HC Deb 01 December 1926 vol 200 cc1233-52

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the appointment of two Judges with Indian experience to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and to assist in the hearing of Indian appeals. As the House knows, the ultimate Court of Appeal for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the House of Lords, and for all the other parts of the Empire the Privy Council. In the Privy Council, the business has increased enormously during recent years. In the case of Indian appeals in particular, whereas, for the five years ending, I think in 1910, there were about 52 appeals from India, for the last five years, the number was 91, so that they have very nearly doubled. In addition to that, there has been a very great increase in the number of appeals coming from our various colonies and His Majesty's Dominions overseas. The result is that it is practically necessary now for the Privy Council to sit in two divisions, one of which is occupied with the hearing of Indian appeals and the other with the hearing of appeals from other places within its jurisdiction. In order to cope with the work we have the Lord Chancellor and six Law Lords, and we have the assistance of ex-Lords Chancellor, although at the moment there is only one available, Lord Haldane. Lord Buckmaster is suffering, unfortunately, from serious illness. Lord Finlay is largely occupied in assisting the International tribunal at The Hague, and Lord Haldane is left the only available ex-Lord Chancellor. There are, in addition, in the Privy Council two other paid members, appointed under the Act of 1833. Two retired Indian Judges are allowed to sit on the Privy Council at a salary which is really only travelling expenses, £400 a year. One of these two, Syed Ameer Ali, has sat for nearly 20 years and his health will not permit him as a rule to attend.

We have Volunteer assistance from retired Lord Justices and other persons who are qualified, such as Lord Parmoor, Lord Phillimore, Lord Warrington and Lord Darling, but even with that Voluntary assistance, the House will see that, when we have to provide for five persons to be sitting in the House of Lords, five more in the first division of the Privy Council, and five to make up another Court which is habitually necessary now for Indian appeals, that it is not possible to find the necessary number in order that the Courts may be maintained. The House, I am sure, will agree that the Privy Council is a most valuable link of Empire, and that while we have that Court it is of the first importance to this country, as well as to the Dominions, that the personnel of the Court should be such as to command the respect of all those whose appeals may come before it. That being the state of affairs, the Secretary of State for India and the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the late Viceroy, Lord Reading, discussed last year what was to be done to provide fresh assistance for the hearing of Indian appeals, and the plan they agreed upon was that there should be two persons appointed to sit in the Privy Council with Indian judicial or legal experience, and that those persons should each receive a salary of £4,000 a year, provided as to one-half by the English Exchequer, and as to the other half by the Indian Exchequer. Unfortunately, the Indian Legislature did not accept the proposal, although we have information that leads us to hope that that decision is not a final one. Meanwhile the position is that those appeals have to be heard, the Court has to be manned, and the plan which has recommended itself to the Government is to go forward with the payment of only that half of the salary which the English Exchequer was expected to provide, so that no extra cost will fall on this country, leaving it open to the Indian Legislature to agree, if they think fit, to pay their half later on. It is in order to achieve this that this Bill is being moved; and it provides for the appointment of these two extra Judges with Indian experience to the Privy Council at a salary of £2,000 a year each.


Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the objection of the Indian Legislature to the appointment of these two Judges was on general political grounds or that they were unnecessary?


Their objection was on general political grounds. I do not think there was any suggestion that the two judges were unnecessary, provided that Indian appeals were heard in the Privy Council. In another place, when this matter was discussed, the strongest possible view in favour of the Bill was expressed by Noble Lords who hold different political views from the Government. Lord Haldane was a very strong supporter indeed of the Measure. I commend the Bill, therefore, to the House in the belief that we shall do something to remedy what is a real grievance. I am sure we all desire that appeals to be heard by the Privy Council shall be heard by a staff of judges adequate in numbers and experience to deal expeditiously and satisfactorily with the great issues they have to determine.


What will happen if the Indian Legislature do not find their C2,000?


The persons appointed will have to accept the lower salary of £2,000. That I anticipate they will be willing to do in the circumstances.


If the two persons appointed are willing to serve for £2,000, was it not rather unnecessary to offer the larger salary in the first instance?


