§ Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES
I beg to move, in page 49, line 37, after the word "wherever," to insert the words "the Minister or."
I think it will be agreed that it is absolutely essential that two interests should be protected under the Bill, first that of pedestrians and, second, animals being driven along the road. Every user of the road is better looked after at present than the individual who prefers to walk, and I am disposed to think the condition is going to be aggravated now that the speed limit has gone. I have spent a good deal of my time walking along the lanes of the beautiful country to which the Minister paid a visit a fortnight ago, when he had an opportunity of driving along narrow roads where very unsatisfactory footpaths were provided. That is not a condition of things which should continue. The Clause to a certain extent throws the obligation upon the highway authority to provide footpaths, but when one considers the form of the Clause, one realises how utterly valueless it may be. It is in this form: 760It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide, wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers, proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control.What does that really mean? If a local authority decides that it is desirable or necessary that footpaths shall be provided, obviously they will go on to provide them, but if they decline to adopt a resolution or to come to the conclusion that such footpaths are necessary or desirable, there is an end of it. No one can call upon the local authority to do what is obviously essential in the interests of the public and, therefore, the only way in which the position can be met is by enabling the Minister, upon complaint made to him, to say, "It is necessary or desirable that footpaths should be provided." Fortunately the Ministry has a good deal of power in this connection, once he comes to that decision, other than the power to refuse a grant to a local authority. I trust, having regard to the reasonableness of the suggestion, the Minister will accept the Amendment.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it is obvious to anyone reading my hon. Friend's Amendments and those in my own name, that we are desirous of achieving the same object. The Amendment is for the purpose of securing that it shall be not at the will of the local authority to have these footpaths or grass margins but at the will of the Minister, should such local authorities as have the power not actually exercise it. This Clause was introduced during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, and when it came to the Committee upstairs, it was obvious that there was a strong feeling that the power to place footpaths along the sides of our roads should not be solely at the discretion of the local authorities. It was recognised that it should be at the discretion rather of the Minister and not solely of the local authorities. We are all agreed as to the reasons for these Amendments. They are for the purpose of ensuring that human beings and live stock shall be protected from these high-powered cars that dash round our countryside. There is only one way of doing it, and that is to get these footpaths. The motorists themselves want 761 them from the point of view of more safety and security to themselves. Surely to goodness the pedestrians want them, because they want some sort of security against these vehicles of destruction. The farmers want them, because they want their livestock to be protected against the dangers that assail them should they come in contact with any motor vehicle. Speaking from another point of view altogether, the humane societies working for animals strongly desire them because they would ensure that the work in which they are engaged will be adequately forwarded and would make sure that animals have a fair chance of keeping their life while progressing along the main roads. There is another section of the community, those who admire the countryside and desire to see preserved the amenities and beauties of Great Britain. I can conceive of nothing more reasonable to protect those beauties than that there should be these footpaths on the side of our roads.
The Minister will, no doubt, ask where the money is to come from. I hope it will not cause undue consternation if I suggest that it should come from the Road Fund. Why should not the motorists give something towards the welfare and safety of pedestrian and, horse traffic generally? I think there is probably unanimity among all sections of the House in regard to this question. The Clause as it stands is really a pious Resolution and nothing else. You have to give the Minister power to override the local authorities, and to make certain that, where the Minister considers it desirable, he has power to put pressure upon them I submit that the Minister should be given this power, although it is against all our ideas to give more power to bureaucracy. On this occasion, I feel sure that the power, especially in the hands of my hon. Friend, would be exercised with discretion, and with the geniality and sympathy which he shows in all such matters.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I wonder whether my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment have really considered the implications of it? I always thought, and I still think, that our system of local government is one of outstanding merit and one of which we all ought to be proud. This Amendment 762 strikes at the root of local self-government. It says that the county councils and the great borough councils are not to be trusted even to provide footpaths or grass margins. If I put it to the House in that way, surely the extreme foolishness of the Amendment will be apparent. If the county council of Yorkshire, or the great corporation of Liverpool, are not to be trusted with the provision of footpaths or grass margins, then you had better do away with local government altogether and concentrate everything in Whitehall. Who is going to pay for these grass margins and these footpaths? If the Minister tells the corporation of Liverpool, "You are to provide grass margins"—[Interruption.]
