§ The Secretary of State may by Order raise to the status of a large burgh any burgh which during the summer months of every year has habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh.—[Mr. Johnston.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." 255 If I may give an illustration I would choose Rothesay, which at the last census had a population of over 15,000. The census took place at a period of the year when the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum.
§ Major ELLIOT
May I point out that owing to the industrial dispute that census was taken in the summer at a period when the Rothesay population is at its maximum.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
It was taken in June, and the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum until about the third week in July. My information is that Rothesay has a winter population of over 15,000 and that her summer population is over 40,000. Rothesay is an up-to-date place, providing all the sanitary appliances which many large cities supply; goes in for child welfare and the provision of hospitals, and has a great and developing population. Surely this is a case where the right hon. Gentleman might import into the Bill some elasticity which would enable Rothesay, and places like Rothesay, to perform their functions in a democratic way. As things are now Rothesay is to be tied up with Arran. There is no communication between Rothesay and Arran; there is no community of interests between Rothesay and Arran; the business interests of Rothesay are entirely apart from the business interest of the Isle of Arran, and no one has yet shown what benefits can possibly accrue to Rothesay by being joined with the Island of Arran. All we are asking in this new Clause is that places like Rothesay and Oban, which in the summer months house a population greatly in excess of the population of other large burghs in Scotland, could be raised to the status of a large burgh by an Order of the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members below the Gangway have put down an Amendment to this new Clause which would make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to raise them to the status of a large burgh. They propose that the word "may" shall be left out and the word "shall" inserted instead. I do not think there is much in it. Secretaries of State come and go and, if the present Secretary of State would not raise Rothesay and Oban to the status of a large burgh, it may be that another Secretary of State would do 256 so, but I am perfectly certain that any Secretary of State if he had the power would, after a careful examination of the circumstances which obtain in Rothesay and Oban, have no hesitation in saying that they are cases where be ought to exercise his discretion and raise them to the status of a large burgh.
§ 5.0 p.m.
I only speak on this Clause because some of my hon. Friends on this side and myself have a similar Clause further down the Order Paper. I am in a somewhat peculiar position. I have in my constituency five small burghs on the sea coast. They enjoy wonderfully salubrious air, and they attract large numbers of summer visitors. In addition, they provide something like 17 or 19 golf courses, including the Meccas of Troon and Prestwick, and therefore the sporting element of the towns makes for annual, if not more regular visits to my constituency. Then, again, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no doubt know and as many other literary Members know, I have the privilege of representing half of the Burns country, where those who yield to Burns as the national poet and the voice of Scotland speaking in the wilderness and who yield to him as the supreme singer for all time come from America and from all pares of our own Empire in increasing numbers by their thousands and their tens of thousands.
That question needs no reply from me. I am merely trying to give the views of my constituency, and I want to show why these views should perhaps gain some little attention and weight from the Government. In addition to those attractions which I have tried very inadequately to point out, we have also in these burghs civic authorities of tremendous imagination and enthusiasm. They are men who realise what history has handed down to them, and, from a civic administration point of view, they try to equip them in a worthy manner. The consequence is that every summer from May to October—practically six months—we in Ardrossan, Prestwick, Troon, Salt-coats, and so on have a summer 257 population varying from 30,000 to 40,000 a year while the winter population varies from 9,000 to 14,000 or 15,000. The point I want to make is that here we have a Clause which is conceived for the purpose of dealing with the six months' winter population instead of six months' summer population, whereas the services of these towns have to be conceived for the summer population. For five or six months in the year, these towns have a population well in excess of the 20,000 limit, and the civic departments of these towns must have adequate public services and various other amenities to make them attractive to the weary town dweller, in these circumstances, the Government ought to take into account the summer population and give power to the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise the status of these towns to that of a large burgh. This Bill is for the purpose of stimulating industry. I would say, therefore, that if you provide a more attractive and a more alluring place where the hard-worked industrialist can get his health and strength back again the Government will be adding something to the help they are already giving to industry.
