HC Deb 13 February 1929 vol 225 cc491-501
Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

This Clause provides that this part of the Act shall not extend to the county of London, except Clause 38 in which the Minister has already included London. We desire some explanation from the Minister as to why Clauses 39 and 40 should not apply to London. Anyone who is acquainted with the way in which London is extending into the country knows that to-day in the North it goes up nearly to Hendon, while in the West it runs nearly to Hayes and Southall. To the South and East one can go through continuous streets of houses for long distances. That process is going on every year. We see all around residential properties, some of them quite charming, springing up on the outskirts of London, but anybody who considers the matter must realise how very much it is to be regretted that when the older London, as we know it, was being built, there was no authority in power to preserve open spaces. We have open spaces in London but there are whole districts—from Islington for example almost up to Finsbury Park, and in some parts of South London—where we find nothing but streets upon streets of houses. We must realise how we wasted our opportunities when the older London was being built and how very much more agreeable a place it would be to-day, if these amenities had been preserved. Anybody so considering the matter must wish that something of that kind could be done in regard to the newer London which is being built.

The chief thing to be desired is that before the houses are built we should preserve certain quite large spaces, as green open spaces, not necessarily parks, but market gardens and so forth, so as to retain something of the country in these districts where building is proceeding. Desirable as this object is, London presents what is perhaps the most difficult problem in connection with town planning in England and Wales. It is not that the London County Council does not desire it. It is not that the London County Council has not already, by means of a voluntary committee, made efforts in that direction. It is on account of the multiplicity of local authorities which surround London. There are the counties, there are the urban districts, there are the rural districts whose consent would have to be obtained before a scheme of town planning, anything like commensurate with the needs of the case, could be undertaken. At present, under this Measure, while you may have a voluntary scheme, with all the councils joined together in it, in practice you may find—you will quite likely find—same small and even insignificant rural council standing in the way of any well-thoughtout and comprehensive scheme. We know what has happened already. The incursion of the London County Council Housing Committee into Essex has in itself produced a whole crop of difficulties, and those difficulties, though acute with building authorities, are even more acute with regard to the unco-ordinated mass of private estates and private building schemes, all developing land around London without the slightest regard for London as a whole.

Clause 39 gives the Minister powers of compulsion. I fully agree that, with regard to the major authorities, such powers are not at all likely to be exercised, but that the Minister should keep such powers in reserve seems to be highly desirable. All we are asking is that the Minister should have power to exercise his discretion and to combine authorities where combination appears to be desirable, and where some perhaps not very considerable authority is standing in the way of a scheme. Clause 40 gives power to constitute the county council the responsible authority. That does not really apply to London, but would apply to any combination of councils which might take place. It is Clause 39 which is the main point, and Clause 39, I think, should be applied to London. The Minister in any case should have these powers of compulsion in reserve to enforce them if necessary. I have been obliged to recapitulate very shortly a speech which I made on a previous occasion because, though I was allowed to make that speech, it turned out ultimately that it was not in order. I apologise for having had to do so, and I now ask the Minister why he will not apply the whole of this town planning part of the Measure to the place which needs it most, namely, London and the Home Counties.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am particularly glad that this Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence). No person could do so more appropriately because, for a quarter of a century, the hon. Member has been actively associated with the government of London, and she now represents one of the outlying constituencies of London which would be materially affected if these proposals were applied to London. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have gone out of his way to exclude London. I cannot but remember that he was a member for a considerable time—not all the time—of the Royal Commission on the problem of Greater London, and he, therefore, had exceptional opportunities to realise the difficulties in London, because the urban areas extend for many miles outside the county boundaries. Rightly or wrongly, the Royal Commission turned down the suggestion of the London County Council that there should be a Greater London, and they deliberately decided that the area should continue to be inside the present county boundaries, so that all our problems of town planning, of making new roads, or of providing open spaces are complicated by the limits fixed. It seems, therefore, essential that London, above all places in the country, should have the provisions of these particular Clauses applied to it.

