apply to electric meters.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this new Clause, The effect of it would be to cause the appointment of a large number of new inspectors, whether they were really required or not. Under Sections 40 and 50 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1889, as amended by Section 11 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, it is already provided that the value of the supply shall, except as otherwise agreed between the consumer and the undertaker, be ascertained by means of a meter certified by an electric inspector to be of a pattern and construction approved by the Board of Trade to be correct, within such limits as may be allowed by the Board of Trade." There is no reason for believing that this provision has not been effective. A large number of types of electric meters have been approved by the Board of Trade, and the standard required by the British Engineering Standards Committee is a very high one. At the present time there is no electric inspector in certain districts because the Board of Trade cannot appoint one without application being made for such appointment, and the fact that so very few applications for inspectors have been made is proof that there is not much of a grievance with 694 regard to meters. If this new Clause were added to the Bill it would be necessary to appoint a great number of inspectors where they are not necessary now, and that would be an additional expense. Therefore, I do not feel warranted in agreeing to this proposal.

Commander DAWES: If the Board of Trade are satisfied with the present arrangements, I do not press my Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.
—(Compensation to directors of companies.)

If the undertaking of any company is vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under this Act the district electricity board shall pay compensation to the directors of the company for the loss of office sustained by them and the amount of such compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1889.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move: "That the Clause be read a second time." This is a proposal to make provision in the event of any company being taken over that compensation shall be paid to the directors. It may be that my hon. Friend will be able to say that in such a transfer the company may impose the condition that satisfactory compensation shall be paid to the directors, and if my hon. Friend can give me that assurance I shall be quite content.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no compulsion to purchase in this Bill, and under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 there is no provision for the compensation of directors. If the power companies should be transferred under Clause 13, then it would be on the terms of the district board paying the fair market value as a going concern, and it would be for the company to make their own arrangements for compensating the directors if any of them required compensating.

Sir K. WOOD: And that would be a proper provision to put forward?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I take it that the fair and market value would have to be settled. It would be for the company to put forward any claim that they thought was a fair one, and out of what they got to compensate the directors where necessary.

695

Captain BOWYER: I do not know whether this new Clause is going to be accepted or not.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No.

Captain BOWYER: I was given to understand on Clause 17 that the Government were going to amend this Bill before we reached the end of the Committee stage and make provision for compensating the directors. On the strength of that alone I withdrew my Amendment, because I understood that the Government themselves were going to amen the Bill and make provision for directors.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I do not go quite so far as my hon. Friend. I believe the Home Secretary's attitude was that, in his view, it would cover directors. I rather think he turned to his advisers, but was not quite sare whether they agreed with his statement. I suggest that this matter would be better dealt with on Report by adding something to Clause 41—the Definition Clause, which, in defining officers or servants, may include such directors as have been ordinarily engaged in connection with the power taken. It seems to me that that is the appropriate place for this, instead of a large and cumbersome Clause of this nature. I am quite clear the Home Secretary said that, in his view, it would cover directors.

The CHAIRMAN: At any rate that will appear on the notes.

Sir K. WOOD: I will not press this Clause, in view of the statement of my hon. Friend that there may be another opportunity of considering this matter.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.
—(Arbitration.)

The costs of any arbitration under this Act shall except so far as the arbitrator otherwise determines be borne by the district electricity board, and the arbitrator may order the taxation of any costs in such manner and on such scale or principle as he may think fit.

The provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1889, relating to—

  • The administration of oaths and the taking of affirmations; and
  • The correction in an award of mistakes and errors; and
  • The summoning attendance and ex amination of witnesses and the production of documents; and
  • False evidence 696 shall apply to arbitrations under this Act, but save as aforesaid The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to arbitrations under this Act.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]
  • Brought up, and read the first time.

    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think this Clause is necessary, but I cannot rule it out of order.

    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I wanted to hear was the reason for leaving out part of the Arbitration Act of 1889. I would like to know for what purpose it is proposed to leave out parts of it, and if that is not going to be explained, I shall be left in the dark.

