HC Deb 13 May 1926 vol 195 cc1059-90

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—[The Chairman, of Ways and Means.]

Major TASKER

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

This Bill confers certain powers upon the Borough Council of Bermondsey, and is based upon a Bill by which Parliament granted certain powers to West Ham. But there is this difference, that West Ham is outside the metropolitan area of London, whereas Bermondsey is within that area. I submit that if these powers were conferred upon one borough council, the other 28 metropolitan boroughs would be compelled, in self-defence, to apply to this House for a similar Bill with similar powers. This Bill is an attempt to get this House to confer certain exceptional privileges on one borough council. The House will realise the difficulties with which the various borough councils would be confronted if this Bill were passed, and those 28 other borough councils had each and all to come here. There are places where a street market lies partly in one borough and partly in another borough. I know of a street market about half of which is in Lambeth and the rest in Southwark. Each borough council would apply for powers which it regarded as suitable for its needs, and you would have 29 different Acts of Parliament.

If legislation is necessary to control street trading, the report of the Departmental Committee should be adopted. The Departmental Committee pointed out that the street traders are as a class industrious and supply a felt want, especially in the poorer districts, and are in a favourable position to take advantage of gluts in such commodities as fish and fruit. They stated that the law with regard to street trading should be the same throughout the whole of the metropolitan police district, and that the differences which exist should be swept away. They further recommended that, both in the interests of the street trader and of the general public, all street traders should be registered under some central authority, and that the most suitable authority for the purpose would be the Commissioner of Police. That would commend itself to the House. But this Bill is an attempt to ignore the Departmental Committee's recommendations, and it is far reaching in its consequences. Among other things the Borough Council of Bermondsey seeks power to determine what each trader may sell. A man may no longer sell what he likes. Clause 4, Sub-section (2), says that the Council shall grant or renew a license, and it may refuse to grant or renew a license if of opinion that the applicant is unsuitable to hold such a license. Members of Boroughs Councils are not immaculate and it would be easy to discover reasons for refusing a license. Experience gained under the Act in West Ham shows that street traders have had their licenses refused without any reason having been given. The result is great hardship a man may be deprived of his means of livelihood and have no chance of redress.

It is true that under the Bill the street trader may appeal to the magistrate, but street traders are not people who can be described as being in affluent circumstances—it is common knowledge that often they have to pawn their things on a Friday to buy their stock for a Saturday—and it is very easy to create a vague suspicion. No street trader would have a very great prospect of success on appearing before a stipendiary when his opponent was a learned advocate. All kinds of suggestions have been put forward as to why this Bill should be passed. Under another provision of the Bill the Borough Council may say to these street trailers where they shall sell, when they shall sell, and what they shall sell. That is an impossible proposal. Clause 8 says that the Council shall make by-laws prescribing the day on which, and the times during which, articles shall be sold. Is the street trader to have no soul? I am in earnest about this matter. I am defending some of the poorest men in this country.

Dr. SALTER

Not a bit of it.

Major TASKER

It is not a laughing matter to these men; it is a matter of life and death to them. They themselves realise the hardships which this Bill will impose and but for them I should not venture to address the House upon it. Those who know anything about the subject know that these people do in the words of the Departmental Committee Report supply a want and bring within the reach of the very poor, in times of glut, food which otherwise the poor would not obtain. It is true that this Bill got a Second Reading and went upstairs to the Local Legislation Committee. I ask the House to remember that in the inquiry before that committee there was on the one side the Bermondsey Borough Council supported by the ratepayers' money, employing very excellent Parliamentary agents and a very learned advocate and also that the Committee could only hear one side because it was impossible for the street traders to be represented by Parliamentary agents and counsel. The learned advocate who represented the Borough Council, was, however, subjected to very searching questions by various members of the committee and some of his answers were, to say the least of it, exceedingly unsatisfactory. As one who believes in arbitration, I am glad to pay a tribute to the manner in which the proceedings of that committee were conducted. Its inquiry was a model of what such an inquiry should be.

It was alleged that the Bermondsey Borough Council had called a town meeting, and that 145 men and women attended that meeting and that the Council got a petition signed by 314 people praying for this Bill because it had been read and explained to them and they had examined it and understood it. Of these 314 I think there are 15 people who signed their own names and my objection to the petition is that it was signed by many men under a threat. They were threatened that the borough council were going to get the Bill and that if they did not sign the petition they would lose their pitches. That was indefensible. One man who was so threatened took upon himself to go round and get a petition against the Bill and of the 120 signatories which this man obtained, every man and woman signed in his or her own handwriting. It is a genuine petition. While it was represented by the council that this Bill was favoured by every street trader, we have this definite evidence that there are at least over 100 who object to it. The plea was introduced into the speech of counsel that this Bill would prevent the exercise of tyranny. Tyranny by whom? The street traders have never alleged that any tyranny has been exercised towards them and if they do fear tyranny, it is the tyranny of the Borough Council.