We are constantly embarrassed in London in dealing with our housing question. The bulk of our houses are being built outside the county, and the Minister knows very well that, if you are going to have a satisfactory housing estate, the provision of open spaces, parks, and gardens, and the proper lay-out of streets are essential, and they are constantly being held up by friction with the outer authorities. It is well known that we have had difficulties with the county of Essex and difficulties, though very much less, with the county of Surrey, and you will not get a, satisfactory settlement of these problems until the Minister can come down and compel local authorities to come together and co-operate. We in London have been embarrassed by the multiplicity of local authorities, by having 28 borough councils in London, but we have been even more embarrassed when we have started to plan roads that are going to end somewhere many miles out, because we are immediately faced by the fact that we cannot get the co-operation of the adjoining counties.

I am not attacking them. I recognise that they are very effective local authorities, but, human nature being what it is, it is difficult to avoid jealousies and suspicions and to bring about co-operation; and I should have thought the Minister, with his knowledge of Birmingham, where they have had to face similar problems and to deal with the expansion of Birmingham in order to get over those problems, would have been the first to recognise that if it is necessary to put Clauses of this kind in this Bill, the one place above all to which they should apply was London itself. I do not know why he put in these words. I am sure they were not put in at the request of the London County Council, and I do not know that they were put in at the request of the City Corporation. Who is responsible? Are they the invention of his own imagination, ingenuity, or his own officials? If not, what local authority has suggested that London should be deprived of the advantages of these various Clauses? I think the Minister ought to bring forward a very strong argument for putting this particular Clause through the House if we are going to accept it, and unless he does, I hope the hon. Lady will press her Amendment to a Division.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I have listened with careful attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) and the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), because I was very anxious to find from those speeches what precisely it was that the hon. Members thought would be obtained by leaving out Clause 43. Perhaps I may, in the first instance, answer the series of somewhat rhetorical questions put by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green, who is, I think, and has been for many years, a member of the London County Council. He wanted to know whether this Clause was my own invention, from whose brain it emanated, what possible local authority could have made any request for such a Clause. I am sorry that he does not know more about the affairs of the local authority of which he is such a distinguished ornament, because I may inform him—he evidently does not know—that these words were inserted at the request of the London County Council. If I understood the hon. Member for East Ham North correctly, the situation which she had in mind was one where it was desirable that joint town planning should be made by the London County Council and a number of local authorities outside the area of the county council, and where most of those authorities were agreeable to join in, but one particular authority stood out. Am I correct in thinking that that was the difficulty which she foresaw?

Miss LAWRENCE

It was a disagreement between London and any of the neighbouring authorities.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

A disagreement about what? Whether or not they should make a plan? What does Clause 39 do? It gives the Minister power to compel a combination between local authorities in making a joint town planning scheme, and the point that was put, as I understand, by the hon. Lady was that if you took London out, you could not make any combination, or the Minister could not insist on any combination, between London and the outlying authorities. But the London County Council is well known to be a very progressive town planning authority, and quite ready, and indeed anxious, to take part in joint town planning schemes with the outlying authorities. If there be any difficulty then, it.

cannot lie with London, and it must only lie with one of the outside authorities. Surely the hon. Member has not quite appreciated the force of Clause 39. If there is a difficulty with the outside authorities, Clause 39 gives the Minister power to deal with it.

Miss LAWRENCE

London may wish to do it, but Kent and Sussex may refuse. You have power to combine Kent and Sussex, but not to combine either of them with London.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes. Under Clause 39, if London is willing to cooperate, the Minister can make the outlying authorities co-operate with London. You would not alter that by putting London into the Clause. The Clause applies to the outside authorities, and it is with them alone that any difficulty can arise. What the London County Council said was, "There is no difficulty as far as we are concerned; we are only too ready to combine with other authorities," and they desired to be taken out of the Clause. I agree that, as far as Clause 38 is concerned, that is a different matter. It is desirable that London should be brought into Clause 38, but there is nothing to be gained by leaving out Clause 43 which is not already in the power given to the Minister in Clause 39.

Miss LAWRENCE

Clause 39 says that where it appears expedient that two or more local authorities, not including London, should combine, and so on. How can that cover the case of a combination including London? It is a question, obviously, of words.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

If the hon. Member will read the words more carefully, she will see that it does not merely say "should be combined," but should be combined for purposes connected with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme. In this particular case it would be the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme in which the London County Council was concerned, and, therefore, those words give the Minister the power of compelling this combination between the outside authorities and the London County Council.

