§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "at any" and to insert instead thereof the words "he has at some."
1919 This and the following Amendment are both matters of drafting owing to an alteration in Committee. The wordsbefore the date upon which the contribution is first leviedas the Bill now reads would govern both the delivery of the notice in writing of willingness to contribute and the failure to withdraw the notice which, of course, makes nonsense. We are proposing to alter that so as to make the Clause readand unless he has at some time after the commencement of this Act and before he is first thereafter required to make such a contribution delivered at the head office.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 4, leave out from the word "before" in line 31, to the word "delivered" in line 32, and insert instead thereof the words "he is first thereafter required to make such a contribution."—(The Attorney-General.)
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after the word "notice" to insert the wordsmay be delivered personally or by any authorised agent and any notice.This is designed to carry out a pledge I gave to the Opposition in Committee. I was asked to make clear what I assured the Committee was the fact, that delivery might be made either personally or by any authorised agent, and I undertook to put in words which would make that position clear.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. ALBERY
I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after the word "union" to insert the words "who has not claimed exemption."
This is an attempt to clarify a little to the lay mind a Clause which at present is quite adequate to those who have legal knowledge. As it reads at present it states that until 31st December, 1927, it shall be lawful to require any member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund as if this Act had not been passed. In view of the fact that it will largely be administered by gentlemen who, however intimate their knowledge of trade union affairs may be, are not always so intimate as regards legal matters, and in view of the fact that there have already been certain rather serious misrepresentations as to the meaning of the Act, I thought it would 1920 be an added security if some such words as these could be inserted to put it beyond all doubt that it is only intended that those members of trade unions who have not already contracted out should be liable to contribute again.
§ Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD
I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not at all sure that these words are entirely apt words to carry out the intention, but in the lay mind doubt sometimes arises as to the meaning of such a word as "require," which is used in Sub-section (4). I am inclined myself to think the wordsas if this Act had not been passedmake it quite clear that no one would be required to pay unless he was actually liable under the Act of 1913, but the fact should be made clear either by a statement in the House or by an Amendment.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Although the Government are unable to accept the Amendment, I am glad my hon. Friends have seen fit to move it. The reason we cannot accept it is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has said, because the words are not quite apt to effect the purpose for which they are designed. If we were to put in the phrasewho has not claimed exemption,anyone who has claimed exemption, although he would not have claimed in such a way as to excuse him from liability under the 1913 Act, would be able to say he came within Section 4 and was relieved of liability. That is not the intention of those who put forward the Amendment, but I think they will see it would, in fact, be the effect. I said that I was glad the Amendment had been moved, and I am glad for this reason, that, as my hon. Friends have said, it is very important that the position should be made clear, and the moving of this Amendment enables me to make it clear, as far as I can, by any statement in this House. As my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment said, the words "as if this Act had not been passed" show quite plainly that the effect of Sub-section (4) is merely to preserve the existing position until the 31st December, 1927. That is to say that when this Sub-section is passed, anyone who at present is exempt 1921 from liability by reason of his having claimed exemption under the 1913 Act remains exempt from liability and cannot be called upon to contribute. The only effect of Sub-section (4) is to preserve intact the existing position until the end of the present year.
I think it is necessary to make it absolutely clear as to when a man is exempt, and to make it quite certain that although he may apply for exemption he must not, by mistake, fail to obtain exemption. I am in favour of the Amendment. In this connection I would like to point to a case which I raised in this House on Wednesday, 25th May. I dare say it will be within the recollection of the House that I read a statement from a constituent of mine, who said that although he had put in a claim for exemption, he still paid the same amount as men who had not claimed exemption. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is unable to be present. He told me that he had an appointment elsewhere, and regretted that he would not be here, because I propose to refer to what he said. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman rose in his place, and he corrected my statement, or said that it was not correct. It has not, I may say, up to now been disproved as far as I can see. What the right hon. Gentleman said in effect was, "The statement cannot be true because the funds are separate."
