§ (1) Where post office business is carried on in any shop in addition to any other business this Act shall apply to that shop subject to this modification, that where, in the opinion of the Postmaster-General, the exigencies of the service require that post office business should be transacted in any such shop at times when, under the provisions of this Act, the shop would be required to be closed, the shop shall, for the purposes of the transaction of post office business, be exempted from the provisions of this Act to such extent as the Postmaster-General may direct.
1644§ (2) Save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to post office business or to any premises in which Post Office business is transacted.—[Major Baird.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the result of an undertaking made in Committee with reference to shops which include post offices. This new Clause follows generally the lines of Clause 12 of the Shops Act, 1912. Its effect is that shops which contain post offices can only be kept open for the purpose of post office duties if it appears to the Postmaster-General that such opening is necessary for the public service. Otherwise, those shops come within the operation of the Bill. I do not think any lengthy explanation is necessary with regard to this Clause. The Clause itself states its effect quite clearly, and it is briefly as I have indicated.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis Clause shows the difficulty of the whole Bill. The moment a Bill of this sort comes in we have to fill it up with exceptions that it shall not apply to certain people. I do not know why my hon. Friend has moved a Clause relating to the Post Office. I do not know if he has been promoted from the Home Office to the Post Office. Supposing this is a good Bill and it is necessary that all these shops should be closed at such an hour, why should not the Post Office be closed in exactly the same way? It may be all right and I do not intend to oppose the Clause, but the same justice which is meted out to some should be meted out to all. We are fast getting into a position when the Government is being put above the law. After all, a post office is only a Government shop and why should the Government receive this particular advantage? I should also like to ask this question. In country villages a very large number of post offices are in shops where sweets, newspapers and a variety of other things are sold. What is to prevent a person who is desirous of obtaining a penny stamp going into a post office after closing hours and at the same time asking whether he cannot be supplied with tobacco or sweets or whatever else he requires? Human nature being what it is, the owner of the shop will probably oblige him. He would render himself liable to 1645 a prosecution if anyone saw him do it, but the person who buys the article is not likely to give information and he is not likely to give information himself that he has broken the law. In a town lots of people would see what was going on and would give information, but in a small country village the only people in the shop are the owner or his son or his daughter and very often only himself or his wife. The Clause will give a privilege to people who happen also to have in their shop a branch of the post office. I should be obliged if the Assistant Postmaster-General could give me some explanation on these points.
§ Major Sir B. FALLEIn the event of this being carried, is it proposed to give the Postmasters of sub-offices extra pay? The right hon. Baronet seems to think that sub-postmasters will be tumbling over each other.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for the Post Office Estimates.
§ The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease)This Clause has been approved by the Sub-Postmasters' Association. In regard to the action that may be taken against any person who contravenes the Clause, it will be found in Clause 7 that the penalty is, in the case of a first offence, one pound; in the case of a second offence, five pounds; and in the case of a third or subsequent offence, twenty pounds. That is what will happen to anyone who contravenes this law.
§ Sir F. BANBURYYou would want evidence. Where would you get it?
§ Mr. PEASEIf there be no evidence of course there will be no conviction. Under the Shops Act, 1912, the position of post offices in regard to closing orders is as follows: A Closing Order has no application where the only business carried on is post office business (Section 5 (4)) of the Act of 1912, and the Third Schedule to that Act. Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, and one of such businesses is post office business, the shop may be kept open after the closing hour for the purpose of that business, but on such terms and under such conditions as may be specified in the Order (Section 10 (2)) of the Act of 1912. Any such terms or conditions as to the keeping open of a 1646 shop for the transaction of post office business, are subject to the approval of the Postmaster-General. It is proposed by the Bill to abolish the system of Closing Orders under the Act of 1912, and to substitute an enactment requiring the closing of all shops at a fixed hour. The Postmaster-General has a right to say whether that is necessary or not.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI agree that this Clause is necessary as regards Sub-section (2). Surely that would be sufficient. Where nothing but post office business is concerned, the place is exempted from the Shops Act, but where there is a certain amount of other work going on, the Postmaster-General can keep the shop open for post office purposes, but for no other. There is ample penalty to enforce that, and I do not share the fears of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), that you will not get informers very frequently. I object to the continual creating of fresh criminal offences. I have protested against it every year I have been in the House, and I shall continue to do so. You are tempting people to commit crime by legislation of this sort. You keep a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress at the shop for post office business during the time the shop is closed for other business, but if they happen to sell a bottle of ink to a person who desires to write a letter, it is a criminal offence. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pike Pease) reeled off the offences and the penalties, and it seemed to give satisfaction to the House. I object to putting temptation in the way of people under these circumstances. It is acting contrary to common sense, and contrary to the administration of the criminal law. If you have to keep people there for post office business, it is straining the law if at the time the sub-postmaster sells a stamp to a person, he also sells them ink or paper, to make that a criminal offence. People who have post offices connected with their shop are entitled to the gratitude of the community, because generally they are not very well paid for the work they do, and if they make a little profit by selling a few shillingsworth of other things during the afternoon, when they are open for post office business, but closed for other business, I cannot see any harm in it. Subsection (2) might be kept in, and the first part of the Clause left out. I hope the Government will do that, and bring in the Clause in an amended form.
