HC Deb 22 November 1928 vol 222 cc2071-88

Amendment proposed [16th November]:

In page 6, to leave out lines 15 to 17 inclusive.—[Mr. Scurr.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

Captain GARRO-JONES

The London Traffic question is not one to which I would ask the Committee to address their attention at this late hour were it not for the fact that it is approaching the critical stage. There is an Amendment before the Committee to provide for the omission of the London Traffic Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and, as there will be few further occasions between now and the General Election when we shall be able to raise these points, I am going to ask the Committee to bear with me while, as briefly as possible, I ask the Minister what is his attitude towards two or three of the more important questions which are disturbing the minds of the inhabitants of London at the present time. The first of these questions is the question of horse-drawn traffic. The number of horse-drawn vehicles on the streets of London is daily increasing, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not fully alive to the total extent of the delay caused by this form of traffic. The delay caused by horse-drawn traffic does not only arise in places where there are only single lines of traffic—there the delay is obvious to everyone—but also where there are double lines of traffic, for there the horse-drawn vehicles drive out the slower ten to fifteen mile an hour lorries into the only other line of traffic available, and thus hold up the fast traffic. The delay is cumulative, and mounts up at the busiest hour. I only mention that in passing, because I am afraid that the Minister has paid too much attention to the interests of the people who own these horse-drawn vehicles, chiefly brewers and railway companies. Both in their way serve useful purposes, but not so useful as to warrant this continued congestion which they are causing in London traffic.

The second point I wish to raise is the question of accidents on the roads, a question closely allied to that of horse-drawn traffic. There are more than 1,000 people killed on the streets of London every year. Strangely enough, more than 50 per cent, of those accidents are caused in respect of vehicles proceeding at less than 10 miles an hour. I will quote a short extract from the report of the London Traffic Committee: There is no doubt that the hazards of the streets are serious and likely to become more serious. The number of children killed each year is a matter for deep concern. I will also quote a statement by Sir Henry Maybury: Speed and accidents are by no means synonymous: 56 per cent. of the accidents in London happen at a speed of less than 10 miles per hour. Only the other day Sir Henry Maybury stated before the Royal Commission on Transport that there are steps which can be taken to diminish these accidents. The right hon. Gentleman has not, as far as I know, taken any of these steps, and has not accepted any of the recommendations which have been made with a view to decreasing this large number of accidents. For example, there are the cases of ill-lighted streets, streets where the lighting is not uniform, streets where you have lights on one side of the road, and no lights and no kerb on the other side, so that motorists are unable to distinguish between the road and the footpath. In addition, there are a large number of definite, practicable proposals for the diminution of this growing number of accidents which the right hon. Gentleman has not put into operation at all. The truth is that the Ministry of Transport requires a type of man whom the Minister would probably regard with disapproval. It requires a man of great energy and determination to overrule these conflicting interests and petty objections. I was reading the other day something by Sydney Smith, who described someone as "a steam engine in trousers." The Minister smiles at that. There is a type more amusing than that, and that is the horse-drawn type. The right hon. Gentleman has the horse-drawn mind, slow, staid, resentful of any hurry and complaining of any who try to push him on a little that they are obstructing traffic. When they complain of our obstruction on this side of the House there is more obstruction on that Front Bench than there ever has been from here, and the difference between their obstruction and ours is that they are obstructing progress while we are doing our best to obstruct reaction.

I want to come to what is probably the core of this problem, that is the London traffic combine. There are three salient facts in this connection. The first is that every railway in this country had its maximum charging powers settled by a tribunal after a full public inquiry except the London traffic combine, secondly that a passenger, or any person interested, can go before the Railway Rates Tribunal, if he thinks the charges are unsatisfactory, and state a case and get it rectified, but that is not so in the case of the London traffic combine. Only the other day we passed a Bill giving the railway companies extensive road powers, but we were careful to provide that any aggrieved person could go to the Railway Rates Tribunal in respect of those road powers given to the companies and make his complaint and have it remedied. None of those provisions apply to the London traffic combine at all. In this House ever since the first monopolistic powers were given to the railway companies in 1854 the House has been careful to provide machinery under which those aggrieved can secure redress. The one outstanding exception to that is the London traffic combine. Even in the case of the Mersey Railway, which merely goes from Birkenhead to Liverpool, a passenger can appear before the tribunal to have a grievance remedied. I should like to ask the Minister why it is that this anomaly is allowed to exist. One answer the Minister gives us continually is that he has an Advisory Committee. I am sure we shall all agree that he needs it, but the trouble is that those who need advice most are generally the most reluctant to act upon it, and the Minister is one of those.

