Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
This Vote arises under two heads, civil and criminal proceedings. So far as civil proceedings are concerned, the additional provision is for the work of the Treasury Solicitor in connection with the valuation lists arising out of the Rating and Valuation Act. It sometimes happens that he has to take matters to Court, and the expense thus incurred is responsible for the extra amount required under subhead E. With regard to criminal prosecutions, there has been an exceptional number of difficult murder cases and also the Hatry case, and these have entailed the additional sum required.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I should like to congratulate the Financial Secretary and the Government, because this Vote represents their most successful effort in connection with the mitigation of unemployment. The supplementary sum of £5,500 mentioned has, I suppose, given some measure of employment and amelioration to a very well-deserving class of people. The Financial Secretary has given a brief explanation of Items E and F. It will be observed that there is a very considerable increase, particularly in the amount of money required in connection with civil proceedings. The original Estimate was £27,750, and the revised Estimate is £39,750, which makes the additional sum required, £12,000. It is stated in the particulars on page 9 that this additional provision isrequired in connection with litigation arising out of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.I think the hon. Gentleman should justify that expenditure. I observe that the other day, in answer to a question in the House, the hon. Gentleman said that under this particular Act the revenue officers had been represented by counsel 191 in no less than 220 cases and that in 163 cases they had been represented by more than one junior counsel. I think we ought to have more explanation as to why it has been necessary to employ more than one counsel in all those cases.
I have no wish to make any personal allusions, but there has been a number of cases recently before the Courts in which the Solicitor-General has been engaged. It may be that important cases require his employment, but it adds considerably to the cost, and there is a growing feeling in the country that a large amount of money is being unduly spent, not only by private individuals, but by the State, in employing expensive counsel. After all, the Junior Bar in this country is possessed of a very admirable body of learned men, and I do not know why it is that in all these cases it is necessary to bring in some expensive, fashionable "silk," as he is called. The majority of these cases arising under the Rating and Valuation Act are largely on points of law, and they do not require any man of outstanding personality to approach a jury or cross-examine witnesses, but simply want a case to be stated with a certain measure of knowledge of the law, without it being necessary in 163 cases to have more than one junior counsel. Who is it that decides these questions? Who fixes the fees? In one of these cases there was some criticism from the Court as to the necessity for the case being taken before it at all.
It is quite true that there has been a number of important cases, like that of the Co-operative Society workshops, which have strangely enough been before the Courts to get the advantage of a Measure which their representatives in this House criticised very much, and there have been certain decisions as to whether builders' yards should be derated. Take this case, which is included in this £12,000, where the Solicitor-General was instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. On that occasion he was greatly assisted by a gentleman who apparently did not get any fee, but who happened to sit in Court and cited a large number of cases. It is said that Mr. Montgomery, K.C., greatly assisted the Court, and the Solicitor-General then made his submission. The 192 curious feature of the case was that the chairman adjourned the heating of the appeal in order that the respondent, that was the Solicitor-General, might have time to consider a point raised by the chairman himself. That was in the case of Samuel Parker Smith versus the Revenue Officer of the City of London. I see that a former Member of this House, Mr. Comyns Carr, appeared for the appellant. He, at any rate, has received some benefit from the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1923. The expenses of this case we are asked to find by this Vote. It seems to me that more care should be exercised, and I hope the Financial Secretary will give the Committee some explanation.
§ Sir K. WOOD
Apparently, the gentleman who received no fee came out best. A question has been asked by a Member on the Liberal Benches as to how many appeals on behalf of valuation officers have been entered up to that date under the Rating and Valuation Act before Recorders and County Court assessors. He also inquired how many had been heard and determined, and how many were successful? In the Treasury reply it was stated:The Revenue officer has given notice of appeal under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, in 925 cases; has appeared as respondent in appeals by occupiers in 235 cases. The Revenue Officer has been successful in 317 and unsuccessful in 143 cases. 422 cases have been respited to await the decision of the cases stated to the High Court.I suppose it is because of these appeals that this money is required in this Estimate, and I have no doubt that valuable decisions have been arrived at. I do not doubt that a large number of people have been anxious to obtain the great benefits which have arisen from this beneficent scheme and I can understand their desire to profit from it. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be anxious, if he has anything to do with these accounts, to have regard to the fact that very often you can get on very well with a good junior counsel.