It. has been stated that the tyranny which the Borough Council think the street traders fear, is the tyranny of the police, and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) in a letter indicated that these men welcomed the Bill because they were bullied by the police. I submit that is a wrong and unjust statement. Here and there, it may be, you will find a policeman who is not immaculate, but one would not condemn the whole police force on that account. You may find a doctor who will conduct an illegal operation, but because of that you would not condemn all the noble men and women who practice the medical profession. Looking through this evidence I find that the petitioners called two people, one of whom admitted that he was a greengrocer. His evidence was to the effect that he welcomed the Bill among other things because it would facilitate the clearing-up of rubbish. He said the borough council would send round little carts and clear up the debris at short intervals. Then he made the curious admission that he also had a stall, and he alleged that he took two-thirds of his money from the stall. I would not describe him as a typical street trader. Then the borough council called to their aid another man, who gave remarkable evidence to the effect that there was not a single street trader in Bermondsey opposed to the Bill. I have already given evidence that there are over 100. He was asked by the Chairman: Do you know that there is a Clause in the Bill which gives the Council the right to prescribe on your licence what you sell? And his answer was: I know all about that. It was also put to him: They will prescribe on your licence the only articles you are to sell. And he said: I quite agree. If they said I could sell fruit, I could sell fruit or fish. That was queer evidence and the learned counsel sought to cover up the confusion by saying: This gentleman is a general dealer, and would be licensed to deal generally, I think. If that is the best material which the borough council can get in support of the Bill, is it to he wondered at that street traders and those who really know what street trading is, are opposed to it? I am appealing for a class of men who earn an honest living but who are charged with using violent language. I do not deny it, because I daresay the costermonger does use a variety of words which perhaps enrich the English language at times, but if he is guilty of no worse crime than that, he is not a bad type. I ask that this Bill be rejected by the House.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not know that I agree with every argument that has been addressed to the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Islington (Major Tasker), who moved the rejection of the Bill. The street trader is a very estimable person, even if he had no other claim than the last one which the hon. and gallant Member has made for him, that he sometimes enriches our vocabulary, and that is a very excellent claim, but he has other claims. Undoubtedly, in some boroughs in London, he is a very excellent agent fur keeping down the price of essential foodstuffs. He is certainly a very sure protector of the poor against the profiteering of some traders, and for that reason alone he is a person who ought to he protected, and protected very carefully. On the other hand, I quite agree with those who say that entirely unrestricted street trading may be a very great hardship upon the shopkeeper who pays his rates and who cannot quite carry on his business in the same way as does the ordinary street trader, and it may very well be—and I think it is true to say that it is—in the interests of most municipalities that street trading should be controlled to some extent.

Indiscriminate street trading is not the most desirable thing, but while I agree that there should be control, I think, where you are dealing with an area like the Metropolitan area, it is essential that there should be uniformity throughout the whole of it. I assume that Bermondsey is moving in this matter because its immediate neighbour—I forget whether it is the East or West Ham—[An HON. MEMBER: "Bermondsey is on the other side of the river."]—a short time ago promoted a Bill, and actually got an Act of Parliament enabling it to control the street trader. I notice that Bermondsey has made some alterations on the other Bill, and that is a very easy thing to come about. At the same time, it may very well be that the traders from such part of Ham as it was that got a Bill dealing with street traders have gone to the other side of the Thames, to Bermondsey, and said: "We will find a happier pitch here," and, therefore, Bermondsey says: "We must have a Bill, and have it a little different from the Bill that became an Act of Parliament." That policy can go on. You have started the policy now in the London boroughs, and there are 28 London boroughs, plus the City.

I suppose the next thing that would happen, if this Bill passed, would be that another London Borough would say: "Bermondsey has got a Bill; we must have one too", and one can see very good reasons why they would want one, because this sporadic trader, driven out of Bermondsey by this Bill, would go to some other London borough, where there was as yet no process of control, and the second borough would bring forward a Bill, which would be just a little different from the Bermondsey Bill, and then, when the second borough got its Bill, the sporadic street trader from that borough would go to yet another London borough, which, finding itself troubled not only with the sporadic traders from Bermondsey, but also from the second London borough that had done this, would say: "We also must have a Bill, and we will improve upon the other two Bills that have been promoted for London." So it would go on throughout the whole of the 28 London boroughs, and I suppose it would be a very excellent thing for those Members of my profession who practise before Parliamntary Committees, but it would be a very disastrous thing for the Metropolitan area. The idea that, in an area which has so much in common as the whole Metropolitan area, you should have, on a simple matter of this kind, 28 different Bills promoted, with the expense which is necessary to promote 28 different Bills, when the whole matter could be dealt with by one Bill promoted by the whole of the London boroughs acting together is absurd. The waste of money would be so appalling that I venture to think that in these days it is something that the ratepayers of the Metropolitan area would not desire to contemplate. I notice that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) seems to think that this is the sort of thing that should take place.

Mr. LAWSON

It would put money in the pockets of the lawyers, at any rate.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD

I venture to think you may pay too much to the lawyers, who may very well waste your money. If you employ 20 where one will do, it is obvious that you waste your money, and if you have the opportunity of doing by means of one Bill that which you can only otherwise do by 28 Bills, it is far better to incur merely the expense of one Bill. That is not a point without substance, because that position has already been recognised by the Metropolitan boroughs, and it is because this Measure is brought forward, I do not say contrary to the opinions of some of the officials and councils of the Metropolitan boroughs, but certainly contrary to the feelings of the ratepayers in the boroughs, that I oppose it.

The borough, one division of which I have the honour to represent in this House, has, I understand, made a proposition to the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. That proposition is that the boroughs should consider together the promotion of a Bill on the lines of the Report of the Committee which inquired into street trading, and that that Bill should apply to the whole of the Metropolitan boroughs. In those circumstances, you would have no injustice, you would have uniformity throughout the whole of the Metropolitan area, you would merely have the expense of promoting one Bill, you would get rid at once of the possibility of the undesirable street trader going from a controlled borough to an uncontrolled borough, you would have a position where there was equal justice as between one borough and another, and you would secure that which you never can secure by a Bill of this description, namely, you would have a reasonable ant proper control without the slightest possibility of evasion or of one borough suffering by reason of the action which had been taken in another borough.

I venture to think that that position is really unanswerable. I understand that that Resolution has gone before the General Purposes Committee of the Standing Joint Committee, and that it is receiving, or is likely to receive, favourable consideration. In those circumstances, it is very much better that this Bill, at the present stage, should go no further, but when those authorities have agreed there should be one Bill promoted for the whole of the Metropolitan area, that that should be put upon the Statute Book, and then, undoubtedly, you would get a system which would be far better than anything that could be obtained by the piecemeal legislation of each borough in turn trying to promote its own Bill, and trying to be a little better than the other borough which promoted one the year before. Beyond that, I have nothing further that I desire to urge against this Bill, but I do think to pass one Bill is to encourage an extensive waste of public money. The best thing to do in all these matters is to see to it that the Metropolitan boroughs should not be encouraged in this type of piecemeal legislation. Let us have in things which are common to the whole Metropolitan area, uniformity, and by means of uniformity a great saving in expense to the ratepayers of the Metropolitan area.

