§ Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. AMMONI regret, at this late hour, to detain the House, but the matter is of such vital importance that I feel this Bill ought not to receive a Third Reading unchallenged. We are here faced with a position in regard to Colonial government, almost precisely the same as that which we have just been discussing in regard to municipal government. Here, again, the Government propose to take a retrogressive step, with regard to the rights of elected representatives. As has been said, it would seem that this Government are trying to destroy all the rights that have been built up during centuries—the rights of government by the representatives of the people. There are two points which I desire to raise which were not before the House on the Second Reading. The first is the denial of the Government that help could have been given to this Colony by means of the Colonial Stocks Act. Since the last discussion I have fortified myself with a copy of the Treasury Order of 6th December, 1900, dealing with Colonial stocks, and it states there:
The Colony shall provide by legislation for the payment out of the revenue of the Colony of any sum which may become payable to stockholders under any judgment, decree, rule or order of a Court in the United Kingdom. The Colony shall satisfy the Treasury that adequate funds as and when required will be made available in the United Kingdom to meet any such judgment, decree, rule or order.I suggest that if there was the slightest intention on the part of the Government to give the elected representatives in this Colony a fair chance, and if there was the slightest good will, there is nothing in these Regulations issued by the Treasury which cannot be fulfilled by the Colony. It has been said that there is a large deficit of over £600,000 in the aggregate, spread over a period of seven years. It has been admitted that the Colony is potentially one of the richest in the British Dominions. Therefore, it is simply a matter of some little attention and care, with a little good will, and we can assist the people to get over these difficulties and to work out their own salva- 1872 tion.Democratic government carries with it certain risks, and there are bound to be certain mistakes during the initial stages of its development. The history of our own Constitution tells us that, and this Mother of Parliaments ought not to take away from this Colony the right of self-government which it has enjoyed for about 130 years. That would be a blot on our national scutcheon. Since the last discussion, I have received a communication from the Colony—to which I hope the House will give better attention than it seems inclined to do at present. It is quite probable that the Colonial Office have had some inkling of the statements which are now rife in the Colony. These are statements to the effect that the Government have been influenced against the elected members and against democratic control in that Colony by certain financial interests and certain people who have a desire to get rid of democratic government in order to batten on the resources and concessions in that country.A telegram has been sent saying that the colonists deeply resent any such aspersions on their loyalty to the British Government, and that they are astounded that the British Government have determined to change their Constitution without the people's consent and without their being consulted. They further point to a precedent created with regard to Jamaica in 1839, when a somewhat similar position arose under Lord Melbourne's Government. On that occasion, however, instead of taking the step that this Government propose to take, they decided to trust the people a little longer in order that they might work out their own salvation, and they trust that that action was justified so far as Jamaica was concerned. British Guiana is not very far removed geographically from Jamaica, and it would be a tremendous mistake if we acted in the way proposed in this Bill. The telegram further points out that the local Constitution Commission was, so they say, a packed tribunal. It consisted of four Government officials, one executive councillor and only two representatives of the people, and all were appointed by the Government. They claim that the recommendations are not expressive of the will of the people and not warranted by the evidence given before the Commission.
1873 I think it is necessary both for the protection of the colonists and the satisfaction of the British public that the Government should, at least, be able to give a categorical denial to the statements that are running in the Colony. Evidently they think, with good foundation, that it is financial interests that are mainly concerned; that the Government have been influenced by those interests and are taking this step on behalf of interests mostly financed from American sources. I am willing to hand this telegram to the Under-Secretary of State. The only other point I would make before the Bill passes through its final stage is, that I hope it is not too late, even now, to consider some method whereby the right of the people to their representatives can still be maintained in the Colony. I think that at least the elected members of the Legislative Assembly should be taken into the executive body of the Government and contact with the people maintained. It would not be right for any hon. Member in this House, irrespective of party, who still holds a belief in democratic government and Parliamentary institutions, to allow this Bill to go through without at least challenging it in the Division Lobby.
Mr. ROYWILSONI should not have spoken at this late hour had not the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) brought to the notice of the House what he states is a rumour which is rife in the Colony to the effect that financial influences, particularly from American sources, have induced the Government to bring in this Bill to alter the Constitution of the Colony. All that I want to say, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and myself, who were the Commission that visited British Guiana in 1926, is that so far as we are concerned there is not the faintest shadow of support for any contention of that sort. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies last week, when he introduced this Bill, told the House that it was based on the Report of the British Guiana Commission, and I should like to say quite definitely and as strongly as I can in this House that my colleague and myself went out to British Guiana with entirely and completely open minds. We had no instructions or suggestions from 1874 anybody. We took the position as we saw it.