The next item arises in connection with criminal prosecutions. The Financial Secretary told us that one of the cases which occasioned this extra cost of £1,500 was the Hatry case. I asked the Finan- 193 cial Secretary three weeks or a mouth ago for an estimate of the cost to the State of the Hatry case, including counsels' fees. It is a request that every client generally puts to his solicitor during proceedings. I was amazed. I had a very polite and nice letter from the Financial Secretary saying that he could not tell me for another two months what the cost would be. I wrote back, I hope in equally kindly terms, and suggested that all I asked him for was an estimate. I regret to say that at that particular stage the correspondence ceased, and I heard nothing from him. I think that this is the occasion when I must press him to tell us what was the approximate cost of the Hatry case to the State. I am not asking him to give exact figures. But this is a thing that the public would very much like to know. These were the protracted proceedings at the Mansion House Police Court, the proceedings, which I am glad to say were not so long, at the Old Bailey. What was the cost of that trial? I see here that the Financial Secretary has put down an extra £1,500 required. I do not think many of us will grudge this money. It goes to a deserving class of people who at the present time, I understand, are suffering from the general decline in the fortunes of the country. I am told that the Bar is suffering in conjunction with almost every other class of the community under this Government. They tell me that there are many members in the Temple who used to earn very large incomes and that they are suffering—
§ Sir K. WOOD
I would not like any friend of mine in the Temple to think that I am endeavouring to deprive them—[Interruption.] All I want is further information from the Financial Secretary, and if the expenditure is justified no one would be more glad than myself that these honest and deserving people receive some remuneration from the State.
§ Captain GUNSTON
I cannot quite agree with all that my right hon. Friend has said, as I belong neither to the senior nor the junior branch of the legal profession, 194 but it strikes me that this sum of £4,000 is not excessive, though I think a good deal of money has been spent in briefing expensive "silks." I have been looking up the Second Reading Debate on the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act—a Debate which will be remembered because of the declaration then made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that rates in themselves were not a burden at all. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said on that occasion:that this Bill will introduce confusion into trade and industry, that it will cost the country very large sums in the employment of a multitude of officials to perform a multitude of useless tasks, and that certain parts of the Bill are absolutely unworkable and must be, and will be, withdrawn at once."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; col. 224, Vol. 218.]Of course we know that the Measure has not been withdrawn, and that it is the only thing likely to help employment at the present time, but in the same speech the hon. Lady said it would lead to a great increase in the employment of surveyors—
§ Captain GUNSTON
I was only going to refer to the hon. Lady's statement which she concluded by saying that the Measure would also help the employment of members of the legal profession. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary what has been the total cost of litigation in regard to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act; and, further, if he can give the separate figures in regard to litigation covering agricultural hereditaments, industrial hereditaments and freight transport hereditaments, respectively. Finally, as regard the sum of £7,000 mentioned under Sub-head I as receipts on account of costs recovered in connection with civil proceedings, I should like to know if this money has been recovered in connection with proceedings where the ratepayers have brought cases and have lost those cases.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to have come here with a properly prepared brief if he was going to discuss legal matters. He accounted for this enormous increase 195 in law charges by saying that the number of criminal prosecutions had been out of all proportion to the normal. But, in fact, criminal proceedings only account for a small increase while the cost of civil proceedings has been increased enormously. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to treat the Committee in this way—telling us in an airy manner that this increase is all due to the number of murder cases and to the Hatry case and so forth, when an examination of his own Supplementary Estimate, shows his contention to be entirely wrong.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon Gentleman, and I did not hear him say a single word about civil cases. I heard him mention in an airy manner about a number of murder cases and the Hatry case.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I cannot allow the hon. Member to misrepresent me in that way. I said that the increase arose from two causes. One was civil and one was criminal. It arose from the number of cases under the Valuation Act, and a number of difficult murder cases and the Hatry case. If the hon. Member will consult his colleagues, he will find that he is wrong.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I unreservedly withdraw as regards civil litigation, but he did say there had been enormously expensive murder prosecutions. I do not know where there has been an increase of capital crime during this year which entitled him to say that. On my own circuit there has been a most satisfactory decrease in crime, and I heard the Home Secretary say the other day that there had been a decrease in crime throughout England. I should therefore like some further explanation of the expensive murder cases which the hon. Gentleman said accounts for this £1,000 increase. There is another point I would like to raise against the hon. Gentleman: that is, under the head of "Criminal prosecutions and quasi-criminal proceedings." What are these quasi-criminal proceedings? There is criminal litigation and there are criminal prosecutions. What 196 are these quasi-criminal proceedings? What is the difference between criminal and quasi-criminal? Was the Goddard case a quasi-criminal case?