Dr. SALTER

I rise to ask the House to reject the Amendment, and to assent to the Third Reading of the Bill. I would like to say, at the commencement of my remarks, that the promoters of the Bill understood this was an agreed Bill, and not until the Bill was actually before the Local Legislation Committee had we the remotest idea that there would be any objection sustained or put forward by anyone. To give the House some idea of the measure of agreement, I may say, first of all, that no petitions were presented against the Bill, and no evidence was tendered against the Bill before the Local Legislation Committee. All parties who are affected by the Bill are in support of the Bill. The Bill is promoted by the Borough Council, with the assent of every representative of the Council. Liberal, Conservative and Labour members unanimously support the Bill. The street traders of the borough are unanimous, as far as I can ascertain, in favour of the Bill. They petitioned in favour of it; 314 out of about 320 actually signed the petition in favour of the Bill. I myself live in the district. I have inquired from at least 100 traders, taken indiscrim- inately, and I can find no one who is opposed to it. On the contrary, I find that, without exception, they are exceedingly anxious that the Bill should receive the assent of the House.

A town's meeting was called, the Bill was explained, and the vote in favour of the Bill was absolutely unanimous. The local shopkeepers are unanimous, because the local shopkeepers are not antagonistic in our borough to costermongers and street traders. They believe the costermonger brings trade to the street and the district. The regular shopkeepers support this Bill, and, as far as I am aware, not one of them in the entire borough has raised any objection. I am given to understand that the London and Suburban Traders' Federation is in favour, and that the London and County Retail Fruiterers and Florists are in support. Certainly the local police are in support of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble lord the President of the Board of Education is representing any Department here tonight, but I understand that the Home Office supports the Bill and that the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, and certainly, also, I understand, the London County Council support the Bill.

Major TASKER

No.

Dr. SALTER

I have the authority of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), who is the Chairman of the London County Council. He informed me this afternoon that that is the case, and that he greatly regretted he would not he able to be present to-night to support the Bill.

Major TASKER

As a member of the London County Council, I can assure the hon. members that this has not been considered by any committee of the London County Council for three years.

Dr. SALTER

I believe that the hon. Member is speaking in good faith, and he believes I am also speaking in good faith. My information is different. There are 28 Metropolitan boroughs, and not a single one has expressed any objection to this Bill. They have all been invited to give their opinion on the subject. Eighteen of them, including the more important boroughs, have expressed strong support. The remaining ten boroughs have either not yet considered the matter, or have not yet found any reason for expressing any opposition to the Bill, and, apart from the Street Traders' Association, which has either no members, or practically no members, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, I have failed to find any single group of organised thought which is opposed to the Bill at all. I say at once, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey we not only desire not to penalise or persecute the street trader, but we desire to encourage the street trader. Street trading is an integral part of the social life of our particular borough, as of many other industrial districts. It is an integral factor, and plays an exceedingly valuable and useful part in the social life of the people. All that we desire is to regularise it, to bring it into some kind of order, to bring it into some kind of system which will be of mutual benefit to the trader himself and to the local public, and this Bill is exactly on the lines, with two or three trivial modifications, of the West Ham Corporation Bill, which was approved by this House last year.

Another important point about the Bill is that it merely seeks to give legislative sanction to a voluntary arrangement which has been in force for the last nine months, to the complete satisfaction of all parties concerned. We have a voluntary arrangement, which is akin to an arrangement also in force in the Borough of Camberwell and several of the East End Boroughs, whereby street traders register in their appropriate Metropolitan borough, and are given a number and fixed place paying a small license fee, and also a weekly sum towards the collection of their refuse.

Sir W. SUGDEN

Do they pay anything to the rates?

Dr. SALTER

Not if they are street traders only.

I understand that in six or seven Metropolitan boroughs a voluntary arrangement is in force, and works admirably from every point of view, the difficulty being that if one or two persons prove themselves cantankerous, and decline to fall in with the others, it may upset the arrangement, and cause a great deal of friction and trouble.

I would ask the House to visualise exactly what takes place at an ordinary street market, if they would understand the hardships of it. The street trader is subjected at the present moment to hardships which will be obviated if this Bill is carried. I am quite sure if hon. Members care for the interests of the street traders at all, they will unite in rejecting the Amendment. Let me give the House an exact picture of what happens. The street market begins about. 8 o'clock, but in order to secure a pitch the costermonger has to be on the spot about 5 o'clock, and sometimes earlier; indeed some of them begin to congregate soon after midnight. They have to be there in all weathers. In pitch darkness, and all through the winter months they have to stay on the spot and never move away for a moment, otherwise they lose the claim to their particular pitch.

During the last few weeks one particular street trader arrived about 5 o'clock and took up his stand, and went away at 5.30 to get some breakfast. On his return he found somebody else had overthrown his barrow and taken his pitch from him. He was arrested by the police for obstruction because of his overturned barrow in the road. That kind of struggle and fight for pitches takes place every day when there is a street market. A man who has occupied a certain pitch for 20 years has no guarantee whatever, less he is there in the small hours of the morning, subjecting himself to unnecessary hardship and exposure, that his place will not be taken from him.

9.0 P.M.

As a matter of fact, I have one particular man in mind who has for 27 years occupied the same spot. He was taken ill with an attack of bronchitis. Some man entirely unknown before to the district took his place, and the man to whom I refer for the time being and some time afterwards lost the advantage which his endurance of years had secured for him. Another case I know is one where a man was taken ill, and in order that, he might not lose his pitch his wife, a woman of 65 went every morning at 5 o'clock and stood all day by an empty stall in order to keep the place of her husband against his recovery, and so that he might be able to resume his job. These are hardships that are irremediable under present conditions, but these hardships should be and could be relieved by the operation of this Bill. One exceedingly objectionable feature of the present street trading arrangements will be removed also, or probably so, by the passage of this Bill, and that is the farming out of stalls. I venture to say with great respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Islington (Major Tasker) that it is this particular type of man who has been most energetic in promoting opposition to this Bill. That is, as I say, the man who is not a genuine street trader, does no sort of trading himself, but simply owns a number of barrows and hires men at 1s. 6d. or 2s. to go down to the street market area in the morning at 5 o'clock and secure pitches, so excluding the genuine street trader, and later selling the stand or pitch for £1 per day-to some unfortunate person who has failed to secure a stand, or who does not possess a barrow. That particular type of man, the barrow-farmer, will be eliminated by this Bill, and I am quite satisfied that when that is done there will be great delight amongst the costermongers and street traders, and also great satisfaction amongst all who believe in this form of street trading.

