HC Deb 01 March 1927 vol 203 cc251-63

Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, after "1921," insert the words, "and this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]


Those of us who sit on these benches have been taunted from the other side of the House with lack of active participation in this Debate. I am anxious to do anything I can to oblige hon. Members on the other side of the House, and, before we finally part with this Bill, I would like to say one word, not quite from the point of view of those which have been addressed from the other side, but one word of very respectful protest on behalf of that oppressed and long-suffering and, on the whole, unsuspecting class of British, or rather of English taxpayers. I am very well aware of the convention by which business that specially relates to Scotland in this House is, on the whole, delegated to the exclusive attention of Scottish Members. That is a form of Home Rule, or of devolution, for which, I think, there is a good deal to be said, although nothing has ever been said in favour of the rule being made reciprocal. I admit that I was deluded by the Title of this Bill into the belief that the Bill was really a Scottish Bill, and I frankly confess that -on that account I was, in accordance with the usual convention, somewhat intermittent in my attendance in the Chamber in the middle part of last week. But in the Debate on the Financial Resolution it became, I think, apparent, from the intervention, or perhaps I should say from the attempted intervention, of one or two Members representing English constituencies, that, despite the delusive appearance and Title of this Bill, it was by no means exclusively one which affected Scotland. At any rate,, it is one which, as I submit, directly and rather seriously affects the English taxpayer as well.

The particular point to which I want to direct the attention of the House, before this Bill is read the Third time, is that the Bill does contain one or two very objectionable features. In the first place, it represents an instance, and I think rather a bad instance, of ex post facto legislation. I was brought up in the straitest set of constitutionalists. I was brought up in the belief, which I am sure is shared by the straiter sect opposite, that ex post facto legislation is rather abhorrent to all properly-constituted and legally-minded people. I admit that, in my case, that prejudice has never been dissipated. This Bill seems to me peculiarly objectionable on this ground, that here we have an attempt at ex post facto legislation to legalise an executive illegality. The Bill arises from the fact that the Scottish Board of Health, in their Circular dated 8th May, 1926, recommended a particular course to the parish councils of Scotland which was shown to he palpably an illegal proceeding. Here we are in this House asked to give our ex post facto sanction or condemnation to that illegality. The parish councils in Scotland declined to be guilty, as I understand it, of this illegality, or rather were restrained from the illegality by the wisdom of the Scottish Courts. If similar instructions had been issued by an ignorant and benighted English Minister in Whitehall, I wonder what would have been said of it by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? But that such an instruction should have been issued from the Scottish Board of Health fills me, I confess, with astonishment and dismay. I must say that my first impulse—a very strong impulse—was to ask the House to defer the Third Reading of this Bill for the usual period of six months. [HON.MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I did not want to adopt that extreme course, partly because I do not think it would be a success, and, having made my brief and, I hope,, entirely respectful protest, I will say no more.


We have witnessed a remarkable scene. After incessant calls for some representative from Scotland from the back benches opposite to defend this Bill, and the challenge thrown out by my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), as if to give confirmation of the impossibility of Scottish hon. Members opposite to respond to that challenge, it was taken up by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). In taking up the challenge he expressly said that he did so in order that there might be someone from the back benches opposite who would take it up. So far from defending the Bill and the Government he rated the Law Officers of the Crown and the Scottish Board of Health and almost went to the length of calling for the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. He took strong exception to the financial provision of 40 per cent. towards the cost of these outlays and pointed out that was hard upon the English taxpayers. As a matter of fact, since 1834, and I think previous to that, under English law the Scottish taxpayer has been indirectly paying for the support of the able-bodied poor there, and they have been denied any such provision for themselves. Therefore, this Bill in this small way is only a very tardy giving back on the part of the English taxpayer what has been paid for centuries by Scotland towards England in this regard.

I feel that I must, come to the defence of the Lord Advocate and the Law Officers of the Scottish Board of Health. It is true that they took their duties as Law Officers somewhat lightly, and when they were called upon to give their decision on this question of relief they said, "Whether it is legal or not, we think it would be right to do it." That was the extent of their contribution, as the Lord Advocate himself admitted, when this question came forward. I am not against the attitude which they took up altogether in that, regard. We are told that the priests profane the law and are blameless. The Law Officers can equally defy and set at naught the law, and if they are not quite blameless they have made a very bold precedent which, I think, will be helpful in future days and for future Governments, in that we may not be bound too closely to the law of the country, and may do what is best in the national interest. Having adopted this course, the Law Officers carried it through in a courageous and consistent way, and when certain parish councils were refusing to give support to the dependants of strikers they said that they viewed their action with grave concern; that it seemed to them to be incompatible with their primary duty to relieve destitution. They told the councils that if they declined to grant relief, as some of them were doing, they would be refusing to perform one of the main duties laid on them by Statute, namely, the duty of ensuring that relief is afforded out of the poor rates to prevent injury to health through the effects of destitution. They not only asked these councils to reconsider their position, but, in the end—and I say this to their credit—they accepted responsibility for the expense, although not so largely as we might have wished. They did not accept responsibility to the full extent of the expenditure, but they accepted responsibility, and we are grateful that they went so far as 40 per cent., although we would have wished that they had gone much further.