§ Mr. JAMES BROWN
I am very sorry I was not in to hear the earlier part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. I wish to associate myself with the new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member has been speaking for the coast towns in his constituency, but we have other little towns in Ayrshire. In my own constituency, we have a very fine watering-place in the town of Girvan. I understand it is the most pleasant town on the whole Ayrshire coast, and it is my duty to tell the House so. I want to explain that anybody who has been staying at Prestwick and tries a year of Girvan will see the difference at once. But that is not really the point. Girvan is a small burgh round about 7,000 or 8,000 in population, but in the summer it comes up to round about 20,000. I do not see why the Government could not give us this Clause. I would even accept a little Amendment to it and say "shall" instead of "may," but, knowing something about the psychology of the Scottish character, particularly the Scottish Convention and that you should ask to do a thing by grace rather than 258 compulsion, I would rather get it by argument and showing how much benefit it would be to these little towns than by compulsion. It is better to get a thing by agreement. There is nothing to hinder the Secretary of State for Scotland from accepting this Clause so as to raise these burghs to the status desired, and it will be a big help in many respects. All I want to do is to identify myself with this Clause. I trust that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State gets up to speak he will be able to say, as he has been able to say on other occasions, that this is so reasonable and will be so likely to assist us in the smaller burghs that he will accept it at once without further argument.
I want to associate myself with this Clause, and, in case this House has any doubt in its own mind, I would like to point out that Gourock also should be considered. Up to this time, we have heard the beauty of various other parts of Scotland extolled, but in the case of Gourock there are exceptional features. It is within more easy reach of the great centre of Glasgow than any other seaside resort, and it is one which during the summer months attracts a great number of visitors. The town council of Gourock have by their energy and enterprise done a great deal to attract visitors to Gourock.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)
It is necessary to have some limit to the time hon. Members devote to advertising the amenities of their constituencies. It is in order to refer to a town as an example of a place which would be affected by the new Clause; but hon. Members must confine the advertisement to a reasonable limit of time, and I think the hon. Member has devoted full time to it.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
Hon. Members representing other burghs have extolled their advantages, so surely other Members are entitled to do so.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Quite so. I have allowed brief references and will allow others the same limits, but not more.
Having associated myself with this Clause, I feel I have done all that is required.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I cannot see why hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies should have had it all their own way. There are towns in certain parts of Scotland, for example in my constituency, which compare favourably from the point of view of beauty and historical interest to anything on the sea coast. For example, there is Linlithgow, reminiscent of Mary Queen of Scots, Darnley, and other historical figures. It has a picturesque palace to say nothing of other attractions. If I may go further and direct attention to the amenities of Broxburn and district, I should like to point out that they have mountains of shale. I have not exhausted its possibilities.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I did rise to say, having regard to the nature of the Debate, that I should like to protest against hon. Members using their position in this assembly to give a free advertisement to certain places in their own constituency. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) is not here to take advantage of the opportunity. I think a reasonable case can be submitted on behalf of the Clause. There is no reason why burghs which increase their population at certain times of the year, as a result of which they require to submit to certain disadvantages which would not otherwise obtain, should not occupy the status of larger burghs. It is a very reasonable proposition, apart from the comments that have been made upon the advantages or disadvantages of different parts of one constituency.
§ Major ELLIOT
I do not think it can be said that the hon. Member who has just spoken clearly interpreted the Debate which we have just had, in his contention that a case has been made out. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), in moving the Second Reading of this Clause, dealt with towns for which perhaps there might be some argument. The case was mentioned of a town which may be part of a county and is disjoined to a considerable extent by intervening channels of salt water, although not by 260 action of His Majesty's Government, since a recent Amendment was accepted. But the whole question of altering the constitution of the great major permanent services because of some temporary fluctuations in population really cannot be seriously advanced for the consideration of the House. If there were any claim that could be brought forward it was fully met when my right hon. Friend decided to leave the whole of the services of water, of drainage, and of housing within the purview not merely of certain burghs, but of all burghs.