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Sir R. ADKINSThe object of the clause in limiting the hours during which the shop can be open is, of course, to prevent other work being done by the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress, who may be serving in the shop during the time it is only open for post office business. At the same time it is a restriction on the rights and conveniences of the public generally. Therefore, when you have a case such as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) has pointed out, of a shop where the postmaster or postmistress has to be there in order to transact post office business, and you are not giving them a half-holiday, that brings in the general argument of public convenience in shops where other things are sold besides stamps, and you should act as much as possible for the public convenience, consistent with treating properly the people who sell the goods. In many villages it is a real convenience to the public that when they go to get stamps or to transact post office business, they should not be deprived of the opportunity of transacting other business. The danger in legislation of this kind is that, while the attention of Parliament is concentrated on the benefits to the individual, we are overlooking the general advantage of the community, or we may very easily do so. As in this case you are not preventing and cannot prevent the individual being there to transact business, let that transaction be such as is in consonance with the general convenience as we can make it.
Mr. C. PALMERI wish to express my approbation of the attitude adopted by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) and my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins). In legislation of this sort we have immediately brought before us the. whole viciousness of the principles that are embodied in it. It simply means that you are trying to do something which restrains the liberty of the subject, and restrains that liberty throughout the country. Take the case of a man on a Sunday night who, under this repressive legislation, when the whole village is abed and in darkness, goes to the post office.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThose post offices are not open on Sunday nights.
Mr. PALMERWith all due respect may I say that, although I do not live in 1648 the country, I visit the country and post offices are open on Sunday night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The main post offices all over the country are open on Sunday night. I will not pursue that point, but my argument is that wherever you have a post office open on a Sunday and other shops are shut, you are putting a premium on an offence against the law. A man goes to a post office to get a stamp, but he cannot write a letter unless he has paper and an envelope, and you make it a crime for the postmaster to sell him anything but a stamp. I do not know whether he could sell him a postcard, because he would be selling something which is not merely a stamp. This is vicious legislation, and I hope the Government will agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rawlinson), and confine the Clause to the second Subsection.
§ Mr. SEXTONI do not see that the suggestion is going to help us at all. It is the same as under the existing Shop Act, where one part of the shop is shut and the other is kept open for a special purpose. I could understand if these people in the post office were going to get a half-holiday for the rest of the evening. But that is not so. The gentleman who suggests the rejection of this Amendment wants to keep the people there all the time. If he had suggested that the post office part should close, I do not see any harm in that, as it would give the relief required, and the village could very well do without postage stamps for that time.
§ Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSIf a man wants to send a telegram—
§ Mr. SIMMI hope the House will accept the proposition of the Government. Opposition to this proposition is the first attempt entirely to wreck this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection has put before us the very painful case of someone who wants to write a letter between the hours of 7 and 8. Then we have the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) distressed that someone who was compelled to keep open until 8 could not sell ink and other things between 7 and 8.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo, I said that he would sell them, and that he would break the law.
§ Mr. SIMMIf he breaks the law he takes the risks. Take any village or suburban area you like. In every sub-post office you have employed, say, two persons and you have a hundred shops perhaps employing a thousand persons. These persons have got to be kept behind their counters unnecessarily between 7 and 8 so that the sub-post office may sell other things between 7 and 8. The right hon. Member for the City of London has nine hours a day in which to buy an egg for his breakfast in the morning. If he cannot buy his egg in that time he ought to do without his boiled egg. The hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) has between 8 in the morning and 7 at night to buy postage stamps, and if he cannot buy them in that time he can do without postage stamps.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf an hon Member is in this House—
§ Mr. SIMMThe post office here is open. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for the City of London, after all his years in this House, has not found the post office yet. Take the case of a sub-postmaster with a wife and daughter. He is very ill-paid, but he is the sub-postmaster because he knows that it brings trade to his shop. Otherwise, he would not take the business on. Round about you have a large number of shop assistants, men and women, employed until 7 o'clock at night, which is quite late enough to work. Anyone who is in a shop from 7 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night has done a fair clay's work. The right hon. Member for the City of London, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), have the right perhaps to speak for the democracy, the common herd, but it does not come right from the bottom. I have no appeal from the poor folk of the country that these persons shall be kept working unnecessary hours. I hope, therefore, that this attempt to destroy the Bill will fail and that the House will stand by what the Government have proposed.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
§ Major NALLI beg to move to leave out:
The Clause will then read, "That nothing in this Act shall apply to post office business or to any premises in which post office business is transacted."
