In page 16, line 32, leave out Sub-section (7) and insert as a new Sub-section:
(7) Any regulation made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.
I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is accepting this Amendment. We had a very long Debate in the House on this point, which resulted in a non-party Division, and I had the honour to be supported as Teller by the hon. Member for Oxford University, who has always been a guardian of the privileges of this House. His long experience enabled him to point out that if were to retain any control over these most important Regulations it was essential that we should adopt this particular form—a form followed in the case of the Housing Bill, the Dyestuffs Act and other legislation concerned with Regulations—in which we must pass the appropriate Resolution in a positive form rather than in a mere passive or negative form. The only opportunity that this House has of discussing matters of this kind is after Eleven o' clock at night, when Members are anxious to hurry away home. In those circumstances it is not likely that a purely London matter of this kind will attract proper attention or get proper consideration, unless there is this security that Parliament will have the power of really controlling the powers that the Minister has by Regulation.
The power of making regulations on matters prescribed in Schedule 3 is almost unique in municipal government. The Minister is going to have autocratic powers to interfere with the whole traffic, not only in London but throughout the metropolitan area. Undoubtedly these regulations, necessary as they may be, will cause friction and irritation. They will interfere with the rights and privileges of thousands of individuals and cause, very often, heavy financial loss to thousands of people, not only motor-omnibus owners but owners of other is thoroughly unsound. If this House is to keep complete control of these Regulations we must have regard to the form and character and wording of them and the effect they are likely to have on traffic in London.
It was pointed out in another place that the supposed alternative words were not likely to give the Lower House much power. On the other hand, the other place will have powers which are practically denied to the representative body. That is not a position which this House should accept, and we should take the first opportunity to restore the position. If the original words were retained, I would be prepared, if it would meet the views of hon. Members opposite, who are anxious to protect the rights of another place, to accept the words "both Houses of Parliament." I am anxious to retain the rights of the House of Commons to control the Minister and to control these important Regulations.
We discussed this matter on the Report stage, and in this matter I was bold enough to plead the case of the Order in Council as compared with a Resolution of both Houses. I regret to say that I did not receive the support I should have received from the Minister in charge of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) called me a "bureaucratic fledgling." The hon. Member opposite says that these Regulations are going to be of tremendous importance. Let us look at the Schedule and see what would come up to this House to be passed by Resolution. The collection of refuse, broken down vehicles, cabranks, queues waiting in streets and the lighting of street works. These are the sorts of things we have got to pass. I have had a certain experience of London Members. I sat upstairs in an atmosphere of London Members which I shall never forget, and I have come to the conclusion that London Members as a whole are particularly assiduous, and will not assist in having rights taken away from them. On that account I think that it is very unlikely that any Order it Council affecting London is likely to go through this House unnoticed, but that London Members will be sufficiently wideawake to raise the question, especially as it is exempted after 12 o'clock.
I am exceedingly sorry to interfere in this particular matter. The only thing which tempts me to vote for agreeing with the Lords Amendment would be the view that it would make the Bill largely unworkable. That tempts me to a very large extent because, as the House knows, I have the most profound contempt for and dissatisfaction with this Bill. But after all is one entitled, because one has contempt for a Bill as I have, of the deepest character, for this Measure, therefore to pursue a policy which is designed by a side issue to make the thing unworkable? I think that the Minister of Transport—I am not talking of him as the present Minister, but as an institution—is bad enough as being the instrument to control London questions, but if I may say so, with the greatest respect, I think that the House of Commons is infinitely worse. If Members will read the Third Schedule to the Bill they will see, as the hen, and gallant Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) pointed out, that they deal with matters of local detail as to whether omnibuses shall go on this route or that. They may even deal with street trading or questions of collecting street refuse, and queues at places of entertainment, I think, though I am not sure. They concern matters of detail. The practical question is: Are hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire or Ulster fit to decide Regulations affecting the streets of the Metropolis? The whole case against the Bill is that the House of Commons is not fit to do it.
It is true that Ministers can receive the representations of London direct, and give them consideration, and his officers can advise him, but can the House of Commons, with its varied composition, possibly be capable of settling the details of London streets? As one who believes that the whole of this Schedule raises issues which are appropriate to local government, and can be settled properly only by the people of London, I think that the Minister who can get into contact with London—if one has to choose between two evils—is more fit to do it than the House of Commons, which consists of representatives from all over the country, and which on many occasions has not dealt fairly with London questions. The whole question to be settled is how far do the words of my hon. Friend secure control. We must all know that the question of approval or disapproval of Regulations in this House is very largely a matter of form, whether the onus is upon Members to object or, upon a Minister to get the Regulations through.