The case advanced had to deal to a large extent with the need of a fluctuating population. But provision for those needs does remain with the smaller burghs and with all burghs. Water supply is undoubtedly a case which has to be reviewed. Drainage and sanitation are essentially things which have to be reviewed. If some of the figures of population that have been given are correct those services would need to be brought even more up to date than they are now. But it is not to be considered that a fluctuating population requires special provision to be made for education, for poor relief, for lunacy and mental deficiency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) eulogised certain burghs in his constituency for their imagination and enthusiasm. But there are certain things which seem to me to go rather counter to the interests of economy and efficiency. In the Northern district of Ayrshire, in six small burghs, there are six infectious disease hospitals. They average 14 beds each. It is imposible to suppose that some advantage would not be gained by combination in such cases. Surely it is only reasonable to say that the object of efficient service would be better served by a combination which would enable full use to be made of each of these institutions. On more than one occasion the opposition of a smaller burgh has led to the opportunity for this combination being missed.
I remember that three or four years ago a part of Spring Vale hospital belonging to Ardrossan and Saltcoats was destroyed by fire. Here was an opportunity for combination with Irvine. Not at all. These two burghs preferred to re-establish the building which has been destroyed. We are not bringing forward these proposals as a series of temporary adjust 261 ments between county and burgh, but as a serious attempt to make a strong financial unit which will be able to lay its plans for the future, to make the fullest use of existing institutional accommodation, and in general to plan its policy over a period of years. To suggest that because some seaside resort happens to pass into a temporary phase of popularity, or because some particular town happens to have a race meeting, or even becomes the centre of a greyhound racing track and attracts a special population during some months of the year—to suggest that for that reason the great scheme of the major health services and the administration services should be warped, is not really bringing forward arguments which should seriously alter the judgment which the Committee has come to, that the 20,000 limit should stand.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
The Under-Secretary has given us one illustration showing that two adjacent burghs did not combine as they might have combined for efficiency, and economy. Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of the burghs in Scotland for many years have combined to run, where necessary and profitable, joint infectious disease hospitals, even where their areas are not even in the same county? It is not fair that one illustration should be used by the Under-Secretary to give the impression that the burghs of Scotland have so far failed in their duty as to—
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
May I put my point in a shorter form? May I ask the Under-Secretary to address himself to the actual facts and figures given on behalf of the burgh of Rothesay? I asked him a specific question. Is it not the case that there can be no connection whatever in the winter months between the burgh of Rothesay and the Isle of Arran, to which it is attached under this Bill?
§ Major ELLIOT
I think I dealt completely with the case adduced regarding Rothesay, when I pointed out that the population which was given as the winter population of Rothesay was a population which, by the accident of the census, was taken in June. Even in Scotland our winter does not extend into 262 June. By June the population of Rothesay has already risen towards the peak, which continues only for a week or two weeks. The hon. Member is not seriously asking us to consider raising the whole position of a burgh because for one week or two weeks it passes out of the category of the small burgh. The population of 15,000 was calculated in June.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
It is a question of fact. I think I said, and I ought to have said, that my information was that the average population of Rothesay for the months of July and August was 40,000.
§ Major ELLIOT
The hon. Member gave figures which, of course, it is difficult to check, but he did refer to the census figure, and the census figure is not over 20,000. One cannot take a figure which fluctuates in this way; one must take an average figure for the whole year. Rothesay cannot be considered alone among the towns of Scotland.