Miss LAWRENCE

Is there any way in which one can have an authoritative ruling? If the explanation given by the Minister is correct, Clause 43 is absolutely needless, and the right hon. Gentleman should accept my Amendment. According to what the Minister said, this Clause means nothing, for in spite of Clause 43, Clause 39 will enable him to combine London with another county. If that is the correct view, is not Clause 43 entirely unnecessary?

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB

We want to be very sure that the words used hear the meaning which the Minister puts upon them. The Minister suggested that no difficulties will arise from the wording of Clause 43 because ex hypothesi the London County Council will always be a willing partner, and, therefore, if he has power to coerce the other people, the object will be attained. That does not seem to be quite so clear to us as he seems to think, because the power which he will have will be to make an Order, which Order will not only say, "You shall combine," but will necessarily go on to say, "You shall combine for this or that particular purpose, or in this or the other way." It does not follow that, because the London County Council is willing generally to enter into a combination, the London County Council—such is the perverseness of human nature, even in the London County Council—will be willing to enter into precisely the combination and under precisely the conditions that Surrey and Kent, or whatever the other parties may be, wish to impose. Consequently, unless the Minister has complete power of coercion over all the partners, he is putting the London County Council in the position of either having to agree with the terms which the other people want, or of not entering the combination at all.

7.0 p.m.

Surely, if he is going to have authority to compel a combination to make a town plan, and all the consequent details of that plan, it is not sufficient to say that you may assume that the London County Council will be agreeable to it. The London County Council may be agreeable in general terms, but you do not want to put them into the position of making them agree to the precise details that the other parties want. It seems a little difficult to believe that the Minister can have power to sanction a particular combination when the Act is not to apply to one of the parties to that combination.

I cannot understand; it is a matter or metaphysics. The combination which has to be sanctioned is not an entity in itself, quite apart from its constituent bodies, and if the Minister thinks, by virtue of the Clause which says that these powers shall not apply to London, which is one of the constituent bodies, that nevertheless he can make a combination containing that particular body, it is rather a contradiction in terms. He would actually be applying this power to the London County Council if he sanctions or orders the combination. If the Minister makes an Order directing that Kent and Surrey shall combine with the London County Council, he is exercising power over the London County Council. The mere fact that the London County Council may be willing does not affect the question. If the right hon. Gentleman, for instance, in due course is offered a peerage by His Majesty the King, he will be made a peer, willy nilly, and power will be exercised over him to that extent. The mere fact that he agrees to accept the peerage does not affect the power exercised over him to make him a Member of the other place submit, as a matter of metaphysical accuracy, that it will not be possible under these words for the Minister to direct a combination to be made consisting of members to one of whose areas his power will not apply at all. I do not think that that difficulty is affected by the question whether one member of the constituent bodies may be willing that the power shall be exercised. It is the exercise of the power which is important and, whether it is exercised upon a willing or an unwilling constituent, does not appear to me to cause any difference. This is a question of legal construction, and it seems to me that the Minister is running the risk of not being able to exercise the power which he says he is to exercise.

Mr. BENN

The Minister has agreed with us that it is desirable that these combinations should take place. He says it is unnecessary to accept the Amendment because of certain facts. We are all at one as to the desirability of combinations taking place. He says that the county council has asked for it. Since when has he begun to draft a Bill in accordance with the wishes of local authorities? The Bill is largely a frustration of the wishes of local authorities. To say that a county council has desired this, is not a particularly cogent reason coming from the lips of this particular Minister. As I understand the situation, the Minister says he agrees that it may be desirable that London should agree with certain adjacent counties for the purpose of town planning schemes, but that it is not necessary to take power over London, because he already has power to compel the other adjacent authorities, and he knows London to be willing. Supposing that he makes an Order over two other counties and London, and that the other counties object to it on the ground that he has no power over London. Heaven forbid that a layman should interpret an Act of Parliament, but this is what the Bill says: Where it appears to the Minister that it is expedient that two or more local authorities (including county councils)

should be combined for purposes connected with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, it shall he lawful for the Minister, by Order, to provide for the constitution of a joint committee for the purpose."