I am not quite sure that these funds really are separate. I have seen the columns which are provided in the contribution cards of the particular union to which I refer—the National Union of Railwaymen. There are columns for a good many things, but they have not got a column for a political levy. After I had read that statement, this particular constituent of mine saw in print that there was a mistake in the date which he gave, and he informed me of the mistake, and I immediately corrected it. After I had made my personal statement, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, made a long statement, in the course of which he said that my statement was not only incorrect in that, but in other ways. He said:I now find that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member is not only inaccurate, but I have here the man's card. 1922 He did not join the union until 1917, and he is shown as having been expelled from the union through arrears of contribution."—[OFFicIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1927 col. 215, Vol. 207.]The position was left in that unfortunate position all through the Whitsuntide Recess, and my constituent was held up to his fellow workmen as having been expelled from his union because he was in arrear with his contributions. It was unfortunate that at that time I was unable to reply and clear his name. There are two things to which I would like to refer in connection with his case. One is that the man very naturally——
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. This Amendment, as I understand it, is seeking to make certain that any person who is at present exempt from the political levy shall not be called upon to pay before the end of December, 1927. I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not an Amendment on which a personal explanation should be made concerning a controversy between two hon. Members which arose on an Amendment dealing with the whole question of the political levy. I submit that this subject does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has proceeded far enough for me to be able to take that view at the moment, The Amendment is to insert the words "who has not claimed exemption," and the belief is that the Bill is not clear as to the position of persons who have made that claim. I understand it is from that point of view that the hon. and gallant Member is making his statement.
That is so. There are two things to which I wish to refer. One is the unfortunate position in which this man was left because of the stigma which attached to him of having been expelled from the Union owing to his arrears of contributions, and the other is, as far as I can make out, that although he had claimed exemption he never appeared to have secured exemption. I want to make sure that a man who claims exemption really secures exemption. If he is exempted from the payment of the political levy he should not have to pay it. I have seen a long correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and this 1923 constituent of mine, but I think I should really be out of order in entering into it. I have seen that man, and I have seen other men in the same branch of the same union, and they, in fact, say, and acknowledge, that although men have claimed exemption from the political levy, they are still paying the same amount of contribution to the National Union of Railwaymen as those who have not claimed exemption. For these reasons, I really feel that the clearer this Bill is made in this respect the better it will be. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment, because some of the members of the unions appear to be rather unbusinesslike. In this case, for instance, the man said that he signed, and handed in, a claim for exemption from the political levy, and that is denied by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a further point of Order. Is a matter affecting the whole question of the political levy and the way unions administer it in order on this Amendment? If it be in order, I do not object.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think it is in order to go into the whole question. It appears to be relevant to the actual Amendment before us for an hon. Member to endeavour to make the position clear with regard to people who claim exemption. On the Report stage, we do not have a Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
I think I have explained the case quite sufficiently to be able to leave it as it is. I said that I support the Amendment, and I very much regret that the Attorney-General has not accepted it.
§ Mr. CLYNES
It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will have something to say on the particular case which has been brought forward. I only rise to say that it is extremely unfortunate that hon. Members should bring forward individual cases in this House, and submit them either for the purposes of test or explanation. This House cannot make itself into a Court to determine the grievances of individual members of unions who may have cause to be aggrieved in their relations with their 1924 particular branches. There is a properly constituted Court for this purpose—the Registrar. If any aggrieved member, after having applied for exemption or before having applied for exemption, has a case in which he can show that injustice has been done to him, either in respect of his rights in the union or in respect to the contributions which he is required to pay, his case may be reported in the common form provided for in the Act of Parliament. How rare are these cases has been shown by the figures supplied by the Registrar himself. The Registrar has shown, as the result of questions asked in this House, that out of the millions of men who are called upon by their own decision to pay these political levies, only a total of 13 cases in a year have been recorded, showing that in that connection they have no ground whatever for grievance. Without going into the merits of anyone of them now, I suggest that it is doing no good to the interests of an individual workman in relation to his employment, and to his peaceful relations with his own fellow workmen, to make him the subject of a political and party argument in the House of Commons. The matter ought to be left to the proper tribunal, namely, the Registrar.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I am indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Totnes (Major Harvey) for informing me in advance that he proposed raising this particular issue on this particular Amendment. Unfortunately, I was engaged in another Committee. I only want to say that I do not think it has any bearing upon this particular Amendment. This individual case was raised when the same issue of the political levy was under discussion. He said to the Committee, in substance, this is a case that proves that there is abuse, and which justifies him in taking the action he did—I am summarising it. Incidentally, he will remember, he made a mistake in the date which was afterwards corrected. I knew nothing of the case. I immediately made investigation, and the thing I did was to write to the only recognised authority, the Registrar. The existing law, without any recognition of any Amendment of any sort or kind, provides that any man feeling aggrieved is entitled to appeal to the Registrar. I at once felt that if any appeal had been made, it was my duty to investigate it.