- "(1) Where post office business is carried on in any shop in addition to any other business this Act shall apply to that shop subject to this modification, that where, in
1650 the opinion of the Postmaster-General, the exigencies of the service require that post office business should be transacted in any such shop at times when, under the provisions of this Act, the shop would be required to be closed, the shop shall, for the purposes of the transaction of post office business, be exempted from the provisions of this Act to such extent as the Postmaster General may direct. - (2) Save as aforesaid."
That will meet the objection that has been raised and will avoid the necessity of the Postmaster-General having to become involved in the question of shop hours. This is a very real point, especially in regard to village post offices. If the post office transacts other business, selling stationery and general goods, and is not allowed to do that in the hours during which it has to be open for post office business, the net receipts may be reduced appreciably. They could come to the post office and say that they are obliged to be open for post office business in the hours when they can transact no other business, and consequently the post office shall make up for their loss. The post office does gain benefit from the fact that these people do earn revenue from other sources. I had a case not long ago in which a village post office was asked to undertake the duty of sub-telephone exchange. They could sell other goods, and they relied for their income on other business. In order to take on the business of the telephone exchange they were offered the magnificent sum of £5 per year. If a post office is deprived of a certain part of its other business it would not be in a position to take on such a thing as a telephone exchange for £5 a year. I do not want to interfere with the progress of this Bill, but for the reasons stated I trust that the House will accept this Amendment to the new Clause.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Simm) made a speech—
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt sounded like one. If there was anything in it, it meant that you were not to give any exemption to the post office at all, but to put them on, the same basis as any other shop.
§ Mr. SIMMNo, Sir. You have a proposition here to allow a post office to be open until 8 o'clock, but that an ordinary shopkeeper who did not conduct post office business but is selling eggs and collars, which is not post office business, should close at 7. That is quite clear.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am glad that it is clear to my hon. Friend. This Amendment simply provides that if a post office is kept open for any longer period than shops in the neighbourhood, if that necessitates somebody being in the post office to sell stamps and look after telegraph work, and so on, they ought to have the right, if the post office does its other business in the shop at the same time, to sell such things as it happens to sell. That would admittedly give an advantage over shops dealing in these things. A man cannot be in a big business if he takes on a post office as a general rule, but he would get a slight advantage. The hon. Gentleman was on the question of people staying there. It does not necessitate a person staying there. He is bound to be there, and the only question is whether he can sell other things at the same time.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt is a private post office at Selfridge's in the same way as at a club.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONYou will never get cheap notepaper in any Government office. So that we need not trouble about Selfridge's. The hon. Member (Mr. Simm) chaffed me for not speaking on behalf of democracy. He may be entitled to speak for democracy, but I have been in the world longer than he has, and I have been in close touch with the working classes both in town and country, and know where the shoe pinches.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member is replying to a speech which he says was made in the last Debate. We cannot go back on that Debate. We have concluded it.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am very sorry if I have transgressed. The result of my Amendment would be that there would be fewer people liable to fines or imprison- 1652 ment. I do not know whether democracy is in favour of that or not, but I want to limit the number of people liable to fines and imprisonment as much as possible. This particular Amendment deals with small country shopkeepers and similar people, and says that they shall not be taken to have committed an offence against the law and be subject to certain penalties should they sell some small article while remaining open for post office business.
§ Mr. PEASEI am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend did not stop to consider this question before he made his speech. He must know that there are a very large number of sub-postmasters, both in this country and in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where the post office plays a very small and indeed infinitesimal part in the whole business. In a case where there are two shops in a village in competition, it would be so manifestly unfair to allow the establishment with the post office to remain open for a longer time than the other shop that it is hardly necessary to answer the question, although I am always willing to answer anything which the hon. and learned Member puts forward. I should like to say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for one of the divisions of Manchester (Major Nall), that it is perfectly true that there are very small payments made to some sub-postmasters, but that is due to the fact that very little work is (lone Cases are often mentioned in this House of long hours at sub-post offices. That means that some man or woman has to attend to the telephone during the night, but on three or four nights in the week there will be no one ring up at all. It would be quite impossible to shut up the post offices as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), because it would be contrary to public opinion. Public opinion would not be in favour of curtailing the facilities to that extent.