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I have seen excellent narrow paths on the sides of some of the roads. The hon. Member knows very little about the town he represents. If the Minister goes down to the Corporation of Liverpool and tells them: "You shall put down grass margins and footpaths," obviously he cannot insist upon their finding the money. The Road Fund will have to find it. The whole system of road grants goes by the board. The Minister at once starts 100 per cent. grants for things that ought to carry 50 per cent. grants. Who is going to keep them up? The Minister or the local authority? I appeal to the Minister not to accept this Amendment. You must leave to local self-government the decision on these matters.
§ Mr. MARCH
It was very interesting and encouraging to listen to the right hon. and gallant Member who has been speaking about local government. We were running our local authority as we thought we had a right to run it, and his party and he himself compelled us to alter. They told us that we had not to do it; we had to take our instructions from Whitehall. "If you do not take them from Whitehall, we will put you where we know where to find you," they said—and they did! Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is coming round and saying that local government is the right thing. "Leave it to them, and they 763 will do what is right." Some of them do and some of them do not. We are after those who do not, as far as possible.
I want to call the attention of the Minster of Transport to various roads in Essex. They have made a big arterial road from Wanstead to Southend and put no footpaths. Where the road runs through Barking, the Barking council, because it has a Labour majority, has put footpaths and has done it very respectably. When you come to the next council area, Romford, that council has done nothing. That is a Conservative council. You can go all over the Rom-ford council area and find no footpaths. There is where I think the Minister might be very useful. He might tell the Rom-ford council to do their duty and carry out their local government, and, if they do not do it, he could do it himself. When that road was being properly made, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was in charge at the Ministry of Transport could have sent some of his officers down there, and they could have used sand that was carted away by the contractors to make good paths on the side of the road. On the Rainham road that was made through to Tilbury it is awful to see the children and the women having to walk on gravel. If they get off the gravel and walk on the road, they do so to the impediment of the motor traffic, and they are scared over and over again. The roads are so much smoother than the side of the road. We say the Minister should use his influence to see that the kerbside is made decent and respectable to walk on, the same as he does for the roads for the motorists to drive over.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I am sure that every Member of the House, irrespective of party, is anxious for the provision of footpaths where footpaths ought to be provided. I am not going to say that in every single road in the country a footpath is absolutely essential. It is too sweeping to say that. In all new road schemes the Ministry stipulate, unless it can be conclusively shown to be unnecessary, that footpaths should be provided, and we insist upon it as far as we can. I know that the motorist is very fond of footpaths, because he wants the pedestrians to keep on the 764 footpath in order that he can do as he likes on the road. When I am driving I am in sympathy with him, and when I am not driving, I am not. The motorist behind this Amendment is not so altruistic as we might think he is. He wants pedestrians out of the way. We must have a sense of right and reason about the matter. There is a number of old roads which have now become important roads, where it would be an exceedingly costly matter to provide footpaths. In relation to the cost and the number of passengers going along the roads, the expenditure might not be justified. The House may take it that the policy of the Ministry of Transport—and I believe it was so before I went there—is to use its influence to the fullest legitimate extent to encourage the local authorities to provide footpaths.
My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. It is all very well for him to say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is illogical because in the last Government he was not a party to local authorities doing these things and now is standing for local self-government. My hon. Friend in the last Parliament was nearly breaking his neck in defence of the rights of local self-government, and particularly in regard to the rights of the borough of Poplar to do exactly what it liked irrespective of Whitehall. He has on some occasion insisted upon having a very big voice in local policy, even though his authority was not paying all the cost of the service involved. My hon. Friend cannot be the champion of local self-government and, in this particular, join the bureaucrats and want to confer upon me absolutely dictatorial and Mussolini powers. Nothing is further from my desire. Suppose the Minister has these powers and goes to a local authority which says, "We do not think that a footpath is necessary." He says, "You do not know what you are talking about. It is necessary, and you will have to provide it" But suppose that next week he goes again to the local authority and urges them to construct a trunk road in relief of unemployment, it will be very difficult to get them to agree after they have been ordered about in regard to footpaths.
This is an Amendment which might appeal to a 17th century Tory, but it cannot appeal to a modern Labour Mem- 765 ber of Parliament. We ought to be careful in conferring these dictatorial powers upon Ministers and interfering with local authorities. Let hon. Members try it on a Labour County Council. Therefore, I suggest that while the House may be sure that I will use all the influence that I reasonably can use to further the perfectly legitimate desire of hon. Members, I do not think that we ought to go to the extent indicated in the Amendment. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see his way, after a discussion which has ventilated the point, not to press the Amendment.
