§ Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 12, leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" and insert "Penal Servitude."
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORDI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is merely designed to bring the short title of the Bill into line with the Amendment of the longer title to which we have agreed. It also brings the title of the Bill into a more accurate relation to what the Bill really is, namely, not a Bill to increase punishments but to alter the nature of them. In that way we bring it into line with various other Statutes which have been passed for very much the same object.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERI oppose the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," because the Amendment alters the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" into "Penal Servitude." I think the proposed substituted title is 2821 not apt to describe the purpose of the Bill. The substitution of "Penal Servitude" for "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" has been proposed, consciously or unconsciously—we will assume unconsciously—in order to get over a difficulty which has been present ever since this Measure has been before the House. The hon. and learned Member says that the new Title is to bring the Title of the Bill into harmony with the object of the Bill, which he says is to modify certain penalties. The fact is that this Bill merely gives power to Judges to sentence a man to penal servitude, where they now have the power to sentence them to consecutive terms of imprisonment with hard labour. That is to say, under the existing law there is nothing to prevent a Judge imposing several consecutive sentences of hard labour when persons are found guilty of the various counts which are mentioned in the Bill, and it is merely because the Judges in their humanity have refused in the past to give sentences of more than two years' hard labour that it is now proposed that, if the Judges can be persuaded that instead of giving three or four years' hard labour, they are, in fact, giving three or four years' penal servitude, they will be Induced to increase penalties which they would otherwise not have imposed. Therefore, I say that this Bill is entirely a Bill to increase penalties, and I object to a Bill being described by the mere indistinguishable title of the "Penal Servitude Bill" when ft is a Bill in effect to enable the Judges to send persons to prison for four, five or six years, where they cannot now send them for more than two years.
The absurdity of this proposed title is this. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), who proposed this Bill, first brought it forward, he had some difficulty in justifying it—and it has been difficult all through this Bill to justify it—and what he is now trying to justify is his original error by altering the title. He has forgotten that in these days penal servitude and hard labour are substantially the same, and that the Home Secretary himself, speaking on the Bill, said that there was no difference to-day between penal servitude and hard labour.
2822 That means that if the Judges to-day are unwilling to give more than two years' hard labour where there are consecutive sentences, they would be equally unwilling to give more than two years' penal servitude, because the Home Secretary says they are in effect the same thing. But simply because of one case—the Hayley Morriss case—and because of the observations made by a learned Judge in the middle of that case, not in his judgment, this Bill was rushed into this House, and the Government, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, have treated it with favour. I am concerned that the House and the country should know that this Bill is a Bill in fact, apart from legal technicalities, to persuade Judges to increase penalties on persons who are sentenced to hard labour.
When we read in another place that it is suggested to substitute "Penal Servitude" for the "Increase of Penalties," I suppose it is hoped that persons will not realise that the Judges are now being invited to give more than two years' imprisonment where formerly they could only give up to two years. We have fought this Bill on every point. I know I should be out of order now if I repeated all the reasons and the arguments against the Measure. The Government this evening, at tnis late hour, have been sufficiently persuaded to take off their Whips, but they put on their Whips at earlier stages and so do encouragement to the Bill was given by the Front Bench. Now I understand that the House is free to express an opinion. If we must have this Bill, and if Judges must be given these powers, let them at least know what powers they are given. When a Judge of the High Court or a Chairman of Quarter Sessions reads this Bill in the form in which it has left this House, he will know that he is given encouragement to increase penalties. If he is a humane man, he may decline to do it, but if he reads merely that this is a penal servitude Bill and when what has happened here is forgotten in the course of a few years, we may have persons, convicted of consecutive offences for which they should only receive two years, and, for this cumulative imprisonment, gradually this bad idea of penal servitude may be substituted to any extent. Therefore I say that we are entitled to have 2823 this Measure accurately described. This Bill brought in to enable Judges to give heavier sentences, in its original form extended to political offences.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORDMy right hon. and learned Friend really must forgive me if I interrupt him for a moment. In its original form the Bill included no offence of a political character, but we then altered the phraseology of it in such a way that it would have brought in political offences, and in order then to carry out the original intention this special proviso was put in. But I repeat that in its original form the Bill did not include political offences.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI am willing to accept the hon. and learned Member's correction. In its original form the Bill did not include political offences, but at a later stage it did include political offences, and finally these political offences had to be taken out.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORDI did so in pursuance of a pledge I gave that political offences, as far as I could provide for it, should be kept out of the Bill.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI am pointing out that this Bill was a Bill to increase penalties, and when the hon. Member says that he was compelled to give a pledge, that simply showed how carefully the Labour party and others were watching his intentions in this Bill. That is what we are here for, to see that people are not locked up and imprisoned without protest. The next thing was that the amount of penal servitude which could be given was unlimited—a man could receive 20, 30 or 40 years' penal servitude under this Measure if he committed 20 offences. We compelled the hon. and /earned Member to reduce the amount very much, but to pretend that this is not a Bill for increasing penalties is to make a mockery of the proceedings of this House.