§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR
We all listened with admiration to the speeches of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite who, with so much spirit and enthusiasm, defended the claims of burghs in their own constituencies. At the same time the weakness of that form of argument is that people are a little apt to overstress the claims of their constituencies and thereby to weaken the argument for a Clause which is based on a sound principle. For example, there was quoted in favour of the new Clause a burgh which had a population of only 7,000, and rose to 15,000. Obviously such a burgh would fall far outside the Clause. Such a skilled dialectician as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was, of course, quick to seize upon this weak point in the argument, and to try to laugh the Clause out of court by drawing attention to some small burghs in Ayrshire which keep a few small hospitals, and in fact he poured doubt on whether a large number of the burghs mentioned had in fact ever reached the 20,000 limit even during the holiday season. Of course, in so far as the Under-Secretary has proved that some of these arguments which have been used in support of the Clause are unsound. I agree with him, but 263 he has not tackled the main principle of the new Clause, which relates to those burghs where undoubtedly as the Clause states,during the summer months of every year they have habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of large burghs.Those cases are not affected by the Under-Secretary's arguments. He tried to ridicule the new Clause by talking about the burgh where there might be a greyhound racing track and people might come in for a week for the racing. But that is not at all the kind of burgh which would be affected by the Clause. The Clause can affect only burghs which "habitually" have a population during the summer months in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh. I agree that a lot of the burghs that have been mentioned could not come within that definition, but there are burghs, Oban, Dunoon, St. Andrews and others, which undoubtedly "habitually" have a population in excess of 20,000. It is those which the Clause is designed to serve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to ride off on the illustration of some little burghs in Ayrshire which had their own infectious disease hospitals and which refused to combine. Of course that case is very exceptional. I do not believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman could name another case of that kind. These small burghs would probably be outside this proposal, and, even if they were not, there would, in time, be voluntary combinations. Although on one occasion an opportunity may have been missed of bringing about amalgamation it is impossible to suppose that, with the prudent and strong guidance which they receive from the hon. and gallant Gentleman from time to time, these burghs would not eventually, by voluntary means, bring about that combination which he desiderates.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the new Clause would alter the arrangements which are proposed. It would leave the arrangements as they are now with one important exception, namely the control of education. It is quite true that that would fall to the new burgh but I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman use that argument against the proposed new Clause. When we were discussing the control of education, one of the best 264 speeches in support of the Government's proposals for doing away with the ad hoc system and bringing in the ad omnia system was made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) who used as an illustration in support of that policy, a well-known example of the success which Ayr burgh bad in looking after its education. He said what a magnificent thing it was to have education looked after in a burgh by a municipality. Therefore, I do not think there is much to fear even if, incidentally, the effect of the proposal were to be as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. It will be seen that we have on the Paper an Amendment to the proposed new Clause and I am speaking now because I am afraid we shall not have an opportunity of moving it. If this question were left to the free vote of the Scottish Members I have no doubt the new Clause would be carried, but I am afraid a large majority of English Members will vote down this proposal, and, so, we shall not have an opportunity of moving our Amendment. The effect of our Amendment would not be to apply compulsion to these burghs to become large burghs, but we do not believe that these matters should be left to the decision of the Secretary of State. We believe that Parliament should say, definitely, that in a case like this—not a case like those quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, the only possible case which could arise under this proposal, the case of a small burgh which has an habitual population of over 20,000 people in the summer months for which it has to provide an elaborate and up-to-date health system—the burgh should have the right, without depending on the fiat of the Secretary of State, to become a large burgh. If it is suggested that any of them would be unwilling, and if that is the only objection which the Secretary of State feels to the acceptance of this proposal we shall be prepared to add other words such as "with the consent of"—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
We are now discussing the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause, and the hon. and gallant Baronet may refer to his Amendment; he must not make a detailed speech purely on an Amendment which is not before the House.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
Our Amendment was criticised by the hon. and gallant 265 Gentleman who spoke for the Government.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Baronet is perfectly right. I allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman considerable latitude, but I think the discussion is now reaching a point at which it is developing into a Debate on the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet rather than a Debate on the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I only wanted to make it clear that we would be prepared to accept an Amendment which would remove any idea of compulsion being placed on any burgh. I hope the new Clause will be added to the Bill.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I also support the proposed new Clause because we have in Argyll three burghs, namely, Dunoon, Oban and Campbeltown, to which these considerations apply. A very large portion of the population of Argyll is concentrated in these three burghs. As a matter of fact, I think it would have been better if the county had been divided into three combined town and county council areas, with one of these burghs at the head of each. Failing that, there is a feeling in these burghs that it will be a great hardship if many of their services are to be removed from them to sparsely populated districts of the county. I believe the Secretary of State has the power to remove the health services in a case of this kind. That would be a great hardship to a burgh like Oban, which has voluntarily taken charge of the whole district in this respect and provided an excellent hospital. The hospital has been provided by the generosity of the Oban people themselves. I do not expect, of course, that the Secretary of State would remove that to a sparsely populated district, but it would be much better for these burghs if they were enabled to preserve their present status. They are really large burghs.