The great bulk of the Members do not come from the area concerned. The great bulk of the Members are not from the Metropolis. The procedure will be that Members will approach the door and the party Whips will say "Aye'' or "No," so that what happens is that the House of Commons wastes the time which could be better given to something else, and we really get no efficient administration. The mere assertion that the House of Commons ought, with the greatest seriousness and pomp, to decide on how street refuse ought to be collected at Hackney Wick or at Wick Road, Hackney, is an absurdity. I am sure that the House of Commons has sufficient knowledge of its own weaknesses and shortcomings to know that it is not fit to do any such thing. These duties are appropriate to the London County Council, or the borough council, and ought never to be taken away from the people of London. It is an outrage when that is done, but Parliament has so willed, and, that being so, we must not pass an Amendment which will make a farce of the administration of the Act and the making of Regulations thereunder.
I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The House will enjoy the spectacle of the divorce which is now taking place between the London Labour party and the London Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Progressive."] The point in which I am interested is the speech which has just been made. We cannot forget that in another place he is the keeper of the London Liberal party, or the London Labour party. They are the same thing: I get mixed between the two. I only hope that the hon. Member will remember the speech he has just made when the. London County Council makes its next attempt to extend its octopus like control over the muncipalities surrounding the present administrative area of the county of London. I hope that he will realise their point of view a little better, when he criticises the right of hon. Members of this House, who may have just as great experience in municipal affairs as either he or anybody else on the London County Council, to come to Parliament with these problems of London government. Personally I think the more help and guidance we can get from those who speak with experience of the great municipal corporations throughout the country, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, the better it will be for London government as a whole, and I hope that he will not forget the speech which he has just made.
Like the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I was astonished at the speech made by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The hon. Member told us that if these Regulations were discussed in this House the vast majority of hon. Members would only vote as the Whips told them at the door. Whether coming events cast their shadows before, and that the course which the hon. Member defined is that which he proposes to take on this Amendment, I do not know, but it may be that the explanation of the attitude which he has adopted is not wholly unconnected with circumstances such as those to which he has referred. The suggestion that, in asking the House of Commons to pass a Resolution affirming or disaffirming Regulations which it is proposed that the Minister shall make under this Section, the House of Commons will be invited to deal with the collecting of refuse in Hackney Wick or anywhere else, is absurd. It is not proposed that this House shall pass a Resolution regarding questions of administration of the Regulations, but questions of the making of the Regulations. What I wish to point out is that, by Sub-section (3) of Clause 10, it is provided that fines may be imposed for breaches of the Regulations. It says:
(3) Any such regulations may provide for imposing fines recoverable summarily in respect of breaches thereof not exceeding in the case of a first offence twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day the offence continues after notice of the offence has been given in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.
I quite agree with the hon. Member that the control of such questions are are contained in the Schedule to this Bill ought to be in the hands of the elected representatives of London; but it is an outrage to suggest that the making of Regulations which are to involve the imposition of substantial penalties, such as are mentioned in the Section, should be left at the substantially uncontrolled discretion of a Department of State, and that no
effective power should be given either to this House or to any other democratically elected assembly to supervise the making of those Regulations. We all know that the laying of Regulations on the Table of this House and the power to move a resolution, having regard to the congestion of business and the nature of our procedure, is practically a farce. There is no effective control obtainable by this means. But if, on the other hand, a resolution has to be passed affirming the Regulations before they come into force, there is some substantial control, and there is no reason why there should be any undue congestion of business as a result. We all know that such Resolutions are passed almost every evening in the week after eleven o'clock. It is only in the event of there being something which raises a matter of controversy and to which there is serious objection that any time would be taken up at all. But, putting it in that form, there is given an opportunity to any Member to raise any real objection to the making of the Regulation. The Amendment to which we are asked to agree gives an effective power to the other place, because, by the procedure there and the comparative leisure in which their deliberations are carried on, it is always possible for them to find an opportunity of introducing a Resolution objecting to any such Regulation. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment is to give substantially to another place a power to supervise these Regulations which is denied to this House. I most strongly protest against a Government with the pretentious of the present Government accepting from another place an Amendment such as this, and I hope it will be defeated.