The advantage to the public health, I venture to suggest, will be incalculable. The hon. Member who introduced the Amendment suggested that it was a monstrous thing that the Borough Council should seek to restrict the activities of the street trader, and to say when he should sell, where he should sell, and what he should sell. I challenge each one of those suggestions. In the first place as to what the street trader can sell. As a matter of fact in the street market in a borough adjacent to Bermondsey there are openly exposed for sale contraceptives and appliances and a good many indecent accompaniments. I venture to say that it would be in the public interest, and in the interest of public morals, that the Borough Council should interfere in that particular case and refuse a licence for the sale of these things. This, the Borough Council will be empowered to do under this Bill. They will be empowered to take action of that sort. There is the question of the precise locale as to where the street trader shall purvey his goods. I suggest that it is entirely wrong from the point of view of public health that men selling or collecting rags, bones, bottles and dirty refuse, Secondhand clothes, and so on, should expose them for sale within a few inches or feet of another man who is selling butcher meat, and other perishable articles of the sort. This Bill will at least give the power to the Borough Council to interfere appropriately in those circumstances. I could take any hon. Member of this House to street markets at the present time where great dumps of exceedingly filthy textile refuse and material are exposed alongside butchers' meat, margarine, and other comestibles.

By the regulation of these stalls and by allocating the places where the street traders in the different parts shall sell their goods, we shall be making a great advance from the public health point of view. The interests of the ratepayers are materially safeguarded by this Bill. The House, I am quite sure, will understand that if you have a large street market where immense quantities of vegetables and fruit are sold, that there must necessarily be a considerable accumulation of refuse, cabbage leaves, stalks, rotten tomatoes, and so on. What happens under the existing system? As a matter of fact in many boroughs the street trader simply takes the refuse and dumps it down a side street when the police and no-one else happen to be looking. If he does not do that, he throws it into the roadway in the area of the street market itself. Bermondsey Borough Council has for years past had a proper system of the collection of street refuse on the spot. There are small barrows perambulating up and down the road, and collecting the refuse from time to time, and you get it disposed of in an appropriate fashion. That has been going on for long, and that work alone costs the borough £1,660 per annum, very nearly equal to a halfpenny rate. It is clearly appropriate and just that those responsible for putting the refuse there should pay for its removal.

Under the Public Health Act the Borough Council have power to remove trade refuse, but can only do so and charge for its removal if the person concerned actually asks them to remove it. If the trader simply dumps the refuse in the roadway and does not ask for its removal, the Council have no power to charge him for its removal. Under this Bill the Borough Council will be em- powered to make an appropriate charge, and as a matter of fact, under the voluntary system, a charge has been made for the last nine months. The maximum charge is 2s. a week in cases where there is a large quantity of refuse, and it is as low as 6d. where the quantity is small. The whole cost of the work is almost covered by these payments, and the cost of the market inspector too, relieving the general ratepayer of an impost of approximately ½d. in the pound. The charges are borne cheerfully and willingly by the street traders, because of the assurances they get in return. No longer are they under the temptation to make surreptitious disposal of the refuse in a by-street and expose themselves to penalties, and, as a matter of fact, many of them have personally told me that it costs them far less to pay the Borough Council charges than it cost them previously in bribes to the police.

I come now to a point mentioned by an hon. Member opposite, who said certain charges of tyranny had been made against the police in a private letter which I had sent to someone, and that it was a very serious charge and ought to be repudiated. No general charge against responsible police officers was made or ever has been made, but it is perfectly certain that individual constables, irresponsible officials, irresponsible individual policemen, have been in the habit of extracting gratuities regularly from the street traders, and I believe the higher police officials are perfectly aware of that fact and are most anxious to put it down, but everybody realises the great difficulties they would have in putting it down—the very greatest difficulty. No countenance is given to such a system by Scotland Yard or any of the higher officials, but that the practice prevails is absolutely certain, and much complaint has been made by individual traders. All that will be abolished by this Bill. At the present time the individual trader is absolutely at the mercy of an irresponsible policeman. A policeman can come along and say, "What are you doing here? You have no business here. Your stall is half an inch wider than the police regulations allow. The distance between your stall and the adjacent one is one and a half inches less than is permitted by the police regulations. Out you go." The man has no appeal at the present time. He is utterly at the mercy of the police; and the street trader who has been working under the voluntary system looks forward to coming under the operation of this Bill, because he knows it delivers him from the irresponsible blackmailing policeman, even though that blackmailing policeman may be only an occasional visitor or an occasional offender, and is without any sanction from headquarters. That is the situation, and I say the trader rejoices to know that there is a prospect of final deliverance from impositions of that kind.

With regard to the main objection of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), that this is piecemeal legislation, and that it is undesirable that one Metropolitan borough should promote legislation of this kind without reference to all the other boroughs, I have to say that Bermondsey Borough Council regret very much that they are under the necessity of promoting a Bill on their own account. They would have preferred that the matter should be dealt with by the London County Council as the general Metropolitan authority, and that the county Council should, under their General Powers Bill, enable either this Council or any other Council to proceed along these lines, or themselves introduce legislation applicable to the entire Metropolis. We were informed, on inquiry, that it was impossible to carry a majority of boroughs in support of legislation of this kind. There are boroughs in London where the majority of the inhabitants desire that no street trading should be permitted, and those boroughs will not agree, and, therefore, there is no prospect of agreement for general legislation for the whole of London; but I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Bermondsey Borough Council, that if any such legislation is contemplated or is carried they are quite prepared, in another place, to insert a Clause in this Bill making it subservient to the major Bill, the general Bill, and making this Bill of no effect as soon as the general legislation has been carried. They are perfectly prepared to do that, but they do suggest that it is very unfair and very hard on a metropolitan borough that has worked a voluntary scheme with great success and without friction, to the satisfaction of everybody, and now seeks to give legal sanction to the arrangements in force, that it should now be told, at the last stage—not at the Second Reading stage, but at this stage, when they have expended their money, and when the Bill has been passed through the Local Legislation Committee—"Oh, your Bill must go by the board until such time as some hypothetical or problematical legislation is introduced by the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan boroughs."