    Sir K. WOOD: I am quite content, if the hon. Gentleman desires it, to include all the provisions of the Arbitration Act. These are simply taken because it was considered to be convenient. I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, to include all the provisions of the Act and make them applicable here.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That convinces me it is all the more unnecessary. The new Clause leaves to the arbitrator to decide with regard to the payment of costs. That is where we were before, and I do not see how this new Clause is going to make any difference whatever. To my mind it is superfluous.

    Sir K. WOOD: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say he is satisfied there is sufficient power already in the arbitrator to decide the question of costs without this Clause? If so, I will not press it.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. It follows Section 28 on the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, which gives the arbitrator power to order the payment of costs by either party as he may think fit.

    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    —(Winding up of Companies.)

    After the whole undertaking of any company incorporated by Act of Parliament is vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under this Act, such company shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be wound up under and in acordance with the provisions of and in the same manner and with the same incidents as if the company were a company registered under The Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and had on 697 such vesting or acquisition duly passed a special resolution requiring the company to be wound up voluntarily, and for the purposes of such winding up the company shall from and after such vesting or acquisition be deemed to be registered in England under the said last-mentioned Act, and for the purpose of calling and holding meetings and passing resolutions, and other matters incident to such winding-up resolutions of meetings of the company convened and held in pursuance and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Acts relating to the company may and shall take effect as resolutions of a company duly registered.— [Viscount Duncannon.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.

    Viscount DUNCANNON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." It refers to the winding up of companies, and I will very briefly explain the object of moving it. Under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which is referred in this proposed Clause, it is not necessarily permitted to a company in the position of an electric supply company, whose undertaking has been acquired, to be wound up voluntarily. I submit it is desirable to make it clear that a company may be wound up after the purchase of its undertaking, and the effect of the Clause would be that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies (Consolidation) Act, any company formed under the Companies (Clauses) Act, 1845, may, in the event of their undertaking being purchased under this Bill, be voluntarily wound up.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite ready to accept that.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    The CHAIRMAN: The subject of the next new Clause in the name of the late hon. Member for Thanet (Lieut.-Commander Norman Craig) has been dealt with in the new Sub-section (9) of Clause 7, and the next, in the name of the same late hon. Member, dealing with compensation to directors has also been dealt with. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), dealing with Stamp Duties, we have dealt with, having had a similar Clause agreed to this morning. The next Clause in the name of the same hon. Member, regarding subscriptions, is, I think, in order.

    698
    NEW CLAUSE.
    —(Subscriptions to Associations.)

    District electricity boards or any authorised undertakers may, out of the revenue of their undertakings, pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annual or otherwise, to the funds of any association formed for the purpose of consultation as to their common interests and the discussion of matters relating to the supply of electricity, and to the funds of any recognised association conducted on a non-profit earning basis for developing the use of electricity, and may purchase reports of the proceedings of any conferences or meetings, and may pay the reasonable expenses of attendance of any members or officers of the board or undertaker at conferences or metings of the said association or any of them.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.

    Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." I want to make it clear in the measure that the various authorities shall have power to use a limited portion of their money for the purpose of getting information and combining together for objects which may be beneficial to their undertakings. At present there is some doubt among voluntary undertakers, and especially among municipalities, as to their power in this respect.

    The CHAIRMAN: This Clause requires a marginal note, which I hope the hon. Member will see is put in.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite sympathise with the object of this new Clause and with the reasons which have been advanced in its favour. I think very great advantage may accrue from an exchange of ideas between all the different people interested in these electric matters. My only difficulty is that I have had no time to consult the Ministry of Health as to whether it is necessary or not it should be put in in this particular form, and whether it can be done without affecting some of their own Regulations on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman will permit it, and the Committee will agree, I will accept this new Clause, at the same time reserving to the Government power to amend it, or possibly to move it out, if the Ministry of Health say it is unnecessary or in any way conflicts with their practice in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will give me that freedom, I will accept the Clause, which I entirely agree is reasonable.