It would not be denied that the attitude of Liberal Members regarding this Amendment is one of frank hostility to the Bill. They have always been against the Bill, and they want to kill it if they can. This new-found desire to maintain the liberties of the House of Commons and the scrutiny of Ministers is directed to killing the Bill more than to maintaining such liberties or to restricting the activities of Ministers. This Amendment marks a very substantial advance on the Section which was rejected by the House some weeks ago. The criticism of the Bill as originally introduced was directed to two points. One was that there was not sufficient Parliamentary control, and, further, that if there was Parliamentary control and a Resolution was passed by either House, then the Minister only might revoke the Regulation; it was not mandatory. This Amendment makes it mandatory on the Minister, or a Regulation becomes automatically void if the Resolution is passed. As to Parliamentary control, let us be quite frank. It is very difficult in these days, with the congestion of business, whichever way you approach it, to get proper Parliamentary control. That is the great trouble. I understand that Lord Salisbury in another place has set up, or is setting up, a strong Committee to go into the question of Parliamentary control as far as it affects another place, to see if some better formula may be devised for insertion in Bills so that more Parliamentary control may be secured.
I do not think that any hon. Member would seriously deny that if the wishes of Liberal Members were carried out it would be impossible to work this Bill at all. This Bill is going to last for three years only. I understand that hon. Members of both parties opposite are determined to maintain the three years limit. If they so determine, three years it will be. Nobody pretended that this Bill was more than an immediate attempt to deal with an urgent problem. I had had a great deal to do with the devising of the Bill and I have never contended that it was a perfect Measure. All I can say is that the London traffic problem is so urgent that you cannot wait until the Greek Kalends to do something. At the end of the three years you can have a new Bill or carry on this Bill from, year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The House will have an opportunity of seeing whether these Regulations work well and if they do not work well the House can put in something else. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government.
The statement just made was first that this is a new enthusiasm for a certain method of control. It is no new enthusiasm at all. The Bill as it stands, with the Lords Amendments rejected, is the Bill that was passed by the House of Commons. It was passed by the House of Commons very largely owing to the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are now told from the Front. Bench opposite that the Bill is practically unworkable. Why did not the friends of the last speaker think of that when they voted for the Bill at the time? An overwhelming majority of the party opposite voted for the Bill as it stands. If there is any question of a compromise to make it more suitable, it can be done if we now disagree with the Lords Amendment. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to show the consistency which we always expect of them, especially the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and, having carefully thought out the vote that they gave last time, not to let themselves be drawn away by such statements as have been made, but to support the Motion to disagree with the Lords.
If we go back to the merits of this Amendment the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) will see that apparently his party are suggesting that every Regulation made under this Bill may, if they so desire it—if any hon. Member desires it—come before this House. That would render the working of this Bill absolutely impossible. The third Schedule sets out the purposes for which Regulations may be made. One of these purposes is that of prescribing routes if necessary, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) could hold up a Regulation made for prescribing routes until it had received the approval of the House. Another one in which hon. Gentlemen opposite will take particular interest is No. 12 in the third Schedule, which deals with broken-down vehicles. That no doubt raises some feelings in the breasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then No. 10 relates to prescribing conditions subject to which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on streets within the Metropolitan police district. Whether the author of this Bill had any vision of right hon. and hon. Members opposite approaching Westminster to support the Government I do not know, but perhaps that is the real reason why hon. Members opposite desire that these matters should be continually brought before the House of Commons. I should think in their own interests and in the interests of the Bill the less said about these matters the better, and we should be well advised to accept the Lords suggestions.
I do not intend to follow the comic interlude, if I may so describe it, to which we have just listened. I had hoped that some hon. Member would rise to point out how the interests of country Members are affected under the first Schedule of the Bill. I observe that the greater part of my own constituency is included. That being so, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) that this is merely a matter for the London Members is one with which I totally disagree because this first Schedule must affect the constituencies of Members in the Home Counties. Therefore I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) because I think it is a matter of considerable interest to those in the country districts if they are to be told by the Minister of Transport how to light and guard their street works. That seems to be an entirely local matter, in which local people ought to have something to say, and therefore on behalf of the Home Counties Members I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.
I ask the House to consider this question from another point of view. I am not speaking as the deputy of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, but simply as one who has had some experience of the difficulties connected with these matters and of the difference which exists between the two propositions now before the House. The proposition which has come down from another place suggests that the Regulations should become effective unless they are disapproved of by a Resolution of this House, and the alternative proposition is that they should not become effective until the House passes an affirmative Resolution. It may be that in matters in which great interest is not taken or in which there is no intention to obstruct, there is not much practical difference between these two courses as regards the amount of control possessed by the individual Member. I suggest to the House that it makes all the difference to the Government when it is in the position of a beast of burden having a great many loads to carry. I first of all wish to deal with this matter from the point of view of the Government as the beast of burden having to carry the load. If it is decided that an affirmative Resolution must be passed for every one of these Regulations, it means that the Government must allot the time necessary to get those affirmative Resolutions passed. It may be that there is a desire to take up Government time. It may be that there is a desire to talk on these Regulations—a desire not wholly unconnected with the fact that it is wished that the Government should not do some other things.