As far as we can learn, there is no prospect whatever of getting agreements among the boroughs to introduce legislation common to the whole of London. Many boroughs desire it, and what I believe will happen is that if this Bill is passed and put on the Statute Book, other boroughs will immediately ask the London County Council to insert Clauses in their General Powers Bill to make the terms of this Bill applicable to their respective areas. I suggest that would be a very desirable thing, and that there can be no substantial objection to that course. I venture, then, to ask the House to reject the Amendment and to support the Bill on the grounds, first of all, that definite order is introduced into what has hitherto been chaos; that the street traders are helped and protected, are guaranteed pitches and are saved from hardship and waste of time; that the public health is safeguarded and food contamination and disease are prevented; that the duties of the police will be materially lightened, because certain work which is now performed by them will be taken over by the Borough Council; that the ratepayers are protected and that their interests are met; and, finally, that every section and every interest that is in any way affected by the provisions of the Bill is thoroughly satisfied and is supporting it.

Mr. RAINE

As one of those who supported this Bill during the Committee Stage I should like to say a few words in support of it. The hon. Member who has just sat down has dealt very exhaustively with the objects of the Bill, and I need not go over that ground again. I will, however, try to rebut some of the statements which have been made in opposition to this Measure. When this Measure was before the Committee counsel appeared, and that was the real time to have the opposition which has been raised to-night. If on the Committee Stage they had not succeeded in getting what alterations they required then they would have had a strong case for coming to this House and opposing the Third Reading. There was, however, no opposition to the Second Reading or the Committee Stage, and I think it is a little unfair to come forward now and oppose the Third Reading. A statement was made in the document which has been quoted that 100 street traders had refused to sign the petition in favour of this Bill, and that a certain number had signed it under pressure. I think that is a very unfair statement to make. I believe there are about 350 street traders in Bermondsey, and 314 have signed the petition in favour of this Bill and only two or three have expressed themselves as not being altogether in its favour so that it is substantially unanimously supported by the street traders of Bermondsey.

The evidence of witnesses was rather called into question, and I should like briefly to refer to some of the evidence to show that the witnesses knew what they were talking about, and they are unanimously in favour of this Measure. One of the witnesses said that he did exactly two-thirds of his business from the stall, and if he had not this stall in front of his premises he would not be able to do any business at all. He was asked whether he would rather have this Bill or continue trading without it, and he said he would rather have this Measure and come under the authority of the Bermondsey Council because he felt that they would give him fair play. He pointed out that if he did not get fair play he had the right to appeal to the Petty Sessions and afterwards to the Quarter Sessions. These street traders knew all about the Bill, and they understand that the County Council might be compelled owing to London traffic considerations to move some of them to another place, and they were quite prepared to submit to that. There was no opposition during the Committee Stage where the provisions of the Bill were fully gone into. We protect the right of the London Traffic Committee in this way. The people in Bermondsey seem unanimous in favour of this Bill, therefore I have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Naylor

I very much regret to find myself in the position of opposing the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and I shall support the rejection of this Bill. In this matter we have to consider the interests not only of the street traders of Bermondsey but the street traders in every other part of London. Certainly they are much greater in number, and at least they are entitled to claim the consideration of this House, so far as their interests are affected by the proposals of this Measure. This Bill confers a privilege upon the street traders of Bermondsey, and we rarely confer privileges upon any section of the community without coming in opposition to the interests of all other Members in the same trade. I represent a division where street trading forms a very large proportion of the occupation of the people living in that locality, and they tell me that this Bill, if passed, will operate very seriously against their interest.

With a good deal of what the hon. Member for Bermondsey says I am in perfect agreement, and the fact that this Bill is being opposed does not, in my opinion, affect many of the principles that the hon. Member would like to see imposed with or without this Bill. The hon. Member said that the street traders of London were so well satisfied with the voluntary system that they would not part with it for all the money in the world. If the conditions of street trading in Bermondsey is so satisfactory under the present voluntary system, and if they are so well satisfied with the conditions now imposed by the Borough Council without the assistance of this Bill, why does my hon. Friend think that this Bill is necessary?

Dr. SALTER

When there is no legal sanction one or two persons not associated with the neighbourhood may suddenly come in and upset the arrangement of everybody else.

Mr. NAYLOR

My hon. Friend says that without this Bill there is always the danger of some cantankerous person coming in from outside and upsetting the whole position in regard to the street traders of Bermondsey. Is that the reason why this Bill has been introduced? If it is then I think it forms a very good reason why this Bill should not be passed. After all, London is London, and what is good for any particular part of London should be good enough for the whole of London. Therefore, I sympathise with my hon. Friend, who is supporting this Bill, in the disappointment that he must feel that the promoter of the Bill has not been successful in securing a measure to cover the whole of London. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) dealt with that aspect of this question, and he pointed out the great expense if f every borough council were to apply separately for a Bill conferring the same privileges upon the members of each of the 28 borough councils of London. I think that is an argument which cannot be answered, and I was surprised at the self-sacrifice made by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood in advocating a method by which lawyers might be dispensed with, because he had in mind the possibility of increased legal expenses on account of the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in reference to possible legal action in connection with quite another matter—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Captain FitzRoy)

I must point out to the hon. Member that this is a Bermondsey Bill.

Mr. NAYLOR

I will not refer to that matter any further, and it was simply a word by the way. I was trying to impress you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the fact that this Bill is a direct interference with the existing interests of street traders in other parts of London in this way, that the passing of this Bill will give Bermondsey Borough Council the power to exclude any street trader it chooses for any reason it chooses.

Dr. SALTER

I would like to say that the Borough Council is quite prepared, in order to meet that objection, that a Clause shall be inserted in another place to this effect: but shall not refuse to grant or renew a license or revoke a license on the ground only that the applicant for or the holder of the license does not reside in Bermondsey. We are prepared to put that in, and we understand that will meet the objections of members from other Boroughs who feel that the trader who traded in one Borough on one day, another Borough on another day, and a third Borough on still another day will have his livelihood removed. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that this Clause will meet the whole of his objections.