In Dunoon, for example, in the summertime they have often over 40,000 visitors every week arriving at the piers, independent of the vast numbers who come by motor. Large numbers reside there all through the summer, and, taking all the fluctuations of population into account, we get a figure running into 100,000. Similarly in Oban, and to a less 266 extent in Campbeltown, there is this access of population during the summer. The resident population who are there for the 12 months of the year really make provision for the summer visitors. They have provided the health services to suit very large populations—much larger populations than are to be found in some of the large burghs—and they feel very strongly they ought to be outwith the purview of this Bill. I wish the new Clause had a little more elasticity so that it would be possible if a place ceased to be fashionable or to attract large crowds—though I do not think that will ever happen in Argyll—for the Secretary of State to put it back again into the position of a small burgh. As these places at present stand they really are large burghs for six months of the year, with all the services which large burghs require. There is also this peculiarity in regard to places like Dunoon and Oban. They have large wide esplanades which have cost thousands of pounds to construct—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member has split up his advertisement of his constituency into a number of small compartments, but, I am afraid that when they are put together he has exhausted the time I can allow him to devote to that.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I was only pointing out one of the reasons why these should be considered as large burghs. They have these esplanades and boulevards for their summer visitors. They are naturally anxious at the prospect of these matters being remitted to a county council in case the same attention or the same expenditure may not be devoted to them. They are worried about the fact that certain liabilities may arise and they are desirous of knowing as to how they will stand in regard to the liabilities which they have incurred in making provision for very large populations. On the question of population I suggest that a fair way of arriving at the real population of one of these burghs is to add the permanent winter population to the summer population and divide the result by two. I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully whether it is not possible, in the case of Argyll to give these burghs the status of large burghs. Another of the difficulties in this 267 matter is that the meeting place of the county council will inevitably be Glasgow and it will be very difficult for the representatives of these burghs—who are generally men engaged in business—to go away from home for a day or perhaps two days in order to attend the county council meetings. Therefore, these burghs will not be as well represented as they might be on the reconstituted county council. If the Bill had split Argyll into three or four parts it might have been possible to run town and county districts together but that has not been done. While it is all very well to have a cut-and-dried plan if you have districts to suit it, I suggest that you cannot have uniformity where there is a variety of circumstances and I think the Bill ought to have been made to suit the circumstances of the districts instead of trying to make the districts suit the circumstances of the Bill.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary has treated this matter rather lightly by citing cases such as that of a town where there is dog racing for a matter of a few weeks in the year with a consequent temporary increase of population. I think that was a rather deliberate evasion of the point as to "habitual population." It is the habitual population which is in view and in many of these burghs the increase of population prevails during half the year. Reference has been made to St. Andrews. It is an outstanding case of a university centre of great historical interest and in that case the increase of population relates to the larger portion of the year. To handle the thing in the way that the Under-Secretary did does not appear to me to be facing the strength of the argu
§ ments that have been put from both sides of the House. There is also the necessity for Parliament definitely settling such burghs as shall have the status of large burghs, but unfortunately that cannot be considered on this Clause. The action of the Government in rejecting this Clause will, I am sure, accentuate the hostility that has been aroused by the Bill as a whole.