I should like to say something about the Advisory Committee, because there are two or three respected Members of the House who are members of it. I think the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has devoted long labour to the work and there is also Sir Henry Maybury, who is so greatly admired by the Minister of Transport that he allows him to remain on the Committee in spite of the fact that he is free to undertake private employment which may conflict with his duties. That Committee has embarked upon a prolonged inquiry into the question of London traffic and has produced almost unanimous recommendations.

11.0 p.m.

The London Traffic Advisory Committee have recommended the establishment of a common management and a common fund, and, above all, the effective public control of the London Traffic Combine. I am not in entire agreement with everything that the London Traffic Advisory Committee suggested, but there, at any rate, were practical suggestions, arrived at with unanimity, reconciling all the conflicting interests, which were put forward to the right hon. Gentleman. I have here quotations. Provided that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute them, I will not read the quotations, as they are somewhat long. I will summarise the position in this way: The scheme carefully prepared by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, representative of every possible interest, was unanimously arrived at by them, and that it secured the support of the municipal authorities of London and even of the London Traffic Combine itself. There was urgency and unanimity in the demand that this scheme should be put into effect.

What was the position at the end of 1927? There was no doubt about it that the hour of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had come. This Committee had been sitting for three years. Witnesses had been examined. The poor folk who have to put up with the inconveniences of the traffic twice daily had told their tale to the Committee. Members of Parliament, who were naturally anxious to impress their constituents with their forensic ability, had made several voluble appearances before the tribunal. Learned counsel, considerably refreshed by fees from time to time, had employed their arguments to the finest point. The Committee had acted on all these representations. They produced a unanimous scheme and secured the adherence of organised labour so that at the end of 1927, if ever, the time for hesitation had passed, and clearly the day of action had arrived. The eyes of the whole community was fixed on the Minister of Transport. Even his Cabinet colleagues were looking at him with expectancy and with some anxiety expecting him to take some definite action. But he did nothing. He merely made a few uneasy wriggles and then relapsed into his usual attitude of contented repose. I am going to leave him in that happy position owing to the lateness of the hour, hoping that some day, at any rate, we shall have someone at the Ministry of Transport who will have a little more vision, because where there is no vision the people perish. London traffic in a very few years is going to be in a much worse state than it is to-day unless it is tackled firmly at the present time.

Mr. BARNES

In our discussion of this matter on Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) referred to a subject to which the Minister, in our view, did not give an adequate reply. I desire to-night again to refer to this matter and to ask the Committee to give it more consideration. The issue to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is the resignation of Sir Henry Maybury and the subsequent intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, may I remind the Committee that in the policy which led up to the formation of the London Traffic Advisory Committee it is recognised generally that Sir Henry Maybury played a very large part. Since the formation of that Committee Sir Henry Maybury has been the nominee of the Minister on the Committee, and has occupied the position of chairman. In asking the Committee to discuss this matter we do not desire to cast any personal aspersion on the character, ability or intentions of Sir Henry Maybury who in addition to being chairman of the London Traffic Advisory Committee has also occupied the important position of Director-General of Roads. We understand that it is now his intention to engage in private practice as a consulting engineer. Of course it is quite within the province of any civil servant to leave his present occupation and engage in any other that he considers will be to his advantage, but in view of the statement by the Minister that it is his intention to continue Sir Henry Maybury as the nominee of his Department on the Advisory Committee, we are entitled to address this pertinent, question to the right hon. Gentleman: "Are we to understand from that decision that there is no officer at the present time in his Department who is capable of performing the functions which Sir Henry Maybury has carried on during the past few years?" If so, we claim that a serious precedent is being established. Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by dealing with the constitution of the Committee. The Committee is composed of 19 members, 12 of whom are described as ordinary representatives and are drawn from public departments. Primarily, their responsibility is to safeguard the public interests. When we were discussing the constitution of the Advisory Committee the House made a very clear distinction between those who were ordinary members and the additional members who specifically represented interests. The Section in the Act which governs the selection of ordinary members has special significance because it was not in the original Bill drafted by the then Minister of Transport, but was inserted by the Committee upstairs, with the common consent of members of all parties, as representing an important principle: Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority or group of local authorities, other than the representatives of the city police, shall be a member of a local authority or one of a group of authorities, as the case may be, and if he ceases to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the committee. I clearly remember the discussion that took place when we inserted that proviso. It was clearly the view of hon. Members that it was not desirable to have as one of the ordinary members on the Advisory Committee any person who was not directly connected with a public authority in his representative capacity. We had not the slightest conception that either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Minister of Transport would ever think of appointing any person in their private and personal capacity, other than one of the chief officers of his Department. Another reason why this safeguard was not applied to the two national Departments was because it was known that Sir Henry Maybury, who had taken a prominent part in the negotiations which led up to the London Traffic Act, would occupy an important post on the Committee. That officer is now going into private practice and we have the Minister of Transport continuing his appointment as a member of the Committee. That is a point which I consider of major importance. I should like to support my general argument by referring to Section (4), which deals with the constitution of this Committee. Again, there is a differentiation between the duties of the ordinary members and the additional members, which emphasises the point that it was clearly the intention of the House that the ordinary members should be responsible to public authorities. The obligation imposed upon ordinary members was that they should attend all meetings of the Committee, whereas the additional members, who were appointed to represent interests, were only called together from time to time.