We presented our report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies after most careful consideration; and as far as I am concerned—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my colleague—I can say without reservation that to suggest that financial interests were at the back of our recommendations, is completely untrue. As far as American financial influence is concerned, it certainly is my wish—and I am sure it is his—that if and when British Guiana is able to control her own financial policy through her own Government on the spot, it is British finance that we hope will be forthcoming for that Colony—finance supplied from this end by Britishers, so that the influence in that Colony shall be entirely and completely British as it ought to be in all Colonies under the control of the British Empire. I hope I have made it quite clear to the House that we dissociate ourselves entirely and completely from any rumour of the sort suggested. It has no foundation in fact, and I hope the short statement I have made will be as widely reported in the Press, both of that Colony and here as is possible.
§ Miss WILKINSONThose of us who have heard both the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) will agree that, so far as the Commission is concerned, their work was done with the utmost conscientiousness. I have had a deputation to see me recently on this matter, and there are certain questions that I have been asked to put to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It seems to some of us that this question of British Guiana is of a piece with the general Colonial policy of the Government. Some of us feel profoundly perturbed as to what is really behind the policy of the Government at this moment in coming forward to disturb this Constitution which has lasted for 130 years. Obviously, the Under-Secretary, as the Commission does, can point to corruption and inefficiency of the present small number of registered voters with a high property qualification and with a high direct taxation qualification, who in fact control the administration of this Colony. 1875 It is not a democracy of that kind that either my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench or any other Member on this side is thinking about. The question is what is going to be the effect on the native population, and what is the policy behind the Government in taking the whole of the administration of this Colony out of their hands? If there were a situation such as existed in Kenya, where the local population is being mercilessly exploited by the planters, we should gladly welcome it if an enlightened Government decided that the native interests were to be protected, but we find this Government, which is so anxious to bestow upon Kenya self-government, is proposing the opposite policy in British Guiana. We want to know why?
There is the position in British Guiana. There is a total population of 300,000, or about half the population of a town like Sheffield, in a territory about the size of England. Of that number, no less than 124,000 are East Indians. The greater proportion are brought to British Guiana under a system of indentured labour. In 1922, when a large number of the contracts of these indentured labourers expired, not one of the men was returned. We want to know why, and whether they have been returned since, and, if so, how many of them What is the policy of the Government towards this indentured labour? The conditions are so notoriously bad that I have been informed by a deputation which called on me that the Government of India has expressed its unwillingness to allow more indentured labour to go to British Guiana. Obviously I am not speaking from first-hand information, but from information supplied to me by people who have—[Interruption]—I have not been to British Guiana, nor, I gather, have the great majority of the Members of this House.
§ Mr. ALBERYWill the hon. Member say what deputation has been to see her?
§ Miss WILKINSONIt consisted of natives—of people who have been in British Guiana and have brought certain facts before me, and I want to know the position.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)Will the hon. Member say what natives she is referring to—are they aboriginal natives?
§ Miss WILKINSONCertainly not. I do not suppose there are any aboriginal natives of British Guiana at present floating round London. The people who are concerned in the matter are the Hindus—the Indians.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREAn Indian deputation?
§ Miss WILKINSONYes.
§ Mr. ALBERYFrom British Guiana?
§ Miss WILKINSONI am so sorry if I have not made myself plain to the hon. Member. Perhaps I had better repeat it in words of one syllable.
§ Mr. ALBERYI really only wished to acquire information. The hon. Member said a deputation had been to see her. All I want to know is whether the deputation was from British Guiana and, if so, what deputation it was?
§ Miss WILKINSONThe deputation which has been to see me consists of Indians who are concerned about the conditions——[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—of Indians in British Guiana who have first-hand knowledge of the situation. I only wish to make it clear that I myself have not visited British Guiana.
§ Mr. GEOFFREY PETOHas the deputation come from British Guiana?