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON
There is in this sum of £12,000 a question which I submit is a real question of principle. There has been an expenditure upon some of these rating and valuation appeals which has been wholly unnecessary, and I find myself engaged in the somewhat distasteful task of having to sort out that which I regard as my public duty from that which I regard as my duty to my profession. There is no doubt that in a large number of cases, which have been either defended or prosecuted by counsel on behalf of the rating officers—certainly in 163, according to information which I obtained in answer to a question—two junior counsel have been engaged on behalf of the rating officers. It is not that leading counsel expensive or inexpensive have been employed, because these are not, as a general rule, cases in which leading counsel are employed at all. They deal with simple questions of fact which are decided by recorders and that of appropriate tribunals who do the work allocated to them by the quarter sessions for the counties. At those different courts there are members of the Bar who hold themselves out to practice whenever the tribunal happens to sit. A great number of them are junior counsel of considerable experience and considerable ability, and yet the practice has sprung up—I do not know how long it has been operating—of sending down to do these cases, on behalf of the revenue authority, counsel who do not normally practice at those courts, and who under the rules of my profession must be paid a special fee over and above the fee for which the ordinary man is willing to do the work. These foreign counsel—I am using the expression in a particular sense—who have been sent down with special fees are quite unnecessary. I do not know who these fortunate young gentlemen are. I am perfectly certain that they are able and experienced people who have done their work well, but what I am concerned to know, from the public point of view, is why this practice has sprung up? Because, in addition, it becomes necessary to employ counsel belonging to the sessions, and that accounts for the fact 197 that in 163 cases two junior counsel have been employed, one of them quite unnecessarily in my humble submission, and the other of them no doubt a gentleman who would do the work quite well at his own sessions, but who has no particular merit over and above the counsel who practise at these particular sessions. I am not here discussing whether those practising at these particular sessions have been deprived of briefs or not, but these cases are pure cases of fact—I have tried some of them myself and know what I am talking about—and I would like to have from the Financial Secretary an assurance that this practice will not be continued.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt)
I think it would be well if I were to say a word about this matter. I do not pretend that I have received any benefit in regard to it, or that I know very much about it, but as I happen to be here I would like to give the best answer I can. In a sense this matter comes under my jurisdiction, though I am not sure that I have actually dealt with any of these cases or given directions about them. The position is this: At present there are a large number of these cases up and down the country and we are very anxious to secure uniformity of administration. It is very undesirable that a decision taken in one county or borough should be wholly different from the decision taken in another. Therefore it has been considered desirable that we should get some young competent person to deal with these matters and that he should deal with them, as far as possible, throughout the country—that he should go from court to court and give the one court the experience of decisions in another court.
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON
Is the Attorney-General suggesting that on a pure question of fact counsel in one court should be able to tell that court what has happened elsewhere?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
It is quite impossible to say that these questions are purely questions of fact. If my hon. and learned Friend really had to consider these cases, he would appreciate that you cannot isolate questions of fact from questions of law. The decision given in one part of the country is practically the same in other cases. In 198 certain cases, the Treasury Solicitor has thought fit to appoint certain people to do this particular work. I am quite sure that the whole matter will receive attention. We are certainly most anxious to cut down expenses. The only justification for what we have done in this matter is that we have been administering for a short time a wholly new Act, and we thought it was desirable that we should do everything we possibly could to secure uniformity in different parts of the country.