Mr. NAYLOR

It certainly meets my objection to a very great extent, but it does not exclude the whole of my objection, for this reason. If, as the hon. Member has already suggested, other boroughs as soon as this Bill is passed, will be coming to this House for similar Bills, it means that all the conditions as well as the advantages of this Bill will be imposed on every street trader who attempts to trade in any of the districts protected by these Bills. What does that mean? A street trader is not necessarily occupied in earning his living in a single market. It depends very much upon the articles in which he is trading. There are street traders who go from market to market and have to set up their stalls, possibly in half-a-dozen different markets in one week.

Sir W. SUGDEN

Does he contribute to the rates of any of them

Mr. NAYLOR

I think it is understood as regards payment of rates that every street trader pays rates as a resident wherever he may be. If the laughter of my hon. Friends means to suggest that the street trader does not honour his liabilities in that respect, then it is not seemly.

Sir W. SUGDEN

I did not suggest any improper motive. All I want to know is do these men moving about from place to place contribute to the civic protection of the place as the shopkeeper pays his rates. The ordinary shopkeeper must meet his obligations to one town.

Mr. NAYLOR

No one would suggest that we could compare the street trader with the shopkeeper in regard to the payments of rates. Surely you are not going to set up a special rate-paying system for men who earn their living by setting up stalls in the street. This Bill does not say that. It would be unfair if you expected the costermonger to pay special rates because he sets up his stall in the market place. We believe the street trader is a necessity to the community. He has always fresh stuff for sale, and brings it at the lowest possible price, making it the smallest profit in the transaction, and it will be a bad day for London and other towns when the street trader is eliminated. When I was interrupted some time since I was proceeding to point out the difficulty of the street trader who happens to pass from market to market. Supposing he has to trade in half a dozen Boroughs which have secured Bills in this House it means he has to go to Bermondsey, to Southwark, to Norwood, to Whitechapel, to half a dozen separate Boroughs to take out, a license to trade. This Bill insists that before a man can trade in Bermondsey he must take out a license. If all the other boroughs, or a certain number of them make the same imposition upon the street trader, it means that the trader going from one Borough to another has to have licenses granted to him by the Borough Council. That means he has to pay for each of those licenses for each day of the week.

Dr. SALTER

Five shillings for the whole year.

Mr. NAYLOR

It may seem a small sum, but my hon. Friend knows that the street trader is not a millionaire even in the happiest of circumstances; not even the street traders of Bermondsey. I suggest that the majority of the street traders are men who would miss the money that is required for the payment of licenses under the conditions that compel them to go from place to place. Therefore I suggest that if, as may be, legislation of this kind is necessary in order to protect the interests of the street trader, we ought to wait until London as a whole can unite on a common Bill so that we may move together as one in the interests of the street trader. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) mentioned organisations supporting the Bill. I want to point out that the two organisations that represent the street traders proper the Costermongers' Union and the Street Traders' Federation are not in favour of this Bill, and therefore those of us who attach any importance to the standing and opinion of organised bodies, representative of certain classes or sections of the working community, should at least pay some respect to the working class organisations representing the street traders of London and elsewhere. Organisations quoted by my hon. Friend do not directly represent the street traders, with one exception, and even that exception does not cover the actual class of street trader which would be most affected by this Bill. On these grounds, while admitting that there is a good deal in what my hon. friend, the Member for Bermondsey has said, there is also a good deal to be said on the other side, especially with regard to the good influence this Bill will have with respect to health services and inspection. My hon. friend is perfectly well aware that these services are well looked after by the Borough Councils to-day, and it is only a question of the personnel of those Borough Councils as to whether or not that careful regard for health and cleanliness is or is not observed. Therefore I suggest that this House should reject this Bill in the hope that at some future time we may have a more comprehensive Bill and one acceptable to the people whose interests are concerned.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING

I do not want to take up very much of the time of the House, but I wish to speak on behalf of the retail traders of London, and say that the retail traders welcome this Bill and give it their all round support. There is a feeling prevailing in some circles that the retail trader is hostile to the costermonger. That is not true. I happen to be the only member in this House who sat upon a Departmental Committee set up by the Home Secretary in 1921, and therefore I enjoyed the distinction of having heard all the evidence submitted to the Committee, and I want to say that that evidence bears out in every respect the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who speaks for Bermondsey.

If there is one point more than another that I wish to emphasise, it is the fact that it is the essence el good local government that local authorities should be able to regulate and control their own street and street markets, and one of the most important effects of this Bill will be that it will stop trafficking in stalls or pitches, and will gave the same advantage to the poor trader as to the more wealthy class—and there are some who are fairly well off. It will stop pitches being sold, as was given in evidence before the committee, for as much as 20s. for a Saturday, and a man who is a legitimate bona fide street trader will enjoy the privilege and opportunity of trading in his own district without interference from anyone. I desire to express the hope that the House will give this Bill a Third Reading, because venture to suggest that it is not only in the interest of all concerned, whether the consumers, the traders or the borough council, but is in the interest, primarily, of public health.

As regards the argument of the last speaker as to the poor street trader having to take out a licence in every borough, and be under great disadvantages, even if there were the Bill for the whole of London, he would still have to take out a licence under each borough council, because the Departmental Committee recommended, and I think the Government support the view, because they did introduce a Bill in the House of Lords embodying the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, that the borough council should have the control and regulation of their street markets, and should be entitled to make a small charge for the clearing up of streets. A man, therefore, travelling from borough to borough as suggested by the last speaker, would still have to take out a permit or licence in each borough in which he might trade, and would still have to pay a small sum in each borough, as it is right that he should do, for clearing away the refuse that he makes in that particular borough. I venture, to think the House is quite prepared to give this Bill a Third Beading. It has the hearty support of the retail traders of London, and I hope it will receive a Third Reading and will be followed by the granting of the same powers to other boroughs.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I sincerely hope that the House is not prepared to give this Bill a Third Reading, and I would say with all respect to the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) that he is something of a crank on the matter of street trading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not say it in any offensive way at all. We all know how much the hon. Member has at heart questions of hygiene, and so on, and some of us think his interest in those questions has rather obscured for the moment the proper merits of this case so far as they concern the street trader. I have every reason, at any rate from the representations I have received from outside bodies, to support this Bill. My borough council of Hackney, a body to whose representa- tions I generally pay considerable attention, has urged me to support the Bill, and so have the retail traders, the Chambers of Commerce, and so on. But, after all, those are not the people primarily concerned. The people primarily concerned are the many thousands of costermongers who live in all parts of London, and I think their interests ought to be put before the interests of a limited number of street traders in Bermondsey who have developed a certain vested interest in the Borough of Bermondsey, and who know that their applications in that borough will receive preference, whatever provisions may be made there or in any other place.