It will probably 'be possible to find people who may be willing to accept a salary of £2,000 a year with a prospect of getting £2,000 more, whereas if you make the maximum £2,000 you would not, I think, get people of the right age and experience to undertake a task of this kind. We are not making these appointments as a mere retiring pension for judges who have served their full time in India. If that was so, it would be quite possible to get people to serve at a much lower salary, but there is a provision in the Bill that the persons appointed shall retire at the age of 72, and it is our intention to appoint people who are in the prime of their judicial faculties to these appointments.


I have consulted my noble Friend, Lord Haldane, on this matter, and he is fully satisfied from his great experience of the work of the Privy Council that the Bill is absolutely necessary. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, perhaps, the greatest tribunal in the Empire. Appeals come to it from every country, involving every kind of question from demarkation to the proprietorship of idols, and it is a tribunal which cannot be too efficiently well staffed. In the past, as the Attorney-General has said, the staffing of the Judicial Committee was largely dependent on. the number of ex-Lord Chancellors who happened to be available for the purpose, and, incidentally, let me say what I have always wished to say, that when people accuse ex-Lord Chancellors of doing no work and receiving pensions, there are no persons connected with the Judiciary who do more unpaid work on the Privy Council than those persons who have been Lord Chancellors.

At the moment, with the exception of Lord Haldane, the whole of this valuable source of judicial power is lacking, and there is no doubt that appeals are being held up and justice, which is urgently required, is delayed because of a want of an adequate staff on the Privy Council. No one having regard to the general salaries which are paid to the Judiciary will say that these particular gentlemen are being over-paid. Compare it with the salaries received by Masters of the Supreme Court, and County Court Judges. When you propose that members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall receive £2,000 a year as members of this Supreme Court of Appeal in the Empire, it cannot be said to be an excessive payment. I feel that a case has been made out for the Bill, and I hope the House will pass it and the necessary Money Resolution so as to enable the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be properly staffed.


I desire to ask one question, and I hope my opportunity of receiving a reply from the Attorney-General has not passed. I desire to inquire whether a decision of the Imperial Conference has been taken into account in relation to this Bill. On page 19 of the Summary of Proceedings, I find the following: Another matter which we discussed, in which the general constitutional principle was raised, concerned the advantages governing appeals from judgments in the Dominions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. From these discussions it became clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected. It was, however, generally recognised, that where changes of the existing system were proposed, which, while primarily affecting one part raised issues in which other parts were also concerned, such changes ought only to be carried out after consultation and discussion. The Attorney-General has informed us that certain political objections have been raised in India, and that there may be a wish to revise the present procedure in regard to appeals to the Privy Council. It may be that in the near future there will be some reduction in the work of the Judicial Committee. Canada may desire no longer to submit her cases to this great Tribunal, and, in that case, there would not be the same necessity to increase the personnel, with the assistance of the taxpayers' money. And there may be other parts of the Dominions who may not desire to avail themselves of the present opportunities of coming to London. If I am right, is not this Bill a little premature, and could not its passage be delayed in order that the wishes of the Dominions may become more clearly expressed in regard to their future intentions? I hope the Attorney-General will be able to inform me whether the discussions at the Imperial Conference have been taken into account before the presentation of this Bill.


I only want to say how very cordially and warmly I support this Bill. It has been said, and I do not think it can he too often said, that the Privy Council is the most important tribunal in this country, indeed in the world, and it has always struck me as a matter of great pride that while in all parts of the British Dominions there is always a desire to assert their complete independence and their autonomous condition—only recently we had the matter brought forward again—they are still content to leave in this country the supreme tribunal to which they refer their disputes. They come to the mother country still for the ultimate decision from their own Courts. It is a matter of considerable pride to us that such a tribunal exists, and certainly anything that is required to strengthen it ought to be granted by this House without a moment's hesitation. The members of the Privy Council are largely members of the House of Lords, and it is recruited from those who have held high judicial positions in this country.