Section (5) also supports my general contention, as it states that a person shall be disqualified as a member of the Traffic Advisory Committee if he was a director of a company or a partner in a firm, or in the employ of a firm engaged in providing means of transport within the London traffic area. It shows clearly that the ordinary members were to sit as members of local bodies. If there had been any idea that the Minister of Transport would ever make a departure of this sort I am sure the same governing Clause would have been applied to the representatives of the national departments. At the present moment one cannot argue that Sir Henry Maybury will ever come under this description, but when we reach a situation like this in public affairs it is only natural that suspicions should be aroused. It has already been suggested that Sir Henry Maybury may obtain a directorship of one of the bodies connected with London traffic.

Colonel ASHLEY

He would have to resign.

Mr. BARNES

The right hon. Gentleman on Friday stated specifically that he intended to appoint him—

Colonel ASHLEY

But if he comes under the disqualifications mentioned in the Act he would automatically have to resign.

Mr. B. SMITH

Is it not the ease that his resignation has been tendered and that he leaves next month?

Colonel ASHLEY

The point I am making is that if I appoint Sir Henry Maybury and he comes under these disqualifications he will automatically resign his position, but until he does something contrary to the Act, why criticise him?

Mr. BARNES

There are certain eases in which resignation must follow, but it must be remembered that there are border-line cases. The London Traffic Advisory Committee is a body which spends large sums of public money.

Colonel ASHLEY

It does not spend a single sum. I spend the money.

Mr. BARNES

The London Traffic Advisory Committee's recommendations and advice to the Minister affect the expenditure of large sums of public money.

Colonel ASHLEY

The responsibility and the decision rest with the Minister and not with the Committee.

Mr. BARNES

That is the reason why we raise the point to-night. Although the Minister accepts full responsibility one assumes that the advice of this Advisory Committee affects his decision. Otherwise, why appoint the Advisory Committee? Therefore the connection between the Minister's position and the spending of large sums of public money is directly involved. Let me mention two schemes that this Advisory Committee has been considering—the East London Dock Road, the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge and the shifting of Charing Cross Station to the South side of the river. In these two schemes from £13,000,000 to £14,000,000 is involved. Does the Minister mean to say that the profession of a consulting engineer does not in any way touch the two schemes referred to? When we are discussing an officer like Sir Henry Maybury, who has unique experience in these problems that affect London traffic, does the Minister mean to tell me that it is not natural that persons whose interests are involved should go to an expert like Sir Henry Maybury? If his advice is obtained under circumstances of that sort we claim that there are grounds for public suspicion, and that leads to an invidious situation that is not necessary.

Perhaps I can better illustrate the point by reminding the Committee of what took place recently. Everyone recognises that the police service as a whole does not deserve to have public suspicion cast upon it, but we know that certain incidents have occurred, certain border-line cases, which to a very large extent have destroyed public confidence in the service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No!" When their own Government have appointed a Commission what is the use of stating that that does not represent some loss of public confidence. It is obvious to the man in the street, if it is not obvious to the hon. Member who is lolling on the benches opposite. Situations of that sort are likely to produce a similar feeling with regard to the London traffic policy, especially in view of the fact that in London to-day there is a very widespread belief that special vested interests are manipulating the whole of the policy behind London traffic control. We have seen in recent years the Americanisation of British industry to a large extent. We do not want to see the Americanisation of the British public service in the same way. There have been tendencies in that direction in the last year or two. We have seen a procession of civil servants who had occupied important positions, passing out of the Civil Service into private business. What is the inevitable development? We have found in a fair number of cases that these persons have immediately taken up directorships of companies that are connected in a variety of ways with Parliamentary policy—companies like sugar companies, and traffic companies, and other companies of that description which come to Parliament for powers to assist them in their business policy.