The complaint has been made that no objection was taken to this Bill at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey said that the borough council of Bermondsey has been put to great expense in engaging counsel and solicitors, and yet nothing has been heard about the opposition until now. There is a very simple reason why we have heard nothing of it.

Mr. PALIN

A petition was promoted, but it was found that it was not in conformity with the rules of the House.

Captain GARRO-JONES

There is a very simple reason why the opposition has not developed strongly.

Major TASKER

It was certainly sent round to Members of the Committee.

Captain GARRO-JONES

If the complaint has not developed strongly until now there is a very simple reason for it. The Association of Street Traders is not a wealthy body like the Bermondsey Borough Council, and I very much doubt if their funds would stand the expense of counsel. They are not a very strongly organised body who are able to engage counsel, solicitors and Parliamentary agents, and go to the great expense that is necessary to oppose the Bill. That is an additional reason why hon. Members who have open minds on this question should oppose the Bill. I do not intend to detain the House for very much longer, but I should like to reply briefly to one or two points that were raised by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey. He complained that costermongers were great offenders in the matter of exposing articles of an indecent character upon their stalls.

Dr. SALTER

I venture to suggest that the hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that I knew of a definite instance in a borough adjoining my own where contraceptives and contraceptive appliances were exposed for sale in a street market.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I know of shops in the West End and other parts of London where these articles are sold, and we do not advance the argument that any special regulations or legislation should be passed to deal with them. I do not think that costermongers are any greater offenders in this matter than any other class of traders, whether in this or in any other part of London. Complaint was made that the costermongers do not pay anything towards the clearing away of rubbish, and it was urged that this Bill would enable the Bermondsey Borough Council to charge certain sums for clearing away rubbish. The Bermondsey Borough Council already, I believe, collect sums from costermongers for this purpose up to a certain amount per week.

Dr. SALTER

By voluntary arrangement. They have no power to do it.

Captain GARRO-JONES

If the voluntary arrangement works well, I do not see why we should advance that as an argument for making it compulsory. At any rate, the expense is more than covered by the voluntary contributions now made by costermongers I only wish to make two more points, with regard to one of which, perhaps, the promoters of the Bill will be able to give me some explanation. It is said that this Bill will destroy the bad practice of farming-out stalls, which is carried on by some costermonger capitalists. I entirely fail to see how it will do that. Under Clause 10, a licensed costermonger in Bermondsey is entitled to employ assistance and I do not see anything in the Bill to limit the number of licences which one costermonger can take out in Bermondsey or anywhere else, and even if he can only get one in Bermondsey, these men who know the ropes can go about to other Borough Councils and get licences from them. If this Bill be passed, it will not prevent the capitalist costermonger, if we may so describe him, from going to other borough councils, getting one licence from each and farming them out. The Bill does not apply to one Borough Council only, and there is nothing in the contention that the Bill, if we pass it, will abolish the evil of farming out costermongers' stalls. I object to this Bill on a ground which I believe will outweigh every other consideration, and that is that it is an attempt, supported naturally by the shopkeepers in every part of London, to impose irritating restrictions on a class of men who have done more to keep down the cost of living in London than any other single factor in this country in the last 10 years. I think the House ought to consider very carefully before it gives a Third Reading to this Bill, which proposes that they can be closed down at seven days' notice, that they shall pay 5s. a year for a license and that they shall conform to a large number of other restrictions which will bear heavily upon this class of men. I know a large number of these costermongers, and have many of them in my constituency. They come to me, men who are out of work, and say, "I want to start as a seller of chestnuts or something of that sort," and I know of dozens of cases where men were down and out who, owing to the fact that there has been no restriction on this class of trade, have started in business and made a decent living for themselves and their families. No real case has been made out for this Bill, and I say with all respect that the arguments which have been adduced are outweighed by the dominant argument, which ought to be that this is a class of men who, although unable to make their voice strongly heard, have kept down the cost of living in London.

Mr. PALIN

This has been the most. astonishing discussion I have ever heard. It has been very useful from the point of view of relieving the strain of the past few days. The greatest city in the Empire allows its people to go on and have unrestricted and uncontrolled use of its streets. There is so little regard for the public health that they have never found it necessary to provide a market where food can be purveyed under something like decent conditions. To hear it suggested that the Bermondsey City Council has done something wrong in asking for power to regulate this matter in the interests of their ratepayers is a most astonishing thing. I question if there is a city in the world which would submit to the garbage and the smell and the indescribably filthy streets after the street market has been cleared away, except London. It is most astonishing to me. When one goes through the main streets and sees the wonderful care taken to keep them clean and then turns down the side streets even in Westminister and sees the indescribable squalor and filth, it passes my comprehension.

Furthermore, I think it would be a very foolish thing for the house to allow its rules and regulations to be set at defiance in this way because, all said and done, the mover of the rejection has admitted that the Committee conducted the inquiry in a fair and impartial manner and it is not necessary for anyone to come before a Committee of the House and appear by Counsel. If some of these gentlemen expressed themselves with the ability and the force that the witnesses in favour of the Bill did, their proceedings would be very greatly enlivened and they would not suffer by the absence of counsel. I would sooner hear a costermonger who can express himself in clear language than the interminable arguments of some counsel. This organisation of the costermongers must be very formidable. I was rather surprised to hear the support it can command. In a few weeks' time, we shall be discussing matters involving millions of pounds with far less force than this pettifogging Bill of the Bermondsey Council. I sincerely hope we shall regain our sense of proportion.