In a great many foreign countries, the judicial system is different from ours, it is part of the Civil Service of the country, and men are promoted to judicial office at a much earlier age than they are here. Our system, which I think is undoubtedly the best, is that men are chosen for judicial office from the acting practitioners at the Bar. But it has, of course, this incidence; that Judges are, as a rule, recruited from men who are approaching or have perhaps passed middle life. They 'rave passed through various judicial offices, have reached the House of Lords or the Privy Council, and of a necessity it follows that by the time they attain that high office they are sometimes, shall I say, in the twilight of life. At any rate though they bring a wealth of knowledge to the high office, they cannot be expected to do the same amount of work as a man in early life. That has to be taken into consideration, and, consequently, when it is desired to add to the strength of the Privy Council, I think it is a matter about which this House should not hesitate for a single instant. The Attorney-General has made out an unanswerable case, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has supported the Bill in a few well-chosen and apt words. In that case, I think, there should be no hesitation in granting a Second Reading to this Measure.


I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but I want to enter my emphatic protest as a member of the working class and as a Socialist that a member of our Front Bench should deliberately go out of his way to give his blessing to a proposal under which a man gets £4,000 a year. I think that is going a wee bit too far. We have just passed through one of the most awful and gigantic struggles on behalf of the working classes to maintain a living wage, or anything like the semblance of a living wage, and this same Government, this same Front Bench, this same team, that are asking us to agree to give one man 24,000 a year—




You can say what you like. I say £4,000 a year; and facts are chiels that winna ding and canna be disputed. It is £4,000 a year. Am I right or wrong?


This House is being asked to vote £2,000.


Yes, but I am astonished at even the Attorney-General, because he knows perfectly well—the OFFICIAL REPORT will prove it to-morrow—that he said £2,000 from the British Exchequer and £2,000 from the Indian Exchequer. If that is not £4,000, I do not know what it is. These are the same men, the Prime Minister included, who are backing £4,000 for one man, as much wages as they are prepared to pay to 2,000 colliers; and we are expected to back a Bill like that, and our Front Bench will give its blessing to it after the titanic struggle that the miners have made. If ever there was class legislation, this is it. The Prime Minister says that there is no such thing as a class struggle in society. Here he is to-day backing one man for £4,000. Is not that a terrible difference? Is not that putting class against class—one man of the lawyer class, which costs this country every year over £100,000,000 to keep them going—£100,000,000, and they do not produce a single iota of the necessaries of life, but simply live on the flesh and blood of those who do produce? Remember this, that all the good things, the good clothes that you wear, the good fruit that you eat and the good houses that you live in, are produced by labour, and whoever enjoys those good things without working for them is stealing the bread of the worker.

This is one of the reasons why this country cannot afford to give the miners and the workers in general a living wage. It is because there are certain individuals, under this system of ours, who take from it £4,000 a year. How long is it going to last? Are the Labour benches going to back a system that gives £4,000 a year to certain individuals who never have had to rough it, who never knew what it was to want their breakfast, who never knew what it was to be aching as do the children in the slums, inasmuch as they do not know what it is to have a night's sleep because of the verminous conditions under which they live? Here is a body of men, Judges, who have been reared in the lap of luxury, and the very best that Britain can give them, and then when they come to 50 or 60 years of age they are to get this comfortable job. Why should they get it? What is it that these Judges have which is superior over me? [HON. MEMBERS: "Brains! "] Hon. Members say "Brains." I am prepared to stand any test, and if I am not mentally and physically as well equipped as any man in this House, then I do not know what it means. If any of them can prove that they have rendered their country better service than I have done, I want to see them. This is just what is to be expected—rich men living in the lap of luxury—when it comes to one of their own class. I want the Prime Minister to think about this, because even yet I have not given him up. You get the Prime Minister of this country, after negotiating with my class, coming in direct contact with Cook and Herbert Smith and other members of my class, and seeing those men who, he knows, are just as capable—whether he differs from them in his point of view or not it does not matter—just as capable of stating their case, as competent in every way as any Judge, including Lord Haldane or all the Haldanes that ever were haldaned.

There is no Judge, there is no lawyer, there is no man in this country who has a right to £4,000 a year, while the miners and the engineers are paid the wages that they receive. Think of my own trade; think of the engineers. I know that my fellow-engineers are working for £2 15s. a week. It is a scandal, and there never was a Judge, there never was a Prime Minister, including the present Prime Minister, able to give a better account of himself or to give better service to the country than the skilled engineer, and yet the skilled engineer has to give his all for £2 15s. a week. Do you think that we are going calmly to sit here and listen even to our own Front Bench? It is enough to make the very stones cry out, to think that they would tell us that this £4,000 a year should be paid. It all turns on this, that you have on the one hand people with tens of thousands of pounds, taking tens of thousands of pounds; you have gentlemen on the other side of the House who are in the habit of drawing tens of thousands of pounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] They deny it. We had an example of that in Lord Vestey, who left this country in order to escape taxation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. Member is now travelling rather wide of the subject before the House.