This Bill displays, as so much legislation does display, that bastard and dangerous form, not of Socialism, but of State activity, which consists of locking people up on every possible occasion, and this is a Measure to lock people up. I suppose that is one way of dealing with 2824 those people whom you do not approve. But this Bill does increase penalties and should be called a Bill to increase penalties and it should go back to another place under its proper brand and stigma, which is a Bill to increase penalties. I beg to oppose the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The Amendment is designed to conceal the real sinister intention of the Measure.
§ Mr. GROTRIANDoes the right hon. and learned Member really suggest to the House that the title of any Bill is going to weigh one way or another with a Judge in passing sentence, and that it will induce a Judge to give a heavier sentence?
§ Sir H. SLESSERIf I may speak again, by leave of the House, I do not know whether a particular Judge would be so influenced or not, hut I feel that it would be much more satisfactory, where we have a Measure to increase penalties, that we should fearlessly say so, and if it is a good thing to lock people up, that we should say so.
§ Mr. HARNEYI had not intended saying anything at all on this Bill, but I so thoroughly approve of everything said by the last speaker that I feel I ought not to leave him without support. The strongest objection which was raised against this Bill when it was introduced was that it was merely a Bill to increase penalties, and most of the arguments were directed to show that it was a retrograde movement to do anything of the kind, and that penalties as they are to-day, so far from being inadequate, were too heavy, and that if they were reduced by one-half criminals would not be increased and the public purse would be saved, and the resiliency of modern nature would be strengthened. Because of these arguments the camouflaged title of "Penal Servitude" is adopted. This is not a penal servitude Bill. It is a Rill really and absolutely to increase penalties. What is the nature of the Bill? The law was that you could not give a longer single term of hard labour than two years, but if there was—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)We cannot now discuss the merits of the Bill. The only question before the House is the Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. HARNEYI agree absolutely. I am only speaking now of the Title. The law before was that you could give an accumulation of periods up to two years, but in practice that was not done, because Judges thought it was inhumane. When they wanted to exceed two years' hard labour, they broke into penal servitude. Now this Bill 'Simply says that where you have an accumulation of sentences, and you ought to give four or six years' hard labour—hard labour being the assigned sentence—we will enable you to get over the inhumane sentence that deterred you before by giving an increase of penal servitude. But the Bill was brought in in order to increase penalties, and I must agree with what was so forcibly put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), when he said that the Home Secretary, in the debate on this Measure, went out of his way to say that the system has entirely changed now in our prisons. He said, "I have been there. There is absolutely no difference between penal servitude and hard labour, and therefore this Bill says, 'Let us increase the sentence from two years to four years or six years and call it penal servitude, but in fact let it be the same as an accumulation of terms of hard labour.'"
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORDMay I correct my hon. and learned Friend? I am perfectly certain he does not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but my recollection of what the Home Secretary said was that there was no difference in the nature of hardship of work and so forth, but that there was this essential difference, which everybody has always recognised, that hard labour means confinement in a close and very strictly circumscribed area, whereas penal servitude allows a man to get into the open and into the fields and into much healthier surroundings.
§ Mr. HARNEYMy memory may be at fault sometimes, but I will back it to be right here. The hon. and learned Member puts a very partial view of the Home Secretary's remarks. The Home Secretary did, in express and unequivocal terms, say, "I have been to the prisons, and there is in substance no difference between the two. In the old times, there used to be nine months' solitary confine- 2826 ment. Now that is done away with completely, so that anyone who thinks that a person who gets penal servitude is treated differently to a person who gets hard labour is mistaken." You will find that those are somewhat the nature of the words of the right hon. Gentleman. Since, therefore, this Bill is a Bill to increase penalties—that may be wise or unwise—the whole weight of the attack upon it was made because penalties should not be increased. Why should we not have on our Statute Book the fact that this Parliament of 1926 was of opinion that there should be a general increase of penalties? Why do they want to change it in the other House unless they do not want to go forth what is true Having regard to these observations, I think we are entitled to call upon the Minister on the Front Bench to give us some explanation of why this changes made in another place is justified in this House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to join in the protest against the change in this Title, because I have not heard from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harney) or from the author of the Bill why we should be ashamed to let the public know in ordinary English what the Bill really affects. When the Bill was introduced it was supported and defended as a means of increasing the punishment for certain serious offences. The whole argument was that the offences for which people were to be punished were so horrible that only an increase of the penalties which may be inflicted would put an end to them. There are many people in this country who think that to increase penalties is not the way to diminish crime, that it only makes crime worse, and they should know, I think, that this Parliament, which has been guilty of a good many misdeeds lately, this party now in power, are of opinion that crime can be diminished by increasing the penalties. This is the most retrograde Measure that has been before the House for a very long time. It is a great pity it was brought in in the manner it was—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am afraid we cannot discuss that question now. The question before the House is to consider the Lords Amendment to alter the Short Title of the Bill by inserting the 2827 words "Penal Servitude" instead of the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)."