Mr. GILLETT

The speech we have just heard shows how little a Member living in the country understands the real local government problems of London. The hon. Member said how extraordinary it was that the Bermondsey City Council should want to have control of the streets, and he compared it with some other town. It is no comparison at all. It is just as if you took a piece of Liverpool and said, this ward was to have certain special legislation, and the rest of Liverpool was to be left entirely untouched. To my mind this is one of the fundamental objections to the Bill. One of our greatest difficulties in London is that you are cutting it up, and you are dividing things which really have no division at all. In the borough I represent we have three market streets, and I have been asked by the costers in those streets to oppose the Bill for the very reason that the hon. Member for Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has given. One of these streets is right on the edge of the borough of Finsbury. You have only to walk a few yards, and you are away over in the borough of Islington. Supposing a man living at present in Finsbury is turned out of his house and is compelled to go and live a few hundred yards away, and goes over to Islington, my hon. Friend is going to insert a Clause in which he claims there is going to be some safety against prohibiting the borough council from preventing a man like that going on trading in a borough in which he is not resident. As a matter of fact, it would not necessarily be any safety at all if the borough council decided to limit the use of the streets to their residents.

The objectionable feature of the Bill, to my mind, is that we are being committed to a policy in regard to the costers, whilst the whole matter has never been fairly placed before those interested in the Government of London. If there had been a conference and the question had been considered by the borough councils and the different interests concerned, and they had turned the whole thing down, it would have been quite justifiable for Bermondsey to go on, but Bermondsey lays down all these principles and hardly anyone hears anything about the Bill or is in any way consulted until it has got fairly well through the House, and then it is that an organisation, not strong financially or otherwise, discovers that the Bill has got to this stage. I do not see that the Bermondsey Council have anything to complain of in the opposition. There is a very large number of men employed in these trades in my borough, and they have specially asked me to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member opposite has given, to my mind, one of the reasons why possibly they are afraid of it. He has stated that he very strongly supports the Bill on behalf of the shopkeepers. It may be for that very reason that many of the costers are not anxious to have control of the matter placed in the hands of the borough councils, which in many parts of London are dominated by the very interest the hon. Member represents. It happens that in Bermondsey that class is not very strongly represented.

Sir W. PERRING

Then you have nothing to fear.

Mr. GILLETT

In Bermondsey you are making a precedent. Bermondsey may legislate for things that suit the people concerned with the trade in Bermondsey because the compleion of the borough council is quite different from the complexion of the borough council in the constituency I represent. That may be the very reason why the costers in my constituency are not anxious to be placed under the control of the borough council. In any case this piecemeal legislation for London ought to be strongly condemned. Any hon. Member who represent country towns and support this Bill have no idea of the way in which it is adding another item to the confusion of local government in London, of which many of us are only too painfully aware. On those grounds alone even if I had not been asked to oppose the Bill on behalf of the costermongers in my constituency, I should have felt inclined to oppose it, because I think that the local government of London is sufficiently confusing to-day without adding further to it by this Bill.

Mr. VIANT

As one of the supporters of the Bill, I would ask the House not to attach undue importance to the statement made by the hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) when he argues that this Bill will introduce piecemeal legislation into the County of London. The precedent is already set. The principles of this Bill are already in operation in one of the boroughs of London.

Mr. GILLETT

No.

Mr. VIANT

Yes. On the outskirts.

Mr. GILLETT

Not in London. I said that in the County of London there is no precedent for this Bill, and the hon. Member cannot mention one borough council in London where these powers have been taken. He, obviously, does not know of what the County of London consists.

Mr. VIANT

I have no desire to misrepresent my hon. Friend, but I am not so remote from London, having been a resident in London for the past 25 years, that I do not know something about it, and also the existing difficulties. My point is that the principles of this Bill are already in operation in the Bermondsey area, and that the hon. Member's argument that this is giving piecemeal legislation to London hardly holds good. There is nothing in this Bill which will prevent the London County Council from applying the principle generally to the whole of London.

I represent a constituency on the outskirts, and when I was a member of the local council we had considerable difficulty with street trading, because we had little or no control over it. This Bill gives a measure of control which will not only safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Bermondsey, but also the interests of the street traders themselves. Hon. Members who heard the statement of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter)

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

of the conditions that exist, must agree that it is not advisable that they should continue. One has only to see in the early hours of the morning the street traders literally fighting for pitches for their stalls, to realise that some means are necessary to control street trading in the interests of the community as a whole. The provisions of the Bills would make conditions of that kind impossible. As far as the Street Traders' Association is concerned, I can readily appreciate their desire that Members for certain constituencies should oppose the Bill, because they desire to go from constituency to constituency and area to area; but from the hygienic point of view I think this Bills is worthy of hearty support.

Question put," That the word 'now' stand part of the question."

The House divided; Ayes, 81; Noes, 26.

Division No. 220.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Raine, W.
Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Ammon, Charles George Harland, A. Remer, J. R.
Atkinson, C. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Clement Richard Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Barr, J. Henderson, Rt. Hon., A. (Burnley) Rose, Frank H.
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Stephen, Campbell
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Storry-Deans, R.
Buchanan, G. Jephcott, A. R. Strickland, Sir Gerald
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel John, William (Rhondda, West Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Campbell, E. T. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Clayton, G. C. Kelly, W. T. Thurtle, E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Kennedy, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Lawson, Lawson, John James Viant, S. P.
Dalton, Hugh Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lindley, F. W. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Dennison, R. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Dixey, A. C. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wise, Sir Fredric
Duncan, C. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wragg, Herbert
England, Colonel A. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Palin, John Henry
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Perring, Sir William George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pilditch, Sir Philip Dr. Salter and Mr. Womersley.
NOES.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gillett, George M. Pilcher, G.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harris, Percy A. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hopkins, J. W. W. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cluse, W. S. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N. Little, Dr. E. Graham Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Everard, W. Lindsay Naylor, T. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fraser, Captain Ian Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Major Tasker and Captain Garro-Jones.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Oakley, T.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Forward to