§ Miss WILKINSONThe gentlemen who came to see me are particularly interested in and concerned about the welfare of indentured Indian labour in British Guiana. They have first-hand knowledge of the conditions there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have they been there?"] One of them, at least, has been there. A large number of Members, like the Under-Secretary earlier in the Debate, make large statements about things they know nothing whatever about, but I have taken the trouble to find out. Perhaps it is unusual for an hon. Member of this House to get up and endeavour, with the greatest clearness, to make it perfectly plain where she has obtained her information. It would be possible to talk at large about 1877 British Guiana; but I have no desire to do that. I now hope that hon. Members who are spending so much of their time interrupting will allow me to go on. What I want to know is whether the Under-Secretary can give us any information as to the conditions of this indentured labour, and whether he can give me any undertaking on behalf of the Government that under the new Constitution the rights of these natives will be safeguarded? At present, these people have no right to vote at all unless they have the property qualification that would enable them to join the 6,000 people on the list of registered voters. The people on that list are the only voters who have a right to elect members of the joint committee or any of their representatives. If the Under-Secretary can assure me that a large number of indentured Hindus ever reach that high qualification I shall be pleased to know it, because my information is to the contrary. It seems to me that if the Under-Secretary is really concerned about the democratic development of the Colony, what he should do is to extend the franchise so that all the persons concerned may have some voice in the matter. The revelations in regard to the treatment of indentured labour in Kenya and British Guiana constitute part of the cause of the unrest existing in India at the present time. The Indians are of the opinion that they do not get a fair deal. They allege that their indenture contracts are not carried out, and that they are shamefully treated. It seems to me that before we adopt a new Constitution like this for British Guiana we should receive more information than that which has been given to us by the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI am afraid that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is labouring under a good many misapprehensions. It is six or seven years since I was in British Guiana, and at that time there was no indentured labour there at all, and there certainly is none there now. As a matter of fact, every East Indian who wishes to return to India is at liberty to do so. A large majority of the East Indians have settled in Guiana. Some of them are labourers, but a number of them are workmen and artisans employed in the 1878 various activities of the Colony. A very large proportion of these workers are employed in the rice industry, and they have settled in the Colony. The East Indian, the aborigines, the Africans, the Chinese, and the people of mixed races all have votes exactly on the same terms. By far the larger proportion are Africans. It has been proved that a large proportion of the East Indian community have not taken the precaution of putting themselves on the register, and I trust that they will do so. I hope that every effort will be made to get more Indian peasant proprietors to place themselves on the register in order that they may take part in the government of the Colony They are perfectly entitled to do so; there is no racial bar. I am glad to say that, under the proposed Order in Council, which will be passed when this Bill comes into operation, there will be a certain lowering of the franchise. Personally, I am glad to say that, and I would go further and say that, if there is one thing that the existing elected Members seem anxious to avoid, it is a further extension of the franchise. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a reactionary step. Indeed, I hope it is going to be one of the first steps in the direction of a more democratic form of government, replacing an obsolete 18th century Constitution which has been unchanged and unchangeable for 130 years. The hon. Member seemed to think that there were something like 6,000 or 7,000 sugar planters in British Guiana. Let me assure her that, if there are 100, that is as many as there are.
§ Miss WILKINSONI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that there were 6,000 registered voters, and I said that the power was in the hands of the sugar planters. I did not suggest that there were 6,000 sugar planters.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI do not think there is a single sugar planter who would admit that the power was in his hands. So far as I know, there is only one Member either of the Court of Policy or of the Combined Court who is in any way connected with the sugar industry. I am not sure whether even he is a sugar planter now, but at any rate he was. One of the complaints, indeed, has been that the sugar industry has practically no 1879 representation of any kind in the councils of the Colony. With regard to what has been said about the effect on India, it is certainly not the policy of the Government, and there is no intention at all, to re-start the indenture system. It was abolished long ago. As to the question of sanitary conditions, I quite agree that, owing to the fact that the Government of the Colony has never had the power to govern, the sanitary conditions in British Guiana are greatly in need of reform, and one of the first steps to be taken under these proposals, which will conduce to some continuity of policy, will be, I hope, to do something to improve the sanitary conditions in the Colony.
I will now turn from the hon. Member's inquiries, which were quite fair and which I think I have answered, to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). His first point was in regard to Colonial stocks. I might, perhaps, inform the House that British Guiana is neither a country possessing full self-government—that is to say, responsible government, as in the case of one of the Dominions—which it has never had, nor a Colony where the ultimate control is vested in the Secretary of State responsible to this House, and the object of this reserve power is to enable it to be made perfectly clear, on the face of any prospectus issued by the Crown Agents on the London market for the public loans of British Guiana, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and this House have an ultimate power to secure all the services of such a loan. Such a reserve power is in existence in Jamaica and Ceylon, where there are unofficial majorities, and it is absolutely essential for security. It is a great advantage to British Colonies, in that it enables them to raise their public loans under the Colonial Stocks Act, which means that they are trustee securities, and can be raised at a far lower charge to the taxpayers of those Colonies, and are therefore far more helpful to their development than if there were no such power.
I come to the next point raised. I too have seen the telegram to which the hon. Member referred. It would appear that one of the elected members of British 1880 Guiana who has been over here in the last few weeks has sent to one of the other elected members an account in which it is suggested that the Government had given as a ground for a change of the constitution something to do with American capital—it is not quite clear exactly what he said—and an attitude of disloyalty. The two Government spokesmen were the Secretary of State and myself, and in both cases we made no charge against any of the elected members. We rather went out of our way to acquit them of any responsibility for the breakdown in government which was revealed by the Commission under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson). We made it quite clear in our speeches that the reason for the change was that the system was a bad one and that some change should be made. There was no suggestion of disloyalty or of financial influence, American or otherwise. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield said what he did in that connection here to-night. I can give a most frank repudiation. As a matter of fact, though it is true that successive Governors for some time past have raised the question of possible changes in the constitution with successive Secretaries of State, it was not until my right hon. Friend received the Report of the recent Parliamentary Commission which went out there that he decided that the time for a change had come. We decided that a change must be made when we got that Report. My right hon. Friend decided that a change in the Constitution was necessary, and he adopted the course recommended by the Commission in referring the matter to a local commission. Whatever the form of Constitution set up, there would have been criticisms by persons hostile to any change at all. But there was no decision taken before the Commission went out. They recommended a change and a local commission as to the form it should take. It has been carried out step by step in the most constitutional manner.