I am keeping to the point, though I know quite well that I am not going on orthodox lines. But I am speaking the truth, and "truth cutteth keener than a two-edged sword." My folk outside to-day, the working classes of this country, are thinking about the idea of one man by Act of Parliament getting £4,000 a year. We have been told that it would not do for Parliament to interfere with the wages of the working classes, and that we must have freedom. Where is the freedom?

O, freedom, what things are done in thy name! Here is Parliament, here are the Tory party and the Prime Minister being part and parcel to a special Bill for the regulation of wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "How about your own Front Bench Vi I can deal with my own Front Bench, and it can deal with me if it likes. Here you have the Government dealing with the wages of a certain class. They cannot deal with the wages of the working classes; they cannot be big enough. I thought the Prime Minister was big enough, when he said that he would cleave his way, if necessary, through private interests, in order to see that the working classes of this country got a fair deal. He failed, and failed' miserably. He cannot bring in an Act of Parliament to ensure that the most valuable asset that the country has got, the working classes, get a comfortable living, but he is part and parcel to certain individuals getting £4,000 a year. I protest most emphatically, because, if the engineers are worth only £2 15s. a week, and the miners worth only the miserable pittance that this Government is responsible for forcing them to accept, then I say that there is no one in the British Empire who is worth £4,000 a year. The Government should think shame of themselves. If they were half human they would never bring forward a Measure like this.


I want also to protest against a Money Resolution being brought in to supplement a Bill of this kind. The Government are constantly telling the people of this country, and particularly Labour Members and their supporters outside the House, that all remuneration amongst the working classes, for anything which they can do, must be based upon economic laws, that the economic laws which operate in this country determine and fix the wages of the workers. The engineers' wages, which are undoubtedly very low in consideration of the work that they perform, are supposed to be fixed by the law of supply and demand. During the whole of the miners' dispute the country was told by the Press, by the Prime Minister and by those who sit beside or behind him, that the miners must be prepared to accept what they could get because of economic laws. We were told that we could not fight against economic laws, and that the miners' wages must be determined by economic laws.

What did that mean? The Prime Minister himself, and others speaking on his behalf, admitted that he could not, and he would not, by Act of Parliament fix the wages which the miners were to receive, that there was to be no legal fixing of wages for the miners. Yet the Government brings in a Bill and a Money Resolution fixing the wages of two new Judges. It is not a question of increasing the wages of existing Judges, but the giving of powers to appoint two additional Judges, and they are to receive from this country £2,000 a year, with the right to have that £2,000 supplemented by £2,000 from the Indian Exchequer. I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General why they do not apply their own logic and argument when they are trying to meet the claims of miners and other working people.


Can you get Judges for less?


You lock out the miners when you want them for less; lock out the Judges and you will soon get them for very much less.


It is a question of supply and demand. You cannot get them.


There are scores of lawyers in London with very few briefs and very little employment who would take a job of this kind for very much less than £2,000 a year and who would possibly do the work much better than the men you are about to appoint.


They have no knowledge of Indian law.


We do not require a knowledge of Indian law or any other law to realise that the lawyers' trade union is the strongest trade union in the country. We find the lawyers always on the job when there is some pecuniary advantage to be gained. We have only to look around these benches when a question of this kind is being discussed and we find on the other side practically all its supporters are lawyers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Hon. Members have only to look around them. Let them go down to the smokeroom and they will see more. If we divide, let them examine the Division list and see the number of lawyers who have come together in support of this proposal. That is my proof. Do hon. Members require any additional proof of my statement? They know it to be true, and all their interruptions, sneers and laughter go for nothing. Of course, they have a majority and that is why they can laugh, but a few more Hulls will put them where we are now, and then we shall see who will laugh.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

That is a kind of prophecy, and does not seem relevant to the subject under discussion.