Why should public servants obtain directorships so easily? No business appoints directors for the fun of the thing. They appoint directors, obviously, because it serves their business interests to do so. Companies appoint directors, because it will help their revenue or sales. When we come up against incidents like this, we are entitled to ask the Minister to clear up the position and give an assurance that if Sir Henry Maybury leaves his present position he is not to occupy the position of an ordinary member of that committee. There are no circumstances which warrant the present proposal. The Minister should have officers in his Department fully capable of performing these functions. We register our protest. It is sometimes difficult to find a word and I do not want unduly to exaggerate the situation. We wish to be assured that in the public mind there shall be no feeling that behind the scenes there have been intrigues or arrangements, or a personal understanding, whereby a public officer is to pass out of the public service and yet retain a position which he occupied as a public servant. We ask the Minister not to deal with this matter in the light, irrelevant manner in which he dealt with it on Friday last, but that he shall treat it as a matter of urgent public importance.

Colonel ASHLEY

I think it may be to the advantage of the Committee if I answer the three main points which have been raised in the Debate so far. First there is the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) about the fares on the underground railways. I have not had time to look them up, because I did not know the exact point which the hon. and gallant Member was going to raise, but my recollection is that the fares on those lines are fixed by statute and that in Measures passed by this House, maximum fares are imposed. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there is no control. There is such control as Parliament has deemed it right to exercise in the past and I cannot be held responsible for Acts of Parliament passed some years ago, if they are wrong.

Captain GARRO-JONES

The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. Maximum fares were fixed by statute, but not after a full public inquiry, and they are not now alterable on application to a public tribunal as in the case of other railways.

Colonel ASHLEY

The complaint of the hon. and gallant Member is against what Parliament has done in the past. I cannot be held responsible for that. If the hon. Member brings in a Bill to change all this, perhaps hr can rely on the justice of his case to induce the House of Commons to give it a Second Reading and pass it into law. The hon. and gallant Member, after a few personal remarks about myself, proceeded to ask me why I had done nothing to carry into effect the recommendations of the London Traffic Advisory Committee with reference to common management and a common fund for the means of transport in the traffic area. I am as anxious as anyone in this House or outside it that something should be done to coordinate the means of transport in this great city and, above all, by co-ordination to do what I and every London Member wishes to see done, namely, to provide better means of transport by tube or otherwise for the inhabitants of the Eastern and North Eastern suburbs. We all wish to see that done, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that there is such a thing as Parliamentary time.

If a Government Department has had the good fortune to succeed in getting a good slice, as mine has, of Parliamentary time allocated to it to carry through one or two projects, it is quite impossible—because every Government must balance the various interests that some to it—to do everything they would like to do. That is the answer. Whatever sympathy I have for the labours and the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee, the lack of Parliamentary time is an insuperable bar to anything being done. I hope and trust that when we see the Bills which will be brought forward by the London County Council and by Lord Ashfield's combine for a voluntary common management and common fund, we may find that there is something in those Bills which will go towards a just solution of the traffic problem.

The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) raised a personal note, or rather he dealt with my declared intention to appoint Sir Henry Maybury to be a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee as my nominee. In the Debate we had three or four days ago I expressed my intention to appoint him, and to that intention I adhere. I have not the faintest intention of changing my mind. Sir Henry is not appointed to the London Traffic Advisory Committee because he happens to be an officer of the Department. There is no obligation on the Minister to appoint an officer of his Department. He can choose anybody he likes who is a British subject to represent him on the Committee, and Sir Henry was chosen in the past to represent the Department of which he happened to be an officer because he was obviously the most qualified person to be on that Committee. I propose to re-appoint him because, in my mind, he is a most extraordinarily good member of that Committee. He has served as Chairman for a number of years. It will be for the Committee when they reassemble, and not for me, to decide whether they will have him as their Chairman. All I do is to place at the disposal of that Committee, Sir Henry Maybury, whose name is a household word in road transportation, who is liked by all the local authorities in this country, whose name is known as that of an expert in traffic everywhere.