1925 I wrote to the Registrar and received a reply from him the next day, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, said distinctly that, as far as he was aware, no complaint of any sort or kind was made by this particular individual. That in itself would at least show that whatever might have been the ground of complaint as far as the individual himself was concerned, he had not taken advantage of, or exercised the privilege given by, the existing law. But I did not stop there. I think I have said before that in my own union there are 65,000 members who claimed exemption. I said to the House, and I repeat it now, "I defy anybody in any branch of my union to know who those individuals are." I make that definite assertion. Sixty-five thousand members in my union, and I think it will be agreed that if any union benefits by Parliamentary representation it is my own union. No one will dispute that. Incidentally, let me say, since the matter has been raised, I have made inquiries, and I find that in a number of cases—and it may surprise the House to know this—the people who claim exemption—I do not mean because of meanness in regard to the payment of the shilling or anything like that, but on strong political views-are even branch chairmen of my own particular union. That would indicate that there is no prejudice. I have followed up the hon. and gallant Member's case. In the first place, he said that the funds of our union are not kept separate. I think he said that to-day
§ Mr. THOMAS
I thought the hon. and gallant Member said that they were not kept separately.Surely, he cannot be aware of the existing law. Surely no hon. Member opposite can assume that all that has to be done is to say to the member, "Here is a book. Will you pay your political levy?" "Here is another book. Will you pay your trade union levy?" What happens, as the hon. and gallant Member must be aware, is that on each contribution card there is an item, "political levy"; another item, "trade union contribution." and so on. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to allege that our funds were not kept separately; but I assume that he did not mean that, because, not 1926 only are they kept separate, but they are submitted separately to the Registrar.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
The right hon. Member says that on the ordinary contribution card of the National Union of Railwaymen the political levy is shown as a separate item.
§ Mr. THOMAS
I will show you 500,000. We shall have an opportunity of Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, and if my hon. and learned Friend has been basing same of his arguments on this misapprehension, I am sure he will be the first to correct it.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
I only asked the question because the other day I saw a number of contribution cards of the National Union of Railwaymen, and on not one of those cards was there the slightest mention of the political levy. I do not say that it is not kept as a separate item in the books of the union. That is another matter.
§ Mr. THOMAS
As the hon. and learned Member knows, it must be kept as a separate item in the books, but I am not now dealing with the books but with the contribution cards, and I repeat the statement that on the contribution card each item is separate. The member referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Major Harvey) wrote a letter to me. It is not unusual for members of my union to write letters to me. Since the matter was raised in the House—I did not know that this particular man, whose wages are not very high, possessed a typewriter—I have noticed that the last letter which I have received from him was typewritten. I think the hon. and gallant Member knows something about it. In the charge which the hon. and gallant Member made, he said that this particular member, after he had claimed exemption, was charged precisely the same contribution.
§ Major HARVEY indicated assent.
§ Mr. THOMAS
That is perfctly true. He paid precisely the same contribution for the period that ħe remained in membership. Is it complained that that is wrong? The hon. and gallant Member, 1927 apparently, was not aware that, under the existing law, when any individual claims exemption, the exemption operates from the January following. The hon. and gallant Member seems to have been confused. He seems to have assumed that when the man claimed exemption from the payment of one shilling per annum, the payment would stop on the day that he claimed the exemption. What happened was, that this particular member paid his one shilling per annum for the benefits which he received from Parliamentary representation, from the date that he claimed exemption to the end of the period and no longer. His real grievance was, I understand, that had he only claimed 4½ months earlier he would have benefited by 4½d., but he did not claim the 4½d. The individual concerned knows that he is not victimised. He knows that he is not suffering, as has been alleged in some quarters. At an open public meeting in Newton Abbot, at which the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes was present, although he was a member of the union, he got up and made a statement.