It is true it is a prophecy, but this Bill deals with the future and I thought it might be in order to make a reference to the future of the Labour and Tory parties. I protest against the proposal which is contained in this Bill and in the Money Resolution which accompanies it. If this country cannot afford a living wage to those who produce wealth, it cannot afford high salaries to the individuals who are to be appointed under this Bill. I hope the matter will be pressed to a Division, because the Division List, when published in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, will be very interesting. I, for one, will go into the Lobby gladly against this proposal. I shall vote with a very light heart against a proposal to give £4,000 a year to two lawyers, when we can get scores of men to do the work at lower rates if we leave it to the operation of the economic law, and carry out the Prime Minister's pet theory.


I think neither the Attorney-General nor the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) are to be congratulated on their logic in this matter. They have said, first of all, that it is absolutely necessary to fix a sum of not less than £4,000 a year and that, otherwise, it will be impossible to get members of the legal profession of sufficient knowledge and ability, to do this extremely important work. Yet in the same speech the Attorney-General declared that when the Indian Legislature puts its foot down and says it is not going to pay £4,000 a year, we can find two gentlemen who, without the faintest demur, will come along and take exactly the same jobs at exactly half the rate. I cannot congratulate the lawyers on their consistency in this matter. One can only congratulate them on the way in which they stand up for their own trade union when rates of remuneration are under consideration. Far be it from me, as a trade unionist, to object to that, if it were not for the fact that we always find the members of the lawyers' trade union leading the opposition when it is a question of the trade union rights of the working class. It is just because they are the most virulent opponents of the trade union rights of other people that they must be prepared to accept considerable questioning when their own extraordinarily high rates of remuneration are under consideration.

One congratulates them on having been able to induce in this country a sort of mystical appreciation of the legal profession. They are regarded as wonderful and even when—as I understood the Attorney-General to admit—one of them is 90 years of age, there is no question of expressing anything but admiration for the marvellous brain which they can bring to bear on the problems placed before them. At any rate, the members of the legal profession are not subject to the risks which the members of the miners' and other trade unions have to undergo and they might be prepared to take less for working in such a protected trade. Those of us who have to stand the sneers which come from the other side when we are begging and asking for some merely decent minimum rate—1s. 1¾d. an hour or something like that—'are expected to vote without demur for a proposal to give £4,000 a year to these, no doubt, estimable gentlemen. I think the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull used an expression about the law of supply and demand. I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General if they are prepared to put this proposal to the test of supply and demand and to advertise these positions among the legal profession. Is suggested that there are no Indian members of the Bar qualified for these appointments? I understand there is considerable unemployment among Indian members of the Bar. Is it suggested that none o? them would be willing to take this job at a much lower figure than that now proposed? The hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull will hardly say that their knowledge of Indian law is insufficient, since they are specialists in the subject. At the present time, when we are told we cannot pay a subsistence wage for work which we cannot do without, I hope we shall not have to pay thousands to people whose work we could do without, were it not for the legal fiction and the mystery which surrounds it.


I think that the proposal in this Measure cannot be justified. It is sometimes argued against us that our own Front Bench is just as bad as the Front Bench on the other side. I, at least, have a clear conscience in this matter, because when our own party brought in a proposal to increase a salary from £2,000 to £5,000, I opposed it, and was practically alone in doing so. Therefore, I am carrying out quite logically the line which I took on this question towards my own colleagues when they were in office, and I cannot be accused of differentiating between one side and the other. The only argument for this proposal is that set up by the hon. and learned Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), that it is in accordance with the law of supply and demand. I remember as a pattern-maker during the War when, under the law of supply and demand, we could have demanded tremendous wages from the nation. So could the engineers at that time. We could have asked for, and I think we would have been given, great concessions, but we were told—and, possibly, it was right—that we would be blackmailing the nation by taking advantage of a temporary shortage to insist on terms which the nation could not afford. It is admitted that since the War the men in the building trade have, in the common saying, "the ball at their feet," but it has been argued that the building trade were blackmailing the nation, and that no section of workers has a right to insist on terms from the nation which are outside the nation's capacity.