§ Mr. COLMAN
I rise to support the Amendment. I regard, as do a number of other people, Clause 57 as being of rather more than ordinary importance, because it affects the interest of practically every user of the highway. The Minister—and I always have a great admiration for his ability—has on this occasion formed an entirely wrong impression. I do not wish to misquote him, but I believe that he gave the impression to the House that we were desirous that paths at the side of the road and grass margins should be provided in every case. We never asked for that, but only that they should be provided in cases where it was desirable and suitable. We are only seeking to-night to strengthen the hands of the Minister in order that, should the necessity arise, he may bring a reasonable amount of pressure upon a backward local authority. I understand that this particular Clause found its way into the Bill during its passage through another place. The Clause was strengthened and added to considerably during the Committee stage in the House of Commons. I am afraid that many of us regret that while this Clause was admittedly greatly improved on the Committee stage, it still falls very far short of what we regard as being the essential factors of a Clause of this kind. It was apparent during the Committee that there was a large body of opinion in favour of the provision of powers to make grass or other margins on the roads wherever it was thought necessary. It is a fair criticism of the Clause to say that it is very much in the nature of a pious resolution. It leaves a local authority free to neglect, if it chooses, to carry out a very obvious duty, and they are not compelled to give any 766 reasons for their neglect. Therefore I am bound to press this Amendment.
I am speaking to-night on behalf of the National Horse Association of Great Britain which represents practically the whole of the horse breeding societies of this country. This Association strongly supported the Amendment put forward in regard to this matter in the Committee stage and they would welcome the Minister being brought in in this case in order to be sure that local authorities will really give effect to these important provisions. I have had the pleasure on a number of occasions of making representations to the Minister of Transport on behalf of the horse owners of this country. He has always been sympathetic, but I am afraid he has come to look upon me as one who always pleads the case of the horse owner. I am not pleading to-night on those grounds only. I have something in common with the Minister of Transport. We are both motorists. I have been a lifelong motorist, and happen to be one of the first hundred members of the Automobile Association. I cannot conceive any proposal in which motorists would have a more legitimate interest than this particular proposal. It is perfectly obvious that it is most desirable in the interests of motorists that horses and livestock and pedestrians should, wherever possible, be got off the roadway when they are meeting on-coming motor traffic.
There is another section of the community, numbering some hundreds of thousands, which has a special interest in this matter. I refer to those who are always anxious to see the amenities of the countryside preserved, and I submit that they will also be very glad if the Minister of Transport accepts this Amendment. Let me say one word on the question of finance. The point has been made that there are difficulties in the way. In the past we have heard a great deal about the Road Fund being used for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended. I cannot conceive the Road Fund ever being used for a better purpose than this. It was intended for the construction of roads, and a road to be valuable in these days must meet the requirements not only of motorists but of everyone who uses the King's highway. That is Why we are anxious to see not only the interests of motorists 767 safeguarded but also the interests of livestock breeders, of farmers and pedestrians.
It is half the battle, perhaps even more than half, when you have the Minister on your side. I am bitterly disappointed with the attitude of the Minister this evening. Not long ago he made an important speech in public upon this very subject, and the sentiments he expressed led me, as they would lead any reasonable being, to the conclusion that he would not only accept this Amendment but would be willing to support it. Speaking in the Guildhall on 17th June last, as reported in the "Times"—and I am quite sure he will agree that he was correctly reported—he said:There were still hundreds of miles of important through routes where there was no footpath or verge for the pedestrian or horseman. This was work of high local value. It might well be also that county councils, who under the new Local Government Act, were assuming responsibility for a great mileage of what were formerly district roads, would wish to launch a general programme of improvement of many of these lesser highways.I quite agree that he referred to the work being of local value, but I want to make it abundantly clear that all we are asking for is that the Minister shall take unto himself power to see that the local authorities carry out their obligations in this connection. I am glad to think that he has expressed those sentiments, and if opportunity offers to-night I propose, since he gave us that excellent lead, to go into the Lobby in support of the sentiments that he expressed.
§ Mr. McSHANE
The last speaker proclaimed himself to be a motorist, and therefore he has put in their proper order horses, livestock and pedestrians. The question is not whether one is entirely in favour of local government or in favour of being managed from Whitehall. Neither of those questions has any real relation to the Clause. I support the Amendment mainly because of the pedestrians. This Bill is based upon the report of a Royal Commission, all of whom were motor users. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The great majority of them were motor users, and this Bill is the expression of their minds. The Clause as it stands certainly does not give to the pedestrian the safety that he or she 768 ought to have on the roads. Already the speed limit on the road where there is no footpath has been abolished. I can easily imagine parties of working-class people going out by motor coach to the country. They get out of the motor coach and discover that the road to which they have come has no footpath. They are then given the choice of being imprisoned for trespassing on the farmer's land or of allowing themselves to be run down by some of the altruistic motor owners to which reference has been made.