§ Dr. SHIELS
It will be remembered that when we were discussing the transference of the major health functions of the county councils, this question was brought up, and it was agreed, I think, by the Government spokesman that the reservation in that Clause which admitted the retention of a medical officer of health in particular cases might be used for the case of the burghs which we are now discussing: and I would like to ask if the Government reaffirm the position which they took up then, because I think it is very appropriate to some of the cases which we have had brought before us to-day. If we take Oban and St. Andrews and some other places, we find that these burghs have been supplying not only their own health services, but the health services for the county, and hospital accommodation as well, and, therefore, I think there is an obvious case for their retaining, at any rate, their medical officer of health and their control over the major health functions. If the Government were to reassure hon. Members who are interested in these burghs that that is the position, it might be some compensation for their inability to accept this new Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 115: Noes, 205.269
|Division No. 249.]||AYES.||[5.48 p.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Buchanan, G.||England, Colonel A.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Barnes, A.||Cape, Thomas||Forrest, W.|
|Barr, J.||Charleton, H. C.||Gardner, J. P.|
|Batty, Joseph||Clarke, A. B.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Cluse, W. S.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Bellamy, A.||Clynes, Right Hon. John R.||Gillett. George M.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Greenall, T.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Compton, Joseph||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Bethel, A.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Griffith, F. Kingsley|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Cove, W. G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Briant, Frank||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Grundy, T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Day, Harry||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Bromley, J.||Duncan, C.||Hardle, George D.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Montague, Frederick||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hirst, G. H.||Morris, R. H.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Strauss, E. A.|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Sutton, J. E.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Murnin, H.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Naylor, T. E.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Oliver, George Harold||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Kelly, W. T.||Owen, Major G.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Kennedy, T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Townend, A. E.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lawson, John James||Potts, John S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lee, F.||Ritson, [...].||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Lowth, T.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lunn, William||Scurr, John||Westwood, J.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Shield, G. W.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Mackinder, W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wiggins, William Martin|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Shinwell, E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Sitch, Charles H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|March, S.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Maxton, James||Snell, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson|
|Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Albery, Irving James||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Ellis, R. G.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Fermoy, Lord||McLean, Major A|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Fielden, E. B.||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Ford, Sir P. J.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Berry, Sir George||Freemantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Gates, Percy||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Bocthby, R. J. G.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Murchison, Sir Kenneth|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Grotrian, H. Brent||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hammersley, S. S.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hanbury, C.||Pilcher, G.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Harland, A.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Burman, J. B.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Preston, William|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Ramsden, E.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Christie, J. A.||Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Remer, J. R.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hills, Major John Waller||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hilton, Cecil||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Ross, R. D.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cope, Major Sir William||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Couper, J. B.||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Salmon, Major I.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer||Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hurd, Percy A.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hurst, Sir Gerald||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Iveagh Countess of||Sandon, Lord|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Savery, S. S.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Skelton, A. N.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, I. Q.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lister, Cunliffe, St. Hon. Sir Philip||Smithers, Waldron|
|Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Thomson, Sir Frederick||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough||Womersley, W. J.|
|Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Waddington, R.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Storry-Deans, R.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.||Wright, Brig.-General W. D.|
|Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Warrender, Sir Victor||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Styles, Captain H. Walter||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Watts, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Tasker, R. Inigo.||Wells, S. R.||Major the Marquess of Titchfield|
|Templeton, W. P.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple and Captain Wallace.|
|Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The next three new Clauses, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston—(Delegation by town councils of large burghs to district councils), (Establishment of a district council for each large burgh and county of a city), and (Provisions relating to district councils of large burghs and counties of a city")—seem to form a connected group: but if the hon. Member desires to move them, I suggest he should move the second of them as I do not think they are placed in the best order.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
We had a discussion on them all together in Committee on the understanding that we had only one Division.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The principle running through these Clauses seems to me to be one that can be most conveniently discussed on the second of the three; therefore I have suggested the hon. Member move that first. Of course if it is not read a Second time, the other two will fall with it.