I wish to raise a matter in regard to which I feel sure that the whole House will agree with me, namely, the very severe strictures that were passed by Lord Dunedin in an action brought by the revenue officials. I want to know what is going to be done in the future in the case of charges of that kind. After all, we are taxpayers—
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
I think we should be afforded a convenient opportunity for discussing this kind of expenditure. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), I am not sure that I was quite satisfied, as a layman who is nevertheless a Justice of the Peace, with the explanation of the Attorney-General. In some districts they have special arrangements whereby these cases are settled out of Court, and I hope the Treasury will encourage such arrangements which, I imagine, are far less costly to all the parties. As regards the excess of £500, are we to understand that under the present Government we are suffering from more crime or from higher fees, or is the increase due to the research that we understand is going on into what I may call the Italian case—the alleged presence in Italy of a person concerned in the Hatry case? I should also like to know whether the civil cases include any Income Tax cases. It is in order to get a satisfactory answer from the Treasury, and to show that we are not 199 entirely satisfied on the question of costs, that I move a reduction of the Vote.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The Attorney-General has already answered the most intricate of the points that have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked what was the cost of the Hatry trial. The Hatry trial falls within the Estimates for this year, and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman anything further at present—
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Because I do not know. The amount which falls within the current year is £500, leaving £1,000 for the other cases in which there has been an increase. The suggestion was made—though subsequently it was withdrawn by the hon. Member who made it—that I had said there had been a great increase in crime, but the fact is that owing to some expensive murder trials the cost has been £1,000 greater than was anticipated. With regard to the civil side, an hon. Member asked me whether I could divide it between agricultural, transport and general industrial hereditaments, but I think he rather thought that I should not be able to give him an answer. So far as the agricultural part is concerned, it was under £100. The Transport part is also under £100. The great bulk of the amount is in respect of industrial hereditaments.
One word on the general question of costs of civil proceedings in connection with rating and valuation. The Committee should look at this in its true perspective. The cases investigated by the revenue officers number 1,500,000. Of that total, 31,000 have been cases where the Assessment Committee have had to give decisions owing to differences between either the rating authority and the revenue officer or between the rating authority and the occupier.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
It is only for England and Wales. The total number of cases which have gone to appeal is 1,200. That is a minute fraction of 1 per cent. of the total number of cases investigated, 200 and only 3.7 per cent. of the number of cases in which differences arose. But even of these 1,200 cases, 250 were appeals by the occupier or other persons, and not by the revenue officer, so that it was only in 950 cases, or 8 per cent., that there was an appeal at the instance of the revenue officer. The total cost owing to these cases was £12,000, or £10 a case. I think hon. Members who know the cost of legal proceedings will agree that an average of £10 a case is not a very big cost. The proportion of cases in which the Treasury was successful involved a very large saving to the revenue, representing a capitalised sum of over £1,000,000, so I do not think the amount expended has been unduly large.
§ Sir K. WOOD
Then we may say that the hon. Gentleman is now very pleased with the Act and that it is working very well?
§ Captain GUNSTON
Am I right in supposing that the £7,000 in sub-head I is money which has been recovered against the ratepayers in these cases, so that altogether the whole cost has been only £5,000.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I think the hon. Member means £8,000 and not £7,000. There have been Appropriations-in-Aid in connection with various civil proceedings. These particular rating and valuation proceedings are only some of the proceedings covered by the Vote as a whole. The sum of £7,000 is recoverable from other civil proceedings, £1,000 is in respect of various other proceedings, and thus the total Vote for which I am asking is really not £13,500, but £5,500.
§ Major NATHAN
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the figure of £12,000 as representing the cost of 1,200 cases, of which 950 were brought by the revenue officers. That was an average of rather more than £10 per case.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
It is for 1,200 cases. The figure of 950 was the number of appeals by the revenue officer, the other 250 being appeals by other persons.
§ Major NATHAN
It works out at £10 a piece. I can scarcely believe that the Financial Secretary wishes us seriously to believe that the legal expenses involved 201 in cases of this kind are only £10 on the average, in view of the fact that in a number of them two counsel are employed May I ask the Financial Secretary if he will confirm whether or not that information is absolutely accurate, or whether the fact is not that the £12,000 in reference to rating and valuation appeals is a sum over and above that included in the original Estimate. I find it difficult to believe that one counsel could be sent from London all over the country at an average of £10, and I find it impossible to believe that two counsel could be employed at £10 apiece. I would refer the Financial Secretary to paragraph (e) in Vote 10, Class 3, of the Civil Estimates of 1929, where headings are given for the sum of £27,750, part of which, as I understand it, includes proceedings under the Rating and Valuation Act, and I ask him whether he is to be correctly understood that £12,000 covers the whole costs of the 1,200 cases or whether it is an amount over and above that included in the original Estimate.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
The Financial Secretary referred to the Hatry case and said he could not tell exactly what it had cost or how much came within this year. I should like to know how much of the expenses of that case can possibly come under next year's Vote.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
I quite appreciate that. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, have not all the expenses connected with that case been incurred in this year, and are we not to take it in this Vote that the whole of the expenses of that case have already been incurred, because it is now, happily, finished. I understand that there may be some cases of appeal, but in the Court of Criminal Appeal I have no doubt the case will be finished in this financial year. Under those circumstances, is it possible that there will be a still further supplementary sum?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must wait and see if there is an additional Supplementary Estimate. The Minister has already told him the amount in this Estimate.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
I was only induced to get out of order—and, of course, 202 I bow to your Ruling—by the remarks of the Financial Secretary with regard to this case. I will pass from that point, and ask for an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), as to what exactly are the quasi criminal proceedings? Are they proceedings by way of Latin information or by way of English information, as in the case of certain betting cases? Are those included under the heading of quasi criminal proceedings, or what exactly are included as quasi criminal proceedings under this Measure? I should like an answer to that question. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can give an answer. With regard to the remarks of the Attorney-General concerning the appeals of the Revenue Officer, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it did not seem to be a very satisfactory answer to say that they were mainly cases of fact and that therefore the same counsel could go round to different Quarter Sessions and to Court of different Recorders throughout the country. The law on this subject, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows well, is in a very small compass, because there have been very few High Court decisions on these points. There is practically no law involved. They are merely questions of fact, and therefore members of individual Quarter Sessions are quite competent to deal with these cases.