There are local authorities in this country who do not make the provision for pedestrians that they could reasonably be expected to make. We all know instances of that. Now that the speed limit has been abolished I suggest that there should be something inserted in the Clause whereby, if a road has become dangerous, representation might be made to the Minister so that he could put pressure on the local authority to do its duty.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
There is no need for a legislative provision to do that. It is perfectly competent for any citizen who considers that a footpath should be provided to write to me or to a Member of Parliament at any time, and if I am convinced that I am right, I can bring pressure to bear on the local authorities. That is an entirely different proposition from the almost unprecedented device of giving the Minister autocratic powers to make a local authority do something which, in its own judgment, is not necessary.
§ Mr. McSHANE
I am not arguing that the Minister should have absolutely autocratic powers in this respect. What I was about to say when I was interrupted was that the Clause as it stands does not satisfy me and the Amendment does not satisfy me. The point which I want to make it that the Minister ought to put something into the Bill which could be looked upon as a definite lever with which to move the Minister, if it should ever become necessary to do so. The right hon. Gentleman himself, however sympathetic he may be, will not always be there—absit omen—and I want the people, the pedestrians, to feel that in this Bill there is something by means of which they can bring pressure to bear on the Minister in regard to these matters in the future. I plead with the 769 Minister that he should at any rate look into this question. It would be a simple matter to insert some provision of the kind which I suggest. It is absurd to suggest that the Minister is going to envisage the whole of the roads of this country and insist on this and that being done here and there, but I claim that we have the right to expect from our own Minister of Transport some provision for the pedestrian, now that the speed limit has been abolished.
§ Major GLYN
I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. If I may be allowed to mention the fact, when this proposal was put forward in Committee the Minister met us very fairly indeed. We have had communications with local authorities who felt that this question was one of local government. I do not think it wise to press the matter any further, because the local people must know the conditions in their own districts best. There is also this point. The Minister gave us his assurance that he would use his efforts with the Postmaster-General to see that grass verges along the roads were not ruined by the erection of telegraph poles and stays, preventing the verges being used for horse riding. I hope that that can be done and also that we can see to it that the footpaths are not kept in the condition described by an hon. Member opposite, strewn with gravel, so that nobody walks on them at all. The surface of the footpath should be made as good as the surface of the road, and then the woman wheeling the perambulator will go off the road on to the footpath instead of going off the footpath on to the road. I think there is already ample power in the hands of the Minister to bring pressure to bear on the local authorities, and I am afraid if we try to press for power on the part of the Minister to say to the local authority that it is their duty to provide footpaths wherever he thinks it necessary, and if Whitehall tries to bring a crushing pressure to bear, it will only have a bad effect. We should probably not get the footpaths so easily in those circumstances as we shall get them if we leave the Clause as it stands.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
It seems to me that everybody who has spoken against this Amendment has really been in favour of the spirit of the Amendment but has lacked the courage to take the 770 necessary steps to put it into operation. My right hon. Friend who spoke against the Amendment from this side seemed to presuppose that the Minister must be either a fool or a knave.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
As I read the Clause and the Amendment it will simply provide that these steps should be taken, "if necessary or desirable," and I understand that the whole idea of the Amendment is to make certain that the inhabitants of a district, if their local authority does not provide the footpaths which they consider necessary, shall have some appeal to the Minister and then the Minister, if he considers it desirable or necessary to do so, will be able to enforce his will on the local authority and make them provide what the local inhabitants require. It does not mean that the Minister is to go round to places where there is absolutely no necessity for footpaths and say to the local authority, "You are to make footpaths here although I do not think it desirable or necessary." We must leave the Minister some discretion as a man of common sense. I cannot see why we should be afraid to put into the hands of the Minister a power which one must suppose any reasonable Minister will use with proper discretion and in the interests of the people of the country. Anybody who drives round the country must agree that the state of affairs is very bad. Motor traffic has come to stay; it is going to increase, and if we are to have motor roads, which are sure to become still more congested, it is only sensible and reasonable to make provisions for pedestrians, and for horses and other livestock. To shy at the idea of giving the Minister power to make the local authority do what is required by the people who appoint them, seems to me to lack courage.