Yet, in Clause 43, he says that it shall not apply where London is concerned. He says then to Kent and Surrey that he proposes to make a compulsory scheme with London as the third and willing partner. Kent and Surrey will reply that, if he reads Clause 39, he will find that he has no power over London, and therefore the joint scheme cannot be made. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this, especially as there is no disagreement on the object we all have at heart.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word shall, in line 18, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 127.

Division No. 198.] AYES. [7.5 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cope, Major Sir William Harland, A.
Albery, Irving James Couper, J. B. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Crooke. J. Smedley (Derltend) Hills, Major John Waller
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hilton, Cecil
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Dalkeith, Earl of Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Davis, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hopkins, J. W. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Davis, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Davis, Dr. Vernon Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mostley)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Dawson, Sir Philip Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Berry, Sir George Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Bethel, A. Eden, Captain Anthony Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Betterton, Henry B. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrlngton) Hume, Sir G. H.
Blundell, F. N. Elliot, Major Walter E. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Ellis, R. G. Hurst, Gerald B.
Brass, Captain W. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Iveagh, Countess of
Briggs, J. Harold Everard, W. Lindsay Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Briscoe, Richard George Fairfax, Captain J. G. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Brittain, Sir Harry Falle, Sir Bertram G Jones, Sir G. W, H. (Stoke New'gton}
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Fielden, E. B. King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Buckingham, Sir H. Foster, Sir Harry S. Kinoch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Fraser, Captain Ian Knox, Sir Alfred
Burman, J. B. Frece, Sir Walter de Lamb, J. Q.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Campbell, E. T. Ganzoni, Sir John Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Carver, Major W. H. Gates, Percy Loder, J. de V.
Cassels, J. D. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Looker, Herbert William
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lougher, Lewis
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Goff, Sir Park Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Blrm., W.) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) Lumley, L. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Chapman, Sir S Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Chartaris, Brigadier-General J. Grotrian, H. Brent Maclntyre, Ian
Clarry, Reginald George Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. McLean, Major A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Gunston, Captain D. W. Macmillan, Captain H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Macquisten, F. A.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hammersley, S. S. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hanbury, C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cooper, A. Duff Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Margeston, Captain D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Meller, R. J. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Meyer, Sir Frank Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Redd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Ropner, Major L. Tinne, J. A.
Moore, Sir Newton J. Ross, R. D. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Moreing, Captain A. H. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Rye. F. G. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Nelson, Sir Frank Salmon, Major I. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Neville, Sir Reginald J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Warrender, Sir Victor
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sandeman, N. Stewart Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sanders, Sir Robert A, Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Sanderson, Sir Frank Watts, Sir Thomas
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Sandon, Lord Wells, S. R.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Shepperson, E. W. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Skelton, A. N. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Penny, Frederick George Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Withers, John James
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Womersley, W. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil Smithers, Waldron Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Pownall, Sir Assheton Southby, Commander A. R. J. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Price, Major C. W. M. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Ralne, Sir Walter Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Ramsden, E. Storry-Denos, R.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Reid, D. D. (County Down) Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Captain Bowyer and Major the
Marquess of Titchfield.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cannock) Groves, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grundy, T. W. Ritson, J.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Barr, J. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Beckett. John (Gateshead) Hardle, George D. Scrymgeour, E.
Bellamy, A. Harris, Percy A. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Benn, Wedgwood Hayday, Arthur Shinwell, E.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Sitch, Charles H.
Bromfield, William Hollins, A. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bromley, J. Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Stamford, T. W.
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stephen, Campbell
Clarke, A. B. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kelly, W. T. Strauss, E. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kennedy, T. Sullivan, Joseph
Compton, Joseph Kirkwood, D. Taylor, R. A.
Connolly, M. Lawrence, Susan Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cove, W. G. Longbottom, A. W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lowth, T. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Day, Harry Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Tinker, John Joseph
Dennison, R. Mackinder, W. Tomilnson, R. P.
Duckworth, John MacLaren, Andrew Townend, A. E.
Duncan, C. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
England, Colonel A. Maxton, James Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Forrest, W. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Gardner, J. P. Morris, R. H. Wellock, Wilfred
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Welsh, J. C.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Mosley, Sir Oswald Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M. Palln, John Henry Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur
Griffith, F. Kingsley Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

Amendment made:

In page 39, line 18, at the beginning, insert the words, "save as therein otherwise expressly provided."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]