§ Mr. LANSBURYI will try to keep within the limits of order, although it is extremely difficult. The point I want to urge is that this Bill was brought in and defended as a Measure to increase the penalties, and it is quite wrong, now that we have reached the final stages of the Bill, that the Title should be altered in this way and that we should try to cover up a most mischievous piece of legislation in this fashion. I see there is a Law Officer of the Crown present on the Front Bench, although he is only a Law Officer for Scotland, but I think some responsible Minister should tell the House what is the attitude of the Government towards this particular Amendment and the Bill in general. At any rate it is the business of the Government to give their supporters some guidance in a matter of this kind. Are the Government proud of the Bill, or are they in collusion with the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now asking whether the Government approve of the Bill. The question before the House is the Amendment made by the Lords in the Short Title of the Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat was a slip. I want to know whether the Government approves of the alteration in the Title, whether they approve of the authors of the Bill trying to deceive the public by this alteration in its title, and I am asking that some Member of the Government should give their supporters a little guidance in the matter. The Tory party claims to be the honest party. I will concede them that if only someone will stand up and tell us why the Title of this Bill is to be changed; why when you are increasing penalties from two years to seven years you desire to give an entirely different Title to the Bill. The proper Title is the one which the hon. and learned Member so eloquently defended when he introduced the Measure, but he is now so ashamed of his offspring that he wants to deceive the public by calling it by another name.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORDLet me in one sentence tell the hon. Member why the 2828 change is made. There is no provision in the Bill which increases the statutory powers of the Court to inflict any longer term's of imprisonment than the Statute at present allows.
§ Mr. HARNEYThere is, if you call it by another name.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a perfectly legal point like that, I am content to leave it to the decision of the two hon. and learned Members, who disagree with one another, as lawyers always do.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)I think it is right that the House should realise that they have already agreed to the change in the Title, and the only Amendment we are considering now is to leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)," and insert "Penal Servitude." The change in the Title has already been agreed to, and I submit it is not in order to discuss the Title of the Bill.
§ Sir H. SLESSERMay I intervene for a moment? Mr. Speaker has already ruled that it is in order, and I was allowed to proceed with my argument without a question of order being raised.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not see any reason why I should give a decision on that point. It is quite clear that the House has already decided on the Title, and what we are now discussing is the Lords Amendment to the Short Title.
Mr. T. HUDSONThe Lord Advocate has made no attempt of any sort to explain to the House why the change has been made. I do not remember that any agreement was come to that this change should be made, but I am not complaining about that. The Government is to blame; they have the responsibility in regard to this matter, but I maintain that it is not fair to the House that the explanation should be left to the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, or that the Government should shelter itself behind the point of Order which has just been raised—and which is not a point of Order. We are still in the position that, up to the moment, we have had no explanation of the action the Government propose to take. On a matter of this kind I suggest that I am as great an expert as any hon. Member 2829 in this House. I happen to have spent in His Majesty's hostels a longer period than any other hon. Member, and I know the difficulties that confront us at the present time with regard to the punishments in the cases—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERClearly this is not in order. The question before the House is the Lords Amendment to the Short Title.
Mr. HUDSONAm I not in order in discussing the different terms that are referred to in the Bill and to give reasons why the phrase "Penal Servitude" ought not to be put into the Title. It does not accurately describe what goes on in the case of people who are in prison. That was the matter I was trying to raise, and I was suggesting that I probably knew more about it than any other hon. Member.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe only question now under discussion is with regard to the Lords Amendment to the Short Title, that is, Clause 2. That is not the actual Title of the Bill. If the hon. Member can show, within the Rules of Order, why the Lords Amendment should not be made, it would be in order, but so far he has been out of order.