§ Mr. HALL-CAINE
The most convincing argument made for this Amendment has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), who pointed out that certain local authorities build new roads without grass verges. Yet the Minister insists on asking us to leave the matter with the local authorities. The Minister must often have had the experience on the road of seeing people having to climb up the 771 side of the road against the hedge in order to get out of the way of two cars going down a narrow lane. There should be a footpath of some sort for the people to walk on. Why should these cars have the monopoly of the road? I do not altogether agree with the Minister when he says that he does not think that there should be a footpath on every road. I go so far as to say that there should be a footpath—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The debate on this Amendment is rather developing into an argument for and against footpaths, but the only question is whether the Minister shall have power to override the local authority.
§ Mr. HALL-CAINE
I bow to your Ruling. If the Minister has the right to call upon the local authorities, it will compel them to provide footpaths where necessary. The right hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Ashley) spoke about Liverpool, Glasgow and other centres, but all that is beside the point. I do not see what Liverpool or other large cities have got to do with it. This is a matter that concerns the country roads, particularly the country roads or secondary roads, and also the new roads, and the right hon. Gentleman was beside the point and wasting the time of the House.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
It is with considerable regret that I feel that I have to support the Government, but in this case it is necessary to do so. I am strongly opposed to granting these powers, for we ought not to have interference with the work of the county
§ councils. Those councils are busy looking after their own roads, and when new roads are made the Minister of Transport can make additional grants for footpaths. The county councils know when it is necessary to put footpaths and grass verges, and they ought to be allowed to run their own show.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
May I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this Amendment? We are only half-way through the Bill, and we have a general agreement to do our best to try to get through it to-night.
Those who seek to say that the Clause as it stands is merely a pious hope should consider what it will be if the Amendment be carried. The Minister can order them to do something, but what remedy has he against them if they refuse to do it? If they are going to do it at all, they will do it without his intervention; but he has no means of compelling them, and he or any other Minister in his position would merely look stupid if he gave an order which would not be obeyed. The only possible remedy would be for them to be proceeded against for a breach of the law, and I do not think we have gone so far in the case of local governing bodies. We should not make the Clause any stronger by passing the Amendment, because it would be useless for the Minister to try to compel people when he has no remedy if they refuse to do what he asks.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 258.773
|Division No. 430.]||AYES.||[10.43 p.m.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Haslam, Henry C.||Remer, John R.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Haycock, A. W.||Richards, R.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Cove, William G.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||MacLaren, Andrew||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||McShane, John James||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Markham, S. F.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maxtor, James||Womersley, W. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Middleton, G.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Mr. Llewellyn-Jones and Lieut.-|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Arnott, John|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Alpass, J. H.||Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Ammon, Charles George||Atholl, Duchess of|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hardie, George D.||Palin, John Henry|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Perry, S. F.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Barr, James||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Batey, Joseph||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Potts, John S.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Price, M. P.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Herriotts, J.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Benson, G.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Brichall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hoffman, P. C.||Ritson, J.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hollins, A.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hopkin, Daniel||Romeril, H. G.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Horrabin, J. F.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Rowson, Guy|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Isaacs, George||Salmon, Major I.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brothers, M.||Johnston, Thomas||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sandham, E.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, Thomas||Scurr, John|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Sexton, James|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Kinley, J.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Shield, George William|
|Chater, Daniel||Lang, Gordon||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lathan, G.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lawrence, Susan||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Smith, Tom (Poirtefract)|
|Daggar, George||Leach, W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sorensen, R.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lindley, Fred W.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Strauss, G. R.|
|Day, Harry||Logan, David Gilbert||Sullivan, J.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Longbottom, A. W.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Dickson, T.||Longden, F.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Dukes, C.||Lunn, William||Taylor. W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lymington, Viscount||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Ede, James Chuter||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Edmunds, J. E.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||McElwee, A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Egan, W. H.||McEntee, V. L.||Toole, Joseph|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)||McKinlay, A.||Townend, A. E.|
|Fielden, E. B.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Foot, Isaac||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Mansfield, W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||March, S.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Marcus, M.||Walker, J.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Marley, J.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Marshall, Fred||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mathers, George||Watkins, F. C.|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Melville, Sir James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gill, T. H.||Messer, Fred||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Milner, Major J.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||West, P. R.|
|Gould, F.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Morley, Ralph||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Gray, Milner||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Moses, J. J. H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Muggeridge, H. T.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Murnin, Hugh||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Naylor, T. B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wise, E. F.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||O'Connor, T. J.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Hanbury, C.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Harbord, A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|