§ Mr. THOMAS
He was not a member of the union because he had lapsed his membership. I ask the House to observe what is meant by all the talk about intimidation and the fear of consequences. Here is a man who had all the benefits of the union; a man in the privileged position of a railwayman, as is alleged from many quarters opposite. He had all the advantages secured by the trade union, and, as far as victimisation is concerned, at an open meeting—I am not complaining, but I am only trying to show that no one interfered with him—he stated his grievance to the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Member missed the point and jumped a few years. The net result of the complaint is, that the member did not complain to the Registrar, as is provided for under the existing Act; he made no complaint to the branch secretary; he lapsed his membership and no complaint was made; he received all the advantages that the union secured for him and is not now a member, and no attempt at compulsion of any sort or 1928 kind has been made; the funds are kept separate. I put it to the House that these facts prove that under the existing law there is adequate protection for every member of every trade union organisation.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I felt bound to allow the right hon. Gentleman a full opportunity of reply, and in the result I find that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was quite right——
§ Mr. ALBERY
In view of the statement made by the Attorney-General, and with the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves Lord), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I object. The chief grievance of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that on the contribution cards there is no definite item for the payment of the levy.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
One of the sponsors for the Amendment did. Some unions have deliberately cut out the item of the political levy, because the Conservative members of the union asked that it should be cut out. If you put on the contribution card a separate item for the political levy, the shop steward in collecting the contributions would know that a particular man did not pay the political levy. Some unions deliberately left out this item in order that no member could be pointed at as not having paid the political levy. Hon. Members opposite are never satisfied. If you leave out the political levy item, you are wrong; if you put it in, you are victimising; if you do something else you are trying to hide your funds. They ought to try to be sportsmen. If we put the political levy item on the card, the member who does not pay it must stand the consequences. When we take it out, the result is that 1929 it is not possible to know who does not pay the levy. Speaking of the union with which I have been associated for a long time, I know that we deliberately left it out in order to give a Conservative member a chance in a shop of not being pointed at for not paying the levy. This talk about victimisation is sheer nonsense.
§ Mr. ALBERY
In view of the statement made by the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), we should like to know whether this particular item is on the contribution card or not.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
In certain unions, in my own union, for instance, the contribution card is simple. There is one column for the contribution paid, and there are two other columns, one for superannuation and another for branch funds. The branch funds include the political fund and the fund for general branch purposes. Originally we had the political fund mentioned separately; but men complained, in a big shipbuilding yard, for instance, that if they were pointed at as persons who did not pay the political levy there might be a chance of their not being picked out for a job. Therefore, the political fund was grouped among the branch funds so far as the card was concerned, and by that means the chances of victimisation were reduced. The big bulk of the unions, at the request of their Conservative members, decided not to put in a separate item for the political levy on the contribution card, but other unions put it in. Hon. Members opposite want secret ballots when it suits them. The method which I have explained was deliberately adopted to prevent any semblance of victimisation, and now hon. Members opposite complain.
§ Mr. ALBERY
The only reason I asked the question was because I understood the right hon. Member for Derby to say that his union does show the item, and the hon. Member for Gorbals says that in his experience unions do not show it.
§ Mr. THOMAS
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) whether his union show it, and he says precisely the same thing that has been said by the hon. Member for Gorbals. But there are 1930 other unions that do show it, and my union is one of them, My union do show it.