My particular interest in the matter is, I confess, not so much concerned with the exact degree of control which an individual Member may exercise because a Member or a group of Members will always exercise very considerable control. My interest is rather in the question of how we are going to carry on the business of this House—the business in which Members are interested and which they want to get done. The particular Session which is now closing has been marked by the regrettable fact that a great many Measures which a majority of the House desire to see passed have not been passed owing to lack of time. If the House asks the Government to find time for the possible discussion of every one of these Regulations they are not merely affording an opportunity for making the Bill unworkable—which I fear would be taken advantage of to some extent—but they are seriously interfering with the possibility of passing other Measures from time to time which the majority of the House for the time being would wish to see passed. That is the real distinction between these two propositions—the amount of Government time, of the effective time of the House which will be taken up. It is not enough to say that in both cases the discussions would be after 11 o'clock. It is a draft on the available time which the Government can induce the House to grant. If I were speaking only in the interests of this particular Measure and the working of this Measure I would point out that if every one of the Regulations has to wait until time can be found for the House to pass an affirmative Resolution, even though they may be quite innocuous Regulations and may not excite any great resentment, it will always be possible that we shall be told through the ordinary channels that they will cause Debate and that will involve delay. I am much more concerned, I confess, with the effect upon the other business of the House and upon Bills in which I am interested and other Members are interested. The Government time is time which should be utilised in the interests of democracy, and we should not dissipate it.
I do not know that that interruption need have been made. My small observation of these things goes to show that accidents of that kind cannot be prevented. When the House adjourned at an early hour the other day it was because it had not been foreseen that you, Mr. Speaker, would take a certain view of a certain Amendment. That could not have been foreseen. The mere fact that some hours were not utilised in those circumstances would not have enabled the Regulations under this Bill to have been dealt with, because it could not have been foreseen or arranged. I myself have one or two quite non-contentious Bills which the House want, and I have not been able to get them on because there have not been the necessary arrangements among those responsible for the business of the House. I suggest it would be very unwise for any of us who really desire that the time of the House should be used for urgent problems of legislation, to fritter away that valuable time, which is all too short now, on business of this kind. So far having carried that principle, I think it is right that this House should have an opportunity of making a demonstration, if any Regulation be made to which objection is really taken by hon. Members, and it will always be possible, in a matter of this sort which excites public interest, for sufficient members of this House to make their wishes felt. One further word. This has constantly been referred to as if it were an arbitrary act of the Minister. The hon. Member said, quite rightly, that these things ought really to be decided by the directly elected representatives. I am a county council man myself, and those who have experience know how these matters are settled by the watch committee, with, possibly, very little interference by the whole council. But, at any rate, the whole council has an opportunity of interfering. Surely it is common ground that it is not possible here and now to get a body for London and larger London.
The right hon. Gentleman promised, when the Bill was introduced, to appoint a committee to inquire into London government. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that committee is going to be appointed?
The hon. Gentleman knows very well, first of all, that I did not make that promise, and, secondly, that as I am not even deputising for the Prime Minister, I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. As a matter of fact, it would be desirable, in my opinion, that these matters should not trouble this House at all, and should be dealt with by the directly elected representatives of the locality concerned. Meanwhile, there has been a body created by this Measure which is the best thing that can be done to represent the opinion of the elected representatives of the localities concerned. It has been the subject of immense discussion, and no better body can be suggested until we get a directly elected body for the areas concerned. Before a Regulation can come into force, it is provided that the Minister "shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report." Does anyone suppose the Minister could bring forward any Regulation which had not the support of this Committee? There has been a little exaggeration about automatic control. We limit the automatic control below and above, at one end in the case of the Advisory Committee, which is the nearest we can get to a democratic body for this purpose, and, at the other end, if the Minister goes seriously wrong, the House of Commons will be able to pull him up.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am sorry I cannot agree with the statement that has been made. The earnest, almost pathetic, appeal of the right hon. Gentleman leaves me quite unmoved. He made exactly the speech which we would have expected from him, perhaps more than from anybody else. He has the firmest possible faith in bureaucratic government. He is prepared, I should say, at any time to take from a Department the considered judgments they have formed, and announce them as wisdom, which the House ought, without comment, to accept. I demur from his description of the Government as a patient beast. I regard them as autocratic controllers of the time of the House. This earnest desire, constantly professed, to have more time for Members for discussion really has a rather insincere ring. There has been no such desire on the part of the Government. It has been with the utmost difficulty that we have been able to secure opportunities of discussing questions that we wish to raise, and I am bound to say, looking back on the Session, there has been a great deal of waste of time, owing to want of careful arrangement in the putting down of Government business. The early adjournments for the last two nights are evidence of that, and, therefore, I feel quite unmoved by the statement as to time for Members of this House to discuss matters. We put this Amendment in against the Government in the Committee stage. It went to another place, which has inserted an Amendment re-arranging the method by which we are to conduct our business here.