I desire to emphasise what has been said this afternoon as to the different ways in which this will help in different parishes. I referred the other day to a parish in my own constituency which twice refused to give relief. At the end of July the parish of Cambusnethan resolved to discontinue all relief to the dependants of persons concerned in the dispute, and when they were asked by the Scottish Board of Health, in strong terms, to reconsider their position, they reaffirmed their attitude by nine votes to seven. I mentioned this fact the other day and I refer to it to-day in order to say that I omitted to state that up to that point they had contributed to the relief of miners' dependants. I find that from the 18th May to the 14th August, when that relief was discontinued by them, they had contributed a sum of not less than £9,888 13s. 6d. In not mentioning this large sum, and in speaking as if they had done nothing up to that time I unintentionally did them an injustice, for which I desire to express my regret. In all, including their contributions to the soup kitchen, they contributed £11,145 1s. 10d.

Now I come to one other aspect of this Bill, namely, the relief on loan. The other day, I made some reference to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909. The reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion, or of the Lord Advocate, was that there had been a great deal of change since 1909, and that the industrial conditions were entirely different. I think it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who said that. Human nature has not changed since 1909, and the evidence that we have in large volume in the Scottish Poor Law Commission and the English Poor Law Commission of that year is still applicable and relevant, and it is most enlightening. I have pursued my studies of it, and I wish to emphasise one or two points which I think are made quite clear in the evidence and decisions of the Commissions. First of all, a large number of witnesses who had been serving on boards of guardians, and a large number of medical men, said that relief by loan is a deterrent to the deserving poor and that it prevents them coming forward. I might quote from Mr. J. T. Dodd, of the Oxford Board of Guardians who, referring specially to medical relief on loan, said: It is no matter of surprise if a hard-worked father, with low wages and a large family, permits his child, with sore throat, measles, or chicken-pox (which is sometimes really smallpox) to wait a few days rather than be himself plunged into debt and ordered before the board. He pleaded against it in the interests of the public health and of the national future. Other witnesses gave evidence as to the methods used with regard to the deserving poor, who were said to be harassed by the relieving officer, lawyer's letters from the clerk, and occasional legal proceedings in Court. Many witnesses gave evidence that very little money is recovered by these means. I think the Secretary of State spoke to-day of this method as a safeguard for the ratepayers. We find whole pages of evidence from Swansea, Merthyr, Middlesbrough and other towns in England saying that very little, if anything, is ever recovered in this way. It was pointed out this afternoon that the parish councils, like the guardians, would deal with individual cases, but, as a matter of fact, some boards of guardians —Swansea, for instance—resolved that they would give no relief at all save giving it on loan. I think it is also clear that this method does lend itself to laxity of administration, because at one end it deters the deserving poor while at the other end it tends to demoralise. Relief is easily given because it is being given on loan, and it is just as readily accepted by those who have no intention to repay. One of the witnesses was Dr. Robert Burnett, who said: The thing is a farce. Mr. J. T. Dodd, of the Oxford Board of Guardians, speaking of medical relief on loan, sums up the whole position. He said: I should abolish it for two or three reasons. In the first place, it is a very serious deterrent. In the next place, the guardians get very little repaid, so it is of very little good. And in the third place, it impoverishes the family just at the time when they want more money, when there is illness in the home—which costs a great deal of money, as we know. That is just the time when you should not burden the family. Then it is demoralising in most cases, because the man does not pay it back, and in many cases he cannot, and there is the debt hanging on his back. Altogether, making relief a loan is usually a very bad thing This vast mass of evidence—I grant that the evidence is not entirely on one side—cumulatively, is largely against relief on loan, as far as evidence was given before the Commission. It is true that last Wednesday representatives of the parish councils who met, I think, in the West of Scotland, gave a kind of general approval to this principle of loan, but that is a very different thing from this matter being brought before us in a more timely way and the whole of the Parishes considering it in all its bearings. The fact is, that the Government have brought speedily forward and have rushed through this ill-digested proposal. It pleases no one. Their credit is being cried down in the leading Unionist newspapers in Scotland, and it looks as if they would have to go out of business altogether. These objections come from the most opposite quarters, and it may he said that they cancel one another; but I take it that there are some things on which those who are at opposite extremes can really be united, and I think we are united against crude legislation of this kind being introduced in this way. Up to a week ago no one scarcely knew that such a proposal world be made. We knew that the other proposals In the Bill were coming forward in some form.