As to this change, the hon. Member for North Camberwell said that the Jamaica precedent should be examined. As far as I recollect, there was power in the Jamaica Constitution, granted in the 17th century, to alter the Constitution. 1881 There is no power in British Guiana to alter the Constitution. Neither the Court of Policy nor the Combined Court can alter the Constitution. There is only one possible authority which can alter it, and that is the Imperial Parliament. The Secretary of State cannot alter a jot or tittle of this ancient Constitution which is 130 years old. We are in an absolute cul-de-sac until an Act of Parliament puts British Guiana in the same position as the Gold Coast or Nigeria or any other colony. It is true that Jamaica had a Constitution in the old days not without features analogous to the Constitution of British Guiana, but in practice they did away with this and the Crown resumed control. Since the Crown resumed control, the Crown has from time to time made certain alteration by Order-in-Council in the Constitution. They have the type of Constitution which will be very simple, the type that it is proposed to give now to British Guiana. I think that answers that point.
Then, finally, the hon. Member raised the question of the relations of the unofficial majority, partly elected and partly nominated, with the future executive. He realises, as the Commission realised, that one of the fundamental vices of the British Guiana Constitution is that in practice it inevitably makes all the elected members into an Opposition and the Government purely official. That is the form of the Constitution that we wish to change. He attaches importance to bringing members of the Legislature into the Executive Council, the proposed new governing authority.
§ That is my right hon. Friend's intention, that every member of the new Executive Council under the reformed Constitution shall be a member of the new Legislative Council, and that the executive shall be composed partly of officials who are members of the Legislative Council, partly of nominated unofficials, and partly of elected members, It is his intention to get away from what is essentially an obsolete form of government into a form of government that can be progressive. Under the new Constitution, every single item, other than the small Civil List, is subject to an annual vote. There can now be no continuity in the Consolidated Fund for the service of the debt. It is beyond the power of the existing Government to do that. A change in the Constitution is essential if that is to be done. The actual form of the Order in Council will be mainly in accordance with the recommendations of the local Commission and will be laid on the Table as soon as it is drafted after the Bill has received the Royal Assent. I now ask the House to give a Third Reading to a Bill which, I can assure hon. Members, is not only necessary in the interest of the progress. and happiness of all sections of the population, but is absolutely essential if British Guiana is to develop any real form of self-government and of democratic institutions in the future.
§ Question put, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 70.
1883| Division No. 36.] | AYES. | [12.0 m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Briscoe, Richard George | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Davies,Maj.Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil), |
| Albery, Irving James | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Drewe, C. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Apsley, Lord | Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Ellis, R. G. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Buckingham, Sir H. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Burman, J. B. | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campbell, E. T. | Fenby, T. D. |
| Balniel, Lord | Carver, Major W. H. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Finburgh. S. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Clayton, G. C. | Ford, Sir P. J. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Couper, J. B. | Gates, Percy |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Grace, John |
| Blundell, F N. | Crawfurd, H. E. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Griffith, F. Kingsley |
| Brass, Captain W. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Dalkeith, Earl of | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Margesson, Captain D. | Smith-Carington, Neville w. |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Merriman, F. B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Harland, A. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Harris, Percy A. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'land) |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hendenon, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Oakley, T. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Owen, Major G. | Tichfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone) | Penny, Frederick George | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hope, Capt. A. O, J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Pilcher, G. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandswortn, Cen'l) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Preston, William | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Raine, Sir Walter | Wells, S. R. |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). | Ramsden, E. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Rice, Sir Frederick | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Long, Major Eric | Salmon, Major I. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Savery, S. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Macintyre, Ian | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) | Major Cope and Mr. Frederick |
| McLean, Major A. | Shepperson, E. W. | Thomson. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardie, George D. | Riley, Ben |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hayes, John Henry | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, Walter | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barnes, A. | Hirst, G. H. | Scurr, John |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T | Sullivan, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Clowes, S. | Lawrence, Susan | Townend, A. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawson, John James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lee, F. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Harry | Lindley, F. W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Duncan, C. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Welsh, J. C. |
| Dunnico, H. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin, H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Mr. parkinson and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Grundy, T. W. |
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.