Mr. HUDSONThe matter we are discussing now is, in the Title, to leave out the word "punishments" and insert—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not think the hon. Member has the Bill before him. He will see that Clause 2 is the "Short Title and Extent"; that is the question we are now discussing.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNI certainly think we have cause for serious complaint against the Government for the manner in which they have treated this matter. They permit the hon. and learned Member to take Government time in order to pass this Bill, which is an ad hoc Bill and highly objectionable Bill. It is described as a "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill." Why does the Lord Advocate confine the only observation he has to make on this matter to the one simple sentence that we have consented to the change of Title? Can be tell me when we consented to the change of Title? One Amendment was taken last night, but I am not aware that it was an Amendment to the Title. The Lord Advocate 2830 is only able to make that sole contribution to the Debate, not on the merits of the Amendment, and I invite him now to say when we consented to the change in the Title of this Bill, which only hides the purpose of the Measure under this mild but entirely delusive title. If he cannot, or will not, it is because he is unable to tell me that we ever consented to the change—
§ The LORD ADVOCATEIf the hon. and gallant Member will look at the first of the Lords Amendments he will see
In the Title leave out 'punishment' and insert 'penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment.'That is what I referred to.
§ Captain BENNIs it on the Paper to-day?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEIt is in the Title; "leave out punishment" and insert "penal service in lieu of imprisonment." It was agreed to last night.
§ Captain BENNThe argument now put forward by the Lord Advocate is that/because we have passed certain words in the Bill we have committed ourselves to a change in the Title. I entirely and absolutely repel any such argument. We have never consented to anything of the kind.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe are not discussing the Title now. We are discussing a Lords Amendment consequential on the decision of last night.
§ Captain BENNPerhaps I am making a mistake. I understand we are discussing the Lords Amendment, on line 12, to leave out the words "Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties)" and insert" Penal Servitude."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is not the Title of the Bill.
§ Captain BENNI will read the marginal note—"Short Title and Extent." The argument advanced by the Lord Advocate has absolutely no foundation whatever in fact. I support the rejection of the Amendment because it deceives the public as to the real object of the Bill. Nothing has been said in support of the Lord Advocate's contention, and nothing has been said which can justify this camouflage which it is proposed to apply to this entirely objectionable Measure.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
2832§ The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 106.
2833| Division No. 563.] | AYES. | [5.30 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Oakley, T. |
| Apsley, Lord | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Grant, Sir J. A. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Balniel, Lord | Greene, W. p. Crawford | Perring, Sir William George |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Price, Major C. W M. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Radford, E. A. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hammersley, S. S. | Raine, W. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hanbury, C. | Ramsden, E. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Harland, A. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Hartington, Marquess of | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Briant, Frank | Haslam, Henry C. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. [Berks, Newb'y) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rye, F. G. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Herbert, S. (York, N. H., Scar. & Wh'by) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hilton, Cecil | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Sandon, Lord |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Savery, S. S. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belt'st.) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hurd, Percy A. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hurst, Gerald B. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.) | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bt's) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hiffe, Sir Edward M. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Christie, J. A. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jacob, A. E. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cope, Major William | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Loder, J. de V. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Looker, Herbert William | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lougher, L. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Waddington, R. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otlay) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacIntyre, Ian | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | McLean, Major A. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Margesson, Captain D. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fenby, T. D. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Finburgh, S. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Forrest, W. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Murchison, C. K. | |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Neville, R. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gates, Percy | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Mr. Greaves-Lord and Mr. Rentoul. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Nuttall, Ellis | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Connolly, M. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Cove, W. G. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bromley, J. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Buchanan, G. | Dalton, Hugh |
| Baker, Walter | Charleton, H. C. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Cluse, W. S. | Dennison, R. |
| Barnes, A. | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Gardner, J. p. |
| Barr, J. | Compton, Joseph | Gillett, George M. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lee, F. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Greenall, T. | Lindley, F. W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lowth, T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Groves, T. | MacLaren, Andrew | Stephen, Campbell |
| Grundy, T. W. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | March, S. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maxton, James | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Montague, Frederick | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hardie, George D. | Morris, R. H. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Harney, E. A. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Townend, A. E. |
| Harris, Percy A. | Murnin, H. | Viant, S. P. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Naylor, T. E. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Palin, John Henry | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Potts, John S. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Hirst, G. H. | Pureed, A. A. | Westwood, J. |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Riley, Ben | Whiteley, W. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Rose, Frank H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Windsor, Walter |
| Kelly, W. T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Wright, W. |
| Kennedy, T. | Sexton, James | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | |
| Lawson, John James | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Lansbury and Colonel Day. |
Question put, and agreed to.