Now we are told that the law of supply and demand which was rejected in the case of the engineers and the builders is to operate in the case of the Judges. Is there any difference in human nature between the engineer and the Judge? The Attorney-General said the Indian Government had refused to agree to guarantee £2,000. They think it is an extortionate demand, but the British Government propose to take steps to compel the Indian Government to give terms which the Indian Government do not think they ought to pay. For such a proposal there cannot even be the justification which exists for a Cabinet Minister's salary. There is this to be said for the Cabinet Minister, that his job is precarious. Any election may end his term of office, but a Judge has a guarantee of full-time employment and full wages until he reaches the

age of 72. There is also this important difference, that a Cabinet Minister has no provision made for his old age unless he is prepared to plead extreme poverty, but the Judge, whether poor or rich, has the guarantee of a handsome pension, and no deductions are made from his salary such as are necessary in regard to other classes of workers. The Minister of Health in answer to a question recently told us that the nation could not increase the amount of the old age pension. We are told that 10s, a week is sufficient for the old people of the nation and is all we can afford; but, by some miraculous process of reasoning, a Judge is said 10 be worthy of far more. A Judge has comparatively little responsibility. The responsibility of Judges is, in my opinion, largely overrated. So many people have little or no knowledge of a Judge's work, that advantage is taken of that lack of knowledge in order to "boost" the position. At a time when we are asking the miners and others to live on comparatively low wages, I submit that it would be criminal on the part of this House to agree to such an extravagant wage as this for these Judges.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes. 28.

Division No. 517.] AYES. [6.2 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Butler, Sir Geoffrey Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Caine, Gordon Hall Ellis, R. G.
Albery, Irving James Campbell, E. T. Elveden, Viscount
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Carver, W. H. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Astor, Viscountess Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Everard, W. Lindsay
Atholl, Duchess of Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.) Fanshawe, Commander G O.
Balniel, Lord Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Fenby, T. D.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chapman, Sir S. Fermoy, Lord
Barnett. Major Sir Richard Chartaris, Brigadier-General I. Fielden, E. B.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w. Christie, I. A. Finburgh, S.
Bennett, A. J. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish Clarry, Reginald George Forrest, W.
Berry, Sir George Clayton, G. C. Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cobb, Sir Cyril Fraser, Captain Ian
Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton) Cope. Major William Frece, Sir Walter de
Blades. Sir George Rowland Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Blundell, F. N. Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Gates, Percy
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Braithwaite, A. ft Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Brass, Captain W. Curzon, Captain Viscount Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Briant, Frank Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Goff, Sir Park
Briscoe, Richard George Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Grace, John
Brittain, Sir Harry Davies, Dr. Vernon Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Greene, W. P. Crawford
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Dawson, sir Philip Grotrian, H. Brent
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Guinness, Bt. Hon. Walter E.
Buckingham, Sir H. Drewe, C. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Duckworth, John Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Burman, J. B. Eden, Captain Anthony Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Burton, Colonel H. W, Edmondson, Major A. J. Hanbury, C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Makins, Brigadier-General E. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Harrison, G. J. C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sprot, Sir Alexander
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Margesson, Captain D. Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)
Haslam. Henry C. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hawke, John Anthony Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K, Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hoadlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Moles, Thomas Templeton, W. P.
Herbert, Dennit (Htrtford, Watford) Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Herbert, S. (York. N. R. Scar. & Wh'by) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Hilton, Cecil Moreing, Captain A. H. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Hoare. Lt. Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Morris. R. H. Tinne, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Murchison, C. K. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Neville, R. J. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Holland, Sir Arthur Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Waddington. R.
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hume, Sir G. H. Nuttall, Ellis Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Huntingfield, Lord Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Warrender, Sir Victor
Hurd, Percy A. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Waterhouse. Captain Charles
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M. Peto Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wells, S. R.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wiggins, William Martin
Jephcott, A. R. Philipson, Mabel Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Joynson-Hicks Rt. Hon. Sir William Radford. E. A. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)
Kidd, J, (Linlithgow) Raine. W. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
King, Captain Henry Douglas Ramsden, E. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Kin Inch-Cooke, Sir Clement Reid. D. D. (County Down) Windsor-dive, Lieut-Colonel George
Knox, Sir Alfred Rentoul. G. S. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R, Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Wise, Sir Fredric
Lister. Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip RuggiesBrise, Major E. A. Withers, John James
Lockor-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Womersley, W. J.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Lynn, Sir R. J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Sandcman. A. Stewart Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
MacIntyre, Ian Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O. Yerburgh, Major Robert O. T.
McLean. Major A. Savery. S. S. Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Macnaghten, Hon Sir Malcolm Skilton. A. N.
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John Slaney, Major P. Kenyon TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Macquisten, F. A. Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Captain Bowyer and Captain Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M. Smithers, Waldron Stanley.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock) Gosling, Harry Saklatvala, Shapurji
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scrytngcour, E.
Barr, J. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Stephen, Campbell
Batey, Joseph Hirst. W. (Bradford, South) Sullivan, J.
Bromley, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Thurtle, Ernest
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kelly, W. T. Westwood, J.
Compton, Joseph Lindley, f. W. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Connolly, M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan Williams. David (Swansea, East)
Duncan, C. Maxton. James
Dunnico, H. Robinson, W.C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Kirk wood and Mr. Buchanan.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of