    Mr. WADDINGTON: I shall be very glad to accept that undertaking.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    699

    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause (Supply of Apparatus) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) is, I think, in order.

    Lieut.-Col. Sir F. HALL: I do not move it, as the matter has already been sufficiently dealt with.

    Mr. THOMSON: May I move it?

    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, if the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich does not wish to do so.

    Sir F. HALL: I do not propose to move the next new Clause (Supply to Premises, etc., outside area of supply of authorised undertakers).

    NEW CLAUSE.
    —(Powers of Electricity Commissioners to suspend or annul contracts.)

    Whore, upon an application to the Electricity Commissioners by any party to a contract for the supply of electricity entered into before the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen, the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the passing of this Act or anything done thereunder or to any circumstances arising out of the war, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without serious hardship the Commissioners may, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for a variation of the contract, suspend or annul or, with the consent of the parties, amend, as from such date as the Commissioners may think fit, the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising thereunder on such conditions, if any, as the Commissioners may think fit.—[Mr. Neal.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.

    Mr. NEAL: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." I think it is an important proposal. It gives power to the Electricity Commissioners to deal with applications made by any party to a contract for supplying electricity, entered into before the 11th November last, and if the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the passing of this Bill or anything done thereunder, or to any circumstances arising out of the war, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without 700 serious hardship they are to consider the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract, as well as any offer that may have been made by any party for a variation of the contract, and to suspend or annul or with the consent of the parties amend the contract, or any term thereof, or any rights arising thereunder, on such conditions as the Commissioners may think fit. The position is this: If any authorised undertakers have entered into a binding contract for a period of years for the supply of electricity, this Bill, when it becomes law, may very materially affect their power of fulfilling their contract. As they will be subject to controlled prices, and as their generating stations may have been taken over and their power of extending their generating stations to enable them to fulfil their contracts has gone from them, they may find themselves in a position that they are quite unable to carry out their bargain through no fault of their own, but through the force majeure of an Act of Parliament or something done under it. I suggest that this is analogous to the many cases dealt with under the Courts Emergency Powers Act, where the courts have been given power to have regard to the special circumstances which the war has created and to relieve persons from the fulfilment of contracts which have become onerous and burdensome to a degree that may not have been in the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. Those who have desired me to put down this Clause are advised that there is no power to go to the courts for relief from hardships which may be created by the present Bill, and as it is thought it may be quite impossible for undertakers to carry out their contractural undertakings, and as they may find themselves consequently in the greatest possible difficulty, the suggestion that is made in this Clause is that this should be made a matter for reference not to the courts, but to the Electricity Commissioners, which body will know better than anyone else how far it is possible for the undertakers to carry out their bargain. We may assume that the Electricity Commissioners would not administer this power laxly, but would realise that all contractural obligations are a matter for enquiry and will try to find out where there are cases of hardship by reason of the operation of this Bill, or of something done under it. I think the consumers of electricity would be satisfied if they were sufficiently protected by having the decision of the Electricity Commissioners.

    701

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Clause. He has introduced into it circumstances arising out of the war, and no doubt those circumstances would be such as to make it very difficult in some cases to carry out contracts, but I am advised that that is met entirely by the Courts Emergency Powers Act of August, 1919.

    Mr. NEAL: Only as to contracts before a given date—the commencement of 1917, if I remember rightly.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is so. It is the 1st January, 1917. With regard to other contracts not affected by the war but affected by this Bill if it becomes law, I do not quite understand how they could be adversely affected except owing to something due to the war. The hon. Member mentioned the provisions of Section 30 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899, with regard to penalties for failure, and that provides that in no case shall any penalty be inflicted in respect of any default if the court are of opinion that the default was caused by inevitable accident or by force majeure, and I think any difficulty which was experienced in carrying out contracts owing to this Bill could be interpreted as coming under force majeure. But though I am quite at one with the hon. Member in thinking that the Electricity Commissioners would give very fair and sound rulings if these matters were referred to them, it would involve them in an immense amount of work, as practically everybody would be likely to try to get out of his contracts and get the Electricity Commissioners at his back to help him. I do not think the Electricity Commissioners would be likely to give way except on very special occasions where there was a very strong case, but if we pass this as it is, every single person will be able to come up and try to get out of pre-war contracts or other contracts which he thinks, rightly or wrongly, generally wrongly, would be due to the passing of this Bill. I hope the hon. Member will not press it.