This proposal has been rushed through in the course of a week, against the declared public opinion of Scotland, Those who were opposing it, arc against needless harshness being exercised on the deserving poor. We are against any system which amounts, as I have sought to show by evidence, to a great deal of make-believe and farce. We desire to see sound business methods in the administration of Poor Law relief. We are united also in desiring that the Scottish Poor Law should not only continue to be what it has been, but that it should cast its aid on the side of thrift and independence, and that it may be a real uplift of the poor people of the country, not only a strengthening of their physical frame, but also a strengthening of their moral fibre.


I desire to make a few remarks in regard to this Measure before it passes the House. I am sorry the Secretary of State for Scotland has not taken the advice offered him from this side in connection with the loan Clause. The, hon. Member who preceded me has given some details of the history which has led up to this legislation. Evidently there was some doubt in Scotland as to the exact legal position in regard to Poor Law relief. Some time ago I put a question to the Secretary of State asking him if he would re-issue the hand-book of Regulations in connection with Poor Law relief. He said that it was out of print, and would cost too much, but I think it is important that parish councils should know what their powers are and that the people who are in need of relief should be able to discover the rights they possess. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that, if it is not possible to re-issue the handbook of Regulations, he should issue a handbook, or something in the way of a Circular, stating exactly the powers that are now in the hands of the parish councils, and giving poor people information as to their exact position in regard to relief. There is some difficulty in the minds of some people as to what the position is. What is the position of a poor person requiring medical assistance? What is the position of the person who goes to the parish council for relief and is told that they cannot give him anything, or that he should go into the poor-house? There is an appeal in each of these cases, and there is also a ruling of the Scottish Board of Health to the effect that a person should get a written statement as to what the parish council has decided in his case.

In many cases the person asking for relief gets no such written statement, and I take the opportunity on this Bill of asking the Secretary of State to do something in order that poor people may know what their rights are in connection with Poor Law relief. That is one of the things I was very anxious to say. I repeat that I am sorry that the Secretary of State has allowed this fatal blemish to remain in the Bill. He is to be congratulated that as a Member of the Cabinet and the present Government he is to be responsible for putting an Act on the Statute Book, a privilege which evidently most of his colleagues will not enjoy. He is to be congratulated on the fact that he is going to be one of the few Ministers to be allowed to pass an Act of Parliament during this Session, but it is a great pity that this money lending sort of Clause is in the Bill, because his administration is going to be known in Scotland as the "Three balls administration," that being the symbol in Scotland for pawnbroking or lending. With a little more willingness to accept the opinion of his opponents and some of his supporters, he might have passed a much more satisfactory Measure on to the Statute Book.


I have only a few words to add to the Debate. I consider this is panic legislation; and we are bound to ask ourselves what motive there is behind it; what is the driving force behind the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State? An hon. Member, who spoke the other day, gave us the reason—it is their concern about the very unjust settlement imposed by hunger on the miners during the recent dispute.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

That is hardly a matter for the Third Reading of this Bill.


I was trying to explain the motive behind the Bill, and I thought it would have been in order. However, if it is not, I will say this as a final protest against what has taken place. I regard this as another act of injustice to Scotland, and a very grave act of injustice. It is being imposed on Scotland by English Conservative Members, who have not taken part in the discussion or even listened to the Debate. That is an additional reason why Scotland should be allowed to manage her own affairs.


May I be permitted to say a few words on the conclusion of this Debate? I am aware that from many quarters, and from a variety of different sources in Scotland, certain protests have come as to the method of dealing with this problem. I only want to say on this point the situation which arose, arose through circumstances which were common to the entire United Kingdom; and when the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) complains about our method of dealing with it, I am justified in reminding him that the legality was also found to be ex post facto. In any case, it was clear that the Government was faced with the problem of either administering the law of relief in the same method or differentiating. Reference has been made to the responsibility of the Board of Health. The responsibility was mine as the Minister advising and in control of the Board of Health, and I take the fullest responsibility. Not only that, but the decision to carry out what I advised was a decision agreed to by the entire Cabinet. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, when this was declared by the Court to be illegal, at any rate in part, the Government have recognised their responsibility and have contributed 40 per cent. I am satisfied that a certain measure of the opposition to what I am doing is coming from a section of the community who would prefer to see no relief given, as is provided under Clause 1 of the Bill. Hon. Members of the opposite side of the House have spoken as if that Clause did not exist.