the whole House."—[The Attorney General.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; NOES, 30.

Division No. 518.] AYES. [6.10 p.m.
Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Braithwaite, A. N.
Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Barnett, Major Sir Richard Brass. Captain W.
Ainsworth. Major Charlet Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Briant. Frank
Albery, Irving James Bennett, A. J. Briscoe. Richard George
Ashley. U. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Brittain, Sir Harry
Astor, Mai. Hi. John J. (Kent, Dover) Berry, Sir George Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Astor, Viscountess Birchall, Major J. Dearman Brown. Lindsay, Major H.
Atholl, Duchess of Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Blades, Sir George Rowland Buckingham, Sir H.
Balniel. Lord Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Burman, J. B. Harrison, G. J. C. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Phillpson, Mabel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Haslam, Henry C. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hawke, John Anthony Radford, E. A.
Caine, Gordon Hall Headlam, Lieut.-Calonel C. M. Raine, W.
Campbell, E. T. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Ramsden, E.
Carver, W. H. Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Held, D. D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rentoul, G. S.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Herbert,S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & wh'by) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cecil, Rt- Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hilton, Cecil Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chapman, Sir S. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Charleton, H. C. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandeman, A. Stewart
Christie, J. A. Holland, Sir Arthur Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D
Clarry, Reginald George Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Savery, S. S.
Clayton, G. C. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Skelton, A. N.
Cobb. Sir Cyril Hume, Sir G. H. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Huntingfield, Lord Smithers, Waldron
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hurd, Percy A. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Illffe, Sir Edward M. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Cumin. Captain Viscount James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Jephcott, A. R. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Storry-Deans, R.
Davies. Dr. Vernon Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dawson, Sir Philip Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dean, Arthur Wellesley King, Captain Henry Douglas Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Drewe, C. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Templeton, W. P.
Duckworth, John Knox, Sir Alfred Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Eden, Captain Anthony Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey;
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Locker. Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Tinne, J. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ellis, R. G. Lynn, Sir R. J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Elveden, Viscount MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Turton, sir Edmund Russborough
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) MacIntyre, I. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) McLean, Major A. Waddington, R.
Everard, W. Lindsay Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fairfax, Captain J G. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)
Fenby, T. D. Macquiston, F. A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Fermoy, Lord MacRobert, Alexander M. Warrender, Sir Victor
Fielden, E. B. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Finburgh, S. Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Forestier-Walker. Sir L. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wells, S. R.
Forrest, W. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Wiggins, William Martin
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fraser, Captain Ian Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Frece, Sir Walter de Moles, Thomas Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gates, Percy Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Moore, Sir Newton J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Moreing, Captain A. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wise, Sir Fredric
Goff, Sir Park Murchison, C. K. Withers, John James
Grace, John Neville, R. J. Womerstey, W. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge Hyde)
Greene, W. p. Crawford Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Grotrian, H. Brent Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsfld.) Woodcock. Colonel H. v.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Nuttall, Ellis Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W. O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Crmsby-Gore, Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.
Hanbury, C. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sullivan, J.
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Thurtle, Ernest
8atey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Varley, Frank B.
Bromley, J. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Maxton. James Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Clowes, S. Naylor, T. E. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Compton, Joseph Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Connolly, M. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Wright, W.
Duncan, C. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Dunnico, H. Scrymgeour, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Stephen, Campbell Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Bucnanan.

Bill according committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.