    Mr. NEAL: I am very loth to press it when it is urged against me in a very courteous way, but I think there are still good grounds for this new Clause. So far as the contracts come within the Courts Emergency Powers Act it is unnecessary, and if the objection of the Government was to the wording of the Clause so far as it relates to conditions arising out of the war, I should 702 be disposed to alter my suggested Clause to meet that immediately, but contractors only have relief in respect of these matters for contracts entered into before 1st January, 1917, and I believe financial hardship has been held not to be a sufficient ground for interfering with these contracts. So far as the operation of this Bill oppresses, surely it is the duty of Parliament to protect against the oppression which itself creates. May I give one or two concrete cases where difficulty might obviously arise. Take the case of a contract varying with the price of coal. You get, therefore, a variable price at which you sell, but you get a fixed price at which you buy from the district board or joint electricity authority, and you have no longer the power in your own hands of so arranging your business or your generation as to meet that fact. I can quite understand that the cases in which the Electricity Commissioners might think it right to interfere would be few. As to the number of applications, that would depend very largely upon the rulings which were laid down in the first few cases. As soon as it was seen what was the policy adopted by the Electricity Commissioners the persons concerned and their advisers would quite easily realise whether they were within those principles or outside them. I should like some assurance that if this Clause is withdrawn the Government will give serious attention to the question between now and the Report stage. I am quite clear that serious hardship may arise, in fact impossibility of the performance of contract may arise, unless something is done to assist the persons who have made those contracts.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As regards the cases which the hon. Member has cited I cannot, without looking much further into it, follow him, at any rate to agree with him, on the hardship that he refers to. They have to be supplied with electricity at least as cheaply as they could have made it themselves, and that seems to me to cover entirely the point that he has mentioned. As regards people who have entered into contracts after 1917, they must have done it with their eyes open, because it is not conceivable that anyone after that date could have failed to be aware that there was a war going on. Although I am certainly quite prepared to consider it, and to ask the Home Secretary to consult his advisers on the point, I cannot hold out 703 any hope that we are likely to agree, but if the mere fact of asking my right hon. Friend to consider it will satisfy the hon. Member, I shall be very grateful if he will withdraw.

    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE
    —(Provision as to subsidiary company limited to supply to principal companies).

    "Where the powers of a subsidiary company are limited to the supply of electricity to a principal company or companies the generating station and main transmission lines of the subsidiary company shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as belonging to the principal company or companies."—[Viscount Duncannon.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.

    Viscount DUNCANNON: I beg to move: "That the Clause be read a second time." We all desire to do Justice to all concerned in this Bill. I want to state the particular case I have in mind, not with the idea of giving anyone preferential treatment under the Bill, but in order that cases of that kind, which may exist in numbers up and down the length of the country, should not suffer any injustice owing to the terms of the Bill. The subsidiary company I have in mind covers only a generating station and high tension lines carrying current in bulk to its two consumers, the St. James's and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, and the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation Limited, which have no distributing mains in the ordinary sense of that expression. The subsidiary company in my illustration is, and has always been since its creation, the chief generating station of the two principal companies and supplies practically the whole of the electricity which they require. This undertaking is a separate company merely as a matter of convenience in accounts. It has the bulk supply of the company and its whole undertaking consists of generating plant and high tension lines, which probably come under the definition of main transmission line. The whole undertaking under these circumstances would fall to be bought under Clause 7, and the company may avail itself of the provisions of Clause 12, because all the distribution for which it provides is directly in the hands of the two principal companies for which it is the generating station. Therefore the undertakers would be seriously prejudiced under this Bill unless it were distinctly recognised that the sub- 704 sidiary company was nothing more than the generating station of the two principal companies which own it. I believe injustice would be done unless some such Clause were put into the Bill—an injustice certainly in regard to the case I have quoted and I believe therefore in cases of a similar character in any part of England.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think my noble Friend has made out a very strong case for his New Clause. I am very much obliged to him for having couched it in more general language. As regards the case he has cited, I think it is perfectly clear. I am not aware that there are any other cases, but should there be, they certainly should have the same justice meted out to them. Therefore I am quite prepared to accept this Clause as now drafted.