He does not, of course, get a salary; he is doing all this work voluntarily. If he took up any of these posts which the hon. Member seems to be so frightened he will take up, he would automatically have to resign, and from conversations I have had with him and from my knowledge of hill character, I know that if he undertook any work which would in the slightest degree conflict with his presence on that Traffic Committee, he would resign long before I heard anything about it. I refuse to change my mind, and I think I am very fortunate, and the Committee is very fortunate, if they induce Sir Henry Maybury to take up this very responsible post of my nominee on the Committee, and I do not think the criticism that has been levelled at him is likely to help him to take up this post with joy and gladness.

Sir GEORGE HUME

I do not think the Minister of Transport quite realises the serious consequences of not having the courage to try and get better conditions for London traffic on his own behalf instead of through private legislation. This question of the traffic of London is an old standing question, and for many years the London County Council has been trying to deal with it and recognising the difficulties that were existing. When Mr. Long, later Lord Long, was President of the Local Government Board, an effort was then made, and the London County Council and the Combine came before him, and long negotiations were carried on, but they broke down because of political suspicions. Later on agreement was come to between the parties, and the whole thing broke down because the Minister of Transport would not go forward with a public Bill, and the controversy was such that the whole effort was killed.

When this Act came into force, and an Advisory Committee was established, we at last had some hope that some body outside the controversy—outside the suspected bodies, such as the County Council and the Combine—would take this matter up and bring forward their own proposals. We saw their long work go on, and I want to pay my tribute to the Advisory Committee for the work that they did. Three separate sub-committees were set up, they made inquiries all over the area, and were impressed to such an extent with the need of getting rid of the difficulties existing, and making facilities for further development, that, irrespective of parties, they came to a unanimous report. But at that moment, what happened? Just when we thought that this matter would be able to go forwards without heat and political controversy, without having the whole thing smashed and spoiled by bringing in a party spirit, we found that the Minister could not go forward. I agree that it might well be that the Minister could not find time—I realise that that is so in this Session—but I am saying that the responsibilty for the Measure was placed with the local authority in London. The position of the London County Council is most difficult; in view of its past efforts, in view of the known difficulties of the situation and the necessity fo doing something, it would be pusillanimous for the County Council to lay the matter down and say that they would do nothing.

The result is that this has become once more a burning political question, and, if it comes before this House, it will be fought on lines, not of the good of London's services, but on lines of suspicion. I deplore it. I worked in the best years of my life to get the tramways out of politics. Now I see them back again in the cockpit of politics, not because it is hoped that that will settle the question on sound lines, but because of the suspicions that are aroused, and the charges that are made that the London County Council are handing the system over to private enterprise, and that private enterprise will want to take an undue advantage of the situation. I plead with the Committee, and I ask all parties to consider very carefully, for the good of London, whether they should not treat these Bills with respect; I mean in this way: The London County Council are, I believe, going to try and shape their Bill in such a way that, as far as it is possible in a private Bill, the views of the Advisory Committee shall he embodied in it. It will be for the House to decide whether it is a success or not, but I hope that we shall be able to come to the matter with a judicial mind for the sake of London, instead of leaving this big problem to the cockpit of politics.

Mr. BRIANT

I am glad to support this Amendment, not only because I fought the Act when it was introduced by the Labour party, but because I hope it shows signs that the Labour party desire to make some amends for the mistake they then made. The Act bore all the signs of Toryism in its Clauses. I feel that all the arguments to-night about the difficulties of the Minister leave our of account the main question. If the traffic of London is to be properly managed it must be in the hands of an elected body, and not of a body nominated by other bodies. At present all we have is an Advisory Committee; and all its recommendations may pass for nothing if the Minister does not endorse them. That may be all right if we have a benevolent and able Minister, and I believe we have both, but no matter so large as this, affecting the interests of 9,000,000 people should rest in the hands of any Minister and Advisory Committee composed partly of those who have definite interests in certain branches of the traffic in London. We suggested that those with pecuniary interests in London traffic should not be on the Advisory Committee, but that suggestion was declined. I know that there were some like my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), who then belonged to this party, who took that view. I remember his saying it was a sight to make the angels weep to see hon. Members of the Labour party voting in the same way as those who were proud of supporting the interests of the big combines. All that we thought would happen has happened. There are very few hon. Members of the Labour party who would not now be glad to see this Act out of the way to enable us to start afresh in dealing with the traffic of London. So long as this Act remains on the Statute Book we shall be handicapped in dealing with the problem.