§ Mr. HAILWOODI quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would mean a species of unfair competition for a post office to be allowed to remain open and sell other goods if another shop were closed. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is against the public interest and convenience that people should be deprived of the opportunity of buying stamps or postal orders between the hours of 1653 seven and eight at night. I should like to know whether it is not against the public interest and convenience that people should be deprived of the opportunity of buying anything else at that particular time. This legislation is introduced for the purpose of shortening the hours of assistants in shops, but we do not have similar legislation for other businesses.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is getting into a discussion of the Bill as a whole, whereas the Debate is upon a very small point.
§ Mr. HAILWOODI do not wish to transgress beyond the limits of the Amendment before the House. I think it is a very great injustice to compel anyone to work these extra hours in order to sell a few stamps or a few postal orders. After all these people run these post offices more to attract trade than anything else, and they look to make their profits out of the other articles which they sell rather than out of the post office business. It would be a great injustice therefore to require them to close their premises for other business while at the same time compelling them to do an extra hour's post office work. If the Government took the thing from the right point of view, they would come out openly and oppose the Bill altogether.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) unintentionally misrepresented me when he said that he could not comply with my request to close the post office at the hours mentioned in the Bill. I did not ask him to do that. I am going to support the Clause, and all I said was that it was rather a commentary upon the legislation as a whole that it was necessary to exempt Government offices or Government shops from the provisions which apply to other people. My right hon. Friend says that it is quite impossible to alter that, because it would be very inconvenient if people could not buy certain things at the post office in these hours. That is a very strong argument against the Bill. My right hon. Friend also said that the people who keep these post offices are paid by results. Let me point out the hardship which will ensue of this Amendment be not carried. If you keep people in the post offices during this time it is quite possible that they may get no pay because they are paid by results, and. although they are in their own shops, they 1654 are to be precluded from supplying somebody who may be passing and wants to purchase something. My right hon. Friend says, "Yes, we have considered all that and we have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to accept any Amendment such as is proposed, because it would entail hardships on other people." Legislation of this sort always entails hardship on someone. At the very start of our discussion of this Clause we have come up against the undoubted fact that if the Amendment is carried hardship will be imposed on someone. If the Amendment is not carried no doubt hardship will be imposed on someone. On the whole I am inclined to think that I ought to vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. REMERI think the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken has over-looked the fact that the great difference between the post office and any other business is that the post office has to deal with world affairs, cables, and so on, with New York and other places which only wake up about four o'clock in the afternoon.
Sir F. HALLI hope the Amendment is not going to be accepted. Suppose that the post office is used for general business, what is going to prevent an ordinary customer going in and having goods handed to him and saying, "I am not going to purchase these to-day because of the Regulations. You know me well; you can give me these things and in a day or two I will pay you?" Surely that would handicap the ordinary trader most unfairly. Whether it is advisable that the post office should be kept open till eight or nine o'clock is another question. We cannot give facilities to the post office to the general detriment of the ratepayer and the taxpayer. You must put them all on the same basis. What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to see that there is no innovation in regard to this Clause? Are there to be penalties in the event of anything being handed over to customers?
Sir F. HALLI apologise for not having heard the list read. It would have been a great deal better had they been formulated in this Amendment, for we could then 1655 have known exactly what they were. I am not prepared to support the Amendment in the way it is put forward.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
1656§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause,"
§ The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 19.
1655| Division No. 144.] | AYES. | [1.30 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Pearce, Sir William |
| Astor, Viscountess | Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Percy, Charles |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Green, Albert (Derby) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Perring, William George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.) | Greig, Colonel James William | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Grundy, T. W. | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hallas, Eldred | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hancock, John George | Remer, J. R. |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h) | Hanna, George Boyle | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Blair, Reginald | Hartshorn, Vernon | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hayday, Arthur | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hayward, Major Evan | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Robertson, John |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hills, Major John Waller | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hinds, John | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hirst, G. H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Bromfield, William | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Jameson, J. Gordon | Seager, Sir William |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Jephcott, A. R. | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Sexton, James |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H. | Johnstone, Joseph | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Simm, M. T. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Casey, T. W. | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lorden, John William | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lunn, William | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Lynn, R. J. | Taylor, J. |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Dawes, Commander | Macquisten, F. A. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Maddocks, Henry | Thorne, G. R. Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Mallalieu, F. W. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Dixon, Captain Herbert | Martin, Captain A. E. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Matthews, David | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) | Mills, John Edmund | White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mitchell, William Lane | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Morrison, Hugh | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Neal, Arthur | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Finney, Samuel | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Foreman, Henry | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Forrest, Walter | O'Grady, Captain James | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W. | |
| Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) | Parker, James | Sir Kingsley Wood and Mr. Briant. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| NOES. | ||
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Hailwood, Augustine | Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Courthope, Major George L. | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Major Nall and Sir F. Banbury. |