    Major BARNES: I. do not rise to oppose this Clause which moves in the direction in which I think the whole Bill should go. In my opinion, the principles of purchase laid down in Clause 12 approximate more nearly to fairness than those laid down in any other Clause of the Bill. I would point out that the effect of this Clause is still further to complicate the most extraordinary provisions which run through the Bill for purchasing various kinds of undertakings. What is going to happen now is that in certain cases generating stations which are not linked to distributing systems are going to come under Clause 12 and will be able to get market value, whereas there will be other cases in which generating stations in that position may still remain under Clause 7. It is difficult on the immediate presentation of a Clause of this kind to realise its full bearing. I want to take note of what is happening, because it is my intention, on the Report stage, to move such Amendments as will, I hope—if there is the least chance of their being accepted—bring the whole purchase Clauses of the Bill under such conditions of fairness as do, I think, appertain to Clause 12.

    Mr. BALFOUR: One word in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend. I think he is under a misapprehension. So far as I am able to read this proposed New Clause it is simply enabling the Commissioners to do what is intended by the Bill. Should there be a case as cited in the New Clause, as it originally appeared on the Paper, where you have the Central Electric Supply Company, purely as a matter of convenience, building a power station for the purpose of two statutory com- 705 panies, purely as a matter of convenience in finance and other matters—that that shall be recognised as one undertaking with the generating stations that belong to the two statutory undertakings. The Clause does not go further than that. It has no more effect on Clause 7 or Clause 12 than allowing this generating station put up for these two companies to be regarded as the generating station and plant of the two companies, and dealt with under Clause 7 or Clause 12, as the case may be.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule and Title agreed to.

    Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House," put, and agreed to.

    VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CHAIRMAN.

    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think, before we part, I should be only expressing the view of hon. Members if I say how deeply grateful we are to the Chairman for the way in which he has presided over this Committee. —[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"]—If I may use an electrical expression, I think the heat that was generated, perhaps, in some of the earlier Clauses of the Bill has been very much modified and cooled down. Altogether the Committee have very much improved this Bill. Hon. Members have set themselves to work it out with the intention of making it a better Bill, and without any obstructive ideas at all in their minds. Whatever may have been our own respective shortcomings, I am quite sure that they have been very much mitigated by the benign good temper which everyone who knows the Chairman, and who has known him as I have, has invariably found in every room where he has been able to radiate the geniality of his presence. We are all obliged and grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted our proceedings. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"]

    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bridgeman, and fellow members of the Committee, I am very deeply touched by the very kind words of my old friend Mr. Bridgeman. My thanks are due to the Committee. I have done the best I could, but it would have been impossible for me to carry through this Bill unless I had had the loyal assistance of 706 every Member of the Committee. I beg to thank you all most sincerely. I should just like to say before we separate that Members of the Committee are to be 707 furnished with a full print of the Bill in the morning.

    The Committee rose at Five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

    THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:—

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Chairman)

    Balfour, Mr. George

    Barnes, Major

    Barton, Sir William

    Bowyer, Captain

    Bridgeman, Mr.

    Dawes, Commander

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Edgar, Mr.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Grundy, Mr.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Frederick

    Haslam, Mr.

    Neal, Mr.

    Raffan, Mr.

    Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel

    Royce, Mr.

    Steel, Major

    Taylor, Mr. John

    Thomson, Mr. Trevelyan

    Vickers, Mr.

    Waddington, Mr.

    Williams, Lieut.-Col. Sir Rhys

    Wood, Sir Kingsley