This is not only my view, or the view of some who may be prejudiced, but is the view of some of the most competent authorities even in the Labour party. I have used some strong words, but not so strong as those used by one who was then a member of this House and is now, I believe, Chairman of the Labour party. Mr. Morrison said that if he had voted for the Act he would have been voting against the interests of Labour and in favour of one of the most insidious financial corporations with which London was

cursed. This is a Measure on which the Tories had agreed before the present Government came into office and it is anti-Labour in principle. That is what the present Chairman of the Labour party thought of it, and I am sorry he is not in the House—though not as sitting for a particular seat which he is ambitious of occupying. No one would make any criticism of Lord Ashfield's capacity. In fact, I am afraid of his capacity. His capacity for managing is so great that I am afraid of him being in the position of dictator of London in traffic matters. But we cannot get away from the fact that out of the position has come another Measure which is tending towards putting the whole of the trams, and, indeed, the whole of the traffic, under him.

I do not think that there is anybody in the House who does not believe that the traffic of London would be managed better if it were in the hands of a representative body and not in the hands of nominated persons. The more I see of this Act the more I am convinced that we shall never see this question settled until the old Act is swept away and the whole business is placed in the hands of the London County Council. I do not agree with the present composition of that Council, but I would rather have an elected body than a nominated body to deal with the traffic problem. In the case of an elected body the members have to face the electors, and they are subjected to public criticism which is not possible in the case of a nominated body. If the Amendment were carried, it would be the best step that could be taken for the future of London, because we could then start afresh with a new plan for the management of the traffic of our great City.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 92.

Division No. 15.] AYES. [11.43 p.m.
Alexander. E. E. (Leyton) Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Bevan, S. J. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Blundell, F. N. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Burman, J. B.
Atkinson, C. Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Carver, Major W. H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brass, Captain W. Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Brittain, Sir Harry Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Clarry, Reginald George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Price, Major C. W. M.
Clayton, G. C. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Raine, Sir Walter
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ramsden, E.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hilton, Cecil Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major Sir William Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ropner, Major L.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Rye, F. G.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N) Hopkins, J. W. W. Salmon, Major I.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hume, Sir G. H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Iveagh, Countess of Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sandeman, N. Stewart
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Kindersley, Major Guy M. Sandon, Lord
Davies, Dr. Vernon King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Savery, S. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip Knox, Sir Alfred Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Drewe, C. Lamb, J. Q. Shepperson, E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ellis, R. G. Little, Dr. E. Graham Smithers, Waldron
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Long, Major Eric Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay Looker, Herbert William Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)
Falls, Sir Bertram G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Storry-Deans, R.
Falls, Sir Charles F. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Fermoy, Lord Lumley, L. R. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Forrest, W. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. McLean, Major A. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Fraser, Captain Ian Macmillan, Captain H. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Frece, Sir Walter de Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wallace, Captain D. E.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Margesson, Captain D. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Gates, Percy Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Watts, Sir Thomas
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wayland, Sir William A.
Goff, Sir Park Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wells, S. R.
Gower, Sir Robert Murchison, Sir Kenneth White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Grace, John Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Nelson, Sir Frank Wilson, ft, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Neville, Sir Reginald J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wolmer, Viscount
Hammersley, S. S. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Womersley, W. J.
Harrison, G. J. C. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hartington, Marquees of Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perring, Sir William George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Pilcher, G. Mr. Penny and Sir Victor
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Power, Sir John Cecil Warrender.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Ritson, J.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Ammon, Charles George Hirst, G. H. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Scurr, John
Bellamy, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Benn, Wedgwood John, William (Rhondda, West) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Briant, Frank Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, T. Strauss, E. A.
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Lansbury, George Taylor, R. A.
Dalton, Hugh Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Harry Lawson, John James Tomilnson, R. P.
Duncan, C. Longbottom, A. W. Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. Lunn, William Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Viant, S. P.
Fenby, T. D. Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gibbins, Joseph Maxton, James Wellock, Wilfred
Gillett, George M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Naylor, T. E. Whiteley, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Owen, Major G. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Palin, John Henry Windsor, Walter
Groves, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardie, George D. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Harris, Percy A. Riley, Ben Barnes.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.