On the other hand, I am constrained to say to those in Scotland who say that they would prefer to see the old law of Scotland retained, that as I had to administer this problem at the time it was impossible for me to adopt a policy which would give relief to women and children across the border and deny it to

those in Scotland. What position was in if disturbances had arisen from the denial and withholding of this relief? Was I to say that the disturbers were to be suppressed, and that under similar circumstances these people were not to be treated similarly if you say that you are going to abolish that principle in England, well and good; but it was in these circumstances that the decision was taken and in these circumstances that we introduce this Bill to-day, in order —


To anticipate coming events.


It is in order to carry us over a period until there can be a full recasting of the whole of this problem—it would not be proper for me to go into that now—and to achieve equality in treatment between the North and the South of the Tweed.


During the discussion of this Measure special attention has been drawn to tae question of local option. A very vivid description has been given as to what might take place under this Bill on one side of the street as against what might take place on the other. There was a call for uniformity of action, and I am making a special note of that deliverance from the Front Opposition Bench, and I expect that hen. Members opposite will be much impressed with it as well.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 104.

Division No. 27.] AYES. [5.45 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Campbell, E. T.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Carver, Major W. H.
Albery, Irving James Blundell, F. N. Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Braithwaite, Major A. N. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Briggs, J. Harold Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Briscoe, Richard George Christie, J. A.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Brittain, Sir Harry Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover) Brocklebank, C. E. R. Clarry, Reginald George
Atholl, Duchess of Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Cobb, Sir Cyril
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Buckingham, Sir H. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Cooper, A. Duff
Bennett, A. J. Burman, J. B. Cope, Major William
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Burton, Colonel H. W. Couper, J. B.
Berry, Sir George Butler, Sir Geoffrey Courtauld, Major J.[...]
Bethel, A. Butt, Sir Alfred Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Betterton, Henry B. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Remnant, Sir James
Crawfurd, H. E. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Rice, Sir Frederick
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Jacob, A. E. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Ropner, Major L.
Dalkeith, Earl of Jephcott, A. R. Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) Kindersley, Major Guv M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) King, Captain Henry Douglas Sandeman, A. Stewart
Davies, Dr. Vernon Knox, Sir Alfred Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lamb, J. O. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sandon, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Loder, J. de V. Savery, S. S.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Elliot, Major Walter E. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Skelton, A. N.
England, Colonel A. Lumley, L. R. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons.-M.) Lynn, Sir R. J. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Smithers, Waldron
Fermoy, Lord Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Fielden, E. B. Maclntyre, I. Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ford, Sir P. J. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Fraser, Captain Ian McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Gates, Percy Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Makins, Brigadier-General E. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Malone, Major P. B. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Styles, Captain H. Walter
Gower, Sir Robert Margesson, Captain D. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Grace, John Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Grant, Sir J. A. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Merriman, F. B. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Meyer, Sir Frank Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w.E) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Grotrian, H. Brent Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Moreing, Captain A. H. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hammersley, S. S. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Murchison, Sir C. K. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Harland, A. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Harney, E. A. Nelson, Sir Frank Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hartington, Marquess of Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Hawke, John Anthony Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Penny, Frederick George Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wise, Sir Fredric
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Withers, John James
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wolmer, Viscount
Holland, Sir Arthur Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Womersley, W. J.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Philipson, Mabel Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Pilcher, G. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Pownall, Sir Assheton Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Radford, E. A. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Raine, W
Huntingfield, Lord Rawson, Sir Cooper TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hurd, Percy A. Reid, D. D. (County Sown) Major Sir George Hennessy and
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Remer, J. R. Captain Lord Stanley.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Dennison, R. Kelly, W. T.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Dunnico, H. Kennedy, T.
Ammon, Charles George Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston) Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lawrence, Susan
Baker, Walter Gardner, J. P. Lawson, John James
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Lee, F.
Barnes, A. Greenall, T, Lindley, F. W.
Barr, J. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lowth, T.
Batey, Joseph Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lunn, William
Bondfield, Margaret Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Briant, Frank Groves, T. Mackinder, W.
Broad, F. A. Grundy, T. W. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Bromfield, William Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) MacNeill-Weir, L.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) March, S.
Buchanan, G. Hardie, George D. Montague, Frederick
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)
Cluse, W. S. Hirst, G. H. Naylor, T. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Connolly, M. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Ponsonby, Arthur
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) John, William (Rhondda, West) Potts, John S.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Purcell, A. A.
Day, Colonel Harry Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Riley, Ben Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Ritson, J. Stamford, T. W. Wellock, Wilfred
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland) Stephen, Campbell Westwood, J.
Rose, Frank H. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Whiteley, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred Sullivan, J. Wiggins, William Martin
Scrymgeour, E. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Soxton, James Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Thurtle, Ernest Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Sitch, Charles H. Trevelyan, Rt, Hon. C. P. Wright, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H. Varley, Frank B.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey,Rotherhithe) Viant, S. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley) Wallhead, Richard C. Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.
Snell, Harry Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.