I happened to be concerned in three or four of these cases against counsel sent down with a junior on behalf of the Revenue Officer, and they were entirely cases of fact. It is quite true that the learned Friend who was opposing me on that occasion tried to tell the tribunal what had been done in another part of the country, but the tribunal quite properly did not accept as binding upon them the decisions on fact of a completely different Quarter Sessions. I think that, from the point of view of the public purse, it would be better, where there are no definite decisions on points of law, to send down members of the same Circuit, and, if possible, members of the same Sessions, and so not have to pay the additional special fees of the man sent down from London and the extra junior's fee for the local barrister, who more or less has to sit by the side of him in the case. A considerable say- 203 ing could be made in the public revenue where the cases are mainly questions of fact, and questions of fact within the cognisance of the particular tribunal which is trying the case.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), the Attorney-General has already explained that the matter will be looked into in case there should prove to be anything in the point which the hon. Member has made. The quasi criminal cases relate to cases where the Public Prosecutor appears in a prosecution in a non-criminal court. There are cases in which penalties are being asked under the Lottery Act or something of that kind
§ and not imprisonment. The hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green, North-East (Major Nathan) has given me an opportunity of explaining my statement. I should have explained that all the cases have not reached a suitable termination. There are 530, I understand, that have been heard right out, some have been respited and some for different reasons, are not yet completed. I am sorry that I misled the Committee and am glad the hon. and gallant Member has given me an opportunity of making an explanation.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,490, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 156.205
|Division No. 199.]||AYES.||[12.8 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Hammersley, S. S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Albery, Irving James||Hartington, Marquess of||Salmon, Major I.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Beaumont M. W.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Butler, R. A.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Lymington, Viscount||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Christie, J. A.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. Lambert|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Morrison, W. S. (Glas., Cirencester)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Muirhead, A. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Remer, John R.||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Sir George Hennessy and Captain|
|Sir George Bowyer.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Dallas, George||Hayday, Arthur|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Dukes, C.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Duncan, Charles||Herriotts, J.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Ede, James Chuter||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Angell, Norman||Edmunds, J. E.||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Arnott, John||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Batey, Joseph||Egan, W. H.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Foot, Isaac||Isaacs, George|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Benson, G.||Freeman, Peter||Johnston, Thomas|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gill, T. H.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Brooke, W.||Glassey, A. E.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Brothers, M.||Gossling, A. G.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Gould, F.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Burgess, F. G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Kinley, J.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lathan, G.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lawson, John James|
|Compton, Joseph||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Daggar, George||Haycock, A. W.||Leach, W.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Palin, John Henry.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Potts, John S.||Sorensen, R.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Pybus, Percy John||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|McElwee, A.||Ritson, J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|McEntce, V. L.||Romeril, H. G.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|McKinlay, A.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Marley, J.||Rowson, Guy||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Marshall, Fred||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Mathers, George||Sanders, W. S.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Matters, L. W.||Sawyer, G. F.||White, H. G.|
|Milner, J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shield, George William||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Morley, Ralph||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Shillaker, J. F.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Simmons, C. J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Mort, D. L.||Sinkinson, George||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Wise, E. F.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.|
Resolutions agreed to.