§ Mr. THOMAS
The branch contribution card is determined by the branch itself, and not by the head office.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Each union its own practice. If a member on a separate item for the political fund to be shown on the contribution card, it means that the position as affecting himself must be known by his fellow-workers. The members will discuss his conduct. Therefore, in certain unions the item was deliberately left out for the purpose of safeguarding members. It does not matter to me whether we carry the Amendment or not. The net result is the same. The issue before us is not a question of December, 1927, but the general question of a party being kept up by the workers, and a few months do not matter one way or another. The whole question is that of a bigger and broader principle.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out the words, "the foregoing Sub-section," and to insert instead thereof the words,this Section, or for the purposes of the Trade Union Act, 1913, as amended by this Act, which require approval by the Registrar.This is substantially a drafting Amendment. Its second purpose is to make it clear that the executive authorities under Sub-section (5) are included in the term "delegates" used in the corresponding Section of the Act of 1913. In practice the word "delegates" in that Sub-section has been treated by the Registrar as covering the executive or other governing bodies, but he may find difficulty in doing that if the other 1931 words were used in this Clause. I propose therefore, to leave out the words, "the foregoing Sub-section" and to insert words which make this Sub-section (5) cover the corresponding situation under the 1913 Act.
§ Mr. CLYNES
Our objections have been stated to the Clause generally and the House is familiar with them. I do not desire the smallest degree that we should be a party to improving the Clause for the purpose of meeting its object, and I do not see that this Amendment is
§ so innocent as it would appear from the statement from the Attorney-General. Inasmuch as my conclusion is that this Amendment, if inserted, would have the effect of increasing the difficulties and inconvenience to individual members and to trade unions, I hope that from this side we shall resist it.
§ Questions put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 211.1933
|Division No. 196.]||AYES.||[7. 5p. m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hamilton, Sir H.(Orkney & Shetland)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardie, George D.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayes, John Henry||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smillie, Robert|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith. Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Jenkins, W.(Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Briant, Frank||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stamford T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Bromley, J.||Kelly, W. T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kennedy, T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kirkwood, D||Taylor, R. A|
|Buchanan, G.||Lansbury, George||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Charleton, H.C.||Lawrence, Susan||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Clowes, S.||Lee, F.||Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Clynes, Right Hon. John R.||Lowth, T.||Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacLaren, Andrew||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Townend, A. E.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||March, S.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Maxton, James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Mosley, Oswald||Viant, S. P.|
|Dennison, R.||Murnin, H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Duncan, C.||Naylor, T. E.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Dunnico, H.||Oliver, George Harold||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edge, Sir William||Owen, Major G.||Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Palin, John Henry||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Fenby, T. D.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Gardner, J. P.||Potts, John S.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Purcell, A. A.||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Riley, Ben||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Greenall, T.||Ritson, J.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Williams. David (Swansea, E.)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Groves T.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grundy, T.W.||Scrymgeour, E.||Windsor. Walter|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Sexton, James|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith,|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Burman, J. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Burton, Colonel H. W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Berry, Sir George||Butler, Sir Geoffrey|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Bethel, A.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Caine, Gordon Hall|
|Apsley, Lord||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Campbell, E. T.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Blundell, A. N.||Carver, Major W. H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bourne. Captain Robert Croft||Cassels, J. D.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Brass, Captain W.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brittain, Sir Harry||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Radford, E. A.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Ramsden, E.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hilton, Cecil||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Cope, Major William||Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Cooper, J. B.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Robinson, Sir T.(Lanes., Stretford)|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Rye, F. G.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hume, Sir G.H.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Dawson. Sir Philip||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Sandon, Lord|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Jacob, A. E.||Savery, S. S.|
|Drewe, C.||Jephcott, A.R.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Duckworth, John||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Ellis, R. G.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smithers, Waldron|
|Elveden, Viscount||Lamb, J. Q.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|England, Colonel A.||Long, Major Eric||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lougher, Lewis||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Lumley, L. R.||Streatfeild, Captain S.R.|
|Fleiden, E.B.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Thom, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Finburgh, S.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Macintyre, Ian||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Forrest, W.||McLean, Major A.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fremantle, Lieut,-Colonel Francis E.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Gadie, Lieut-Col. Anthony||Malone, Major P. B.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Gates, Percy||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Meyer, Sir Frank||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Nelson, Sir Frank||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Withers, John James|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Oakley, T.||Womersley, W. J|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Hanbury, C.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Perring, Sir William George||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Power, Sir John Cecil||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Mr. F.C. Thomson and Captain|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Preston, William||Margesson|
|Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.