I say we ought not to go back on our decision, and take from the other place instructions as to how we are to conduct our business here. The other place is not in the same position as we are with regard to these Regulations. In another place, they can Debate them under their procedure. They are not controlled by an autocratic Government, as we are, so that the House of Lords is in a far better position to discuss these regulations than the House of Commons. I think we did the right thing in inserting the provision we did. We had support for the Amendment from all quarters of the House, and I think all old Members of the House who have had experience of laying Orders on the Table, know that it is always a form, and almost a farce. It is not the case that when there is a pretty strong feeling on the part of even a large num-
I agree with the Lords Amendment. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who has been a long time in the House, and never attempted to help London traffic, should now oppose something that will help it. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has opposed the Bill right through and endeavoured to defeat it from its inception. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should try to make it an unworkable Bill. We have now got a Bill brought forward under the only control that, for the moment, can be devised. Here we are going to give London a chance to control its traffic, and I hope the House will agree with the Lords in their Amendment.
I would like the House to understand that these Regulations, once made, are exactly in the same position as the Clause of a Bill. They have exactly the same authority and interpretation. Anybody who has any practical experience—I speak only as a young Member—knows that the chance of getting Government time to disapprove of the Regulations made by a Minister of that Government is infinitesimal. The consequence is that the provision for laying the Regulations on the Table of the House, while it seems to give greater authority, really gives the House no control whatever. If the Government have to find time to pass Regulations they can, if they are pressed for time, suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and pass them in that way, but if a private Member wishes to object, he has no chance of securing time—the Government of their own accord never give time in order to give the House a chance of expressing its opinion. I suggest that we disagree with the Lords Amendment.
|Division No. 188.]||AYES.||[12.58 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Baker, Walter||Barnes, A.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Barnett, Major Richard W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Banton, G.||Batey, Joseph|
|Berry, Sir George||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Plelou, D. P.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)|
|Briscoe, Captain Richard George||Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel||Romeril, H. G.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hoffman, P. C.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hudson, J. H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Scurr, John|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Isaacs, G. A.||Sexton, James|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jewson, Dorothea||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Clayton, G. C.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Cope, Major William||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Cove, W. G.||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Snell, Harry|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Crittall, V. G.||Lansbury, George||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Law, A.||Spence, R.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Leach, W.||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lee, F.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dixey, A. C.||Lindley, F. W.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Dukes, C.||Lorimer, H. D.||Sullivan, J.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lowth, T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lumley, L. R.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Lunn, William||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Egan, W. H.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Elliot, Walter E.||MacDonald, R.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||McEntee, V. L.||Thurtle, E.|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Mackinder, W.||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||McLean, Major A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)||March, S.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gates, Percy||Marley, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Maxton, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Middleton, G.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Mills, J. E.||Wells, S. R.|
|Gosling, Harry||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Montague, Frederick||Whiteley, W.|
|Greenall, T.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mosley, Oswald||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Groves, T.||Muir, John W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Murray, Robert||Windsor, Walter|
|Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.||Naylor, T. E.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Harbison, Thomas James S.||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Harland, A.||Oliver, George Harold||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Haycock, A. W.||Paling, W.||Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen|
|Hayday, Arthur||Pease, William Edwin||Parkinson.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Perry, S. F.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Hillary. A. E.||Rea, W. Russell|
|Allen, R. Wilberforcs (Leicester, S.)||Hobhouse, A. L.||Robertson, T. A.|
|Alstead, R.||Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)||Royle, C.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Birkett, W. N.||Jowitt, W. A (The Hartlepools)||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Black, J. W.||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Bonwick, A.||Keens, T.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Loverseed, J. F.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Comyns-Carr, A. S.||McCrae, Sir George||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Maden, H.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Falconer, J.||Mitchell,R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Finney, V. H.||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.|
|Foot, Isaac||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Franklin, L. B.||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Raffan, P. W.||Mr. Percy Harris and Major R. Williams.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Raffety, F. W.|
Question put, and agreed to.