HC Deb 09 May 1930 vol 238 cc1337-55

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Earl WINTERTON

I beg to move, That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection. I am well aware that strict limitations are imposed by the Rules of the House on what can be said in moving a Motion of this kind, and I shall confine myself to two or three points which seem to me to be valid in considering this Motion. The first is that the Bill has been altered in Committee to a degree which makes it almost unrecognisable as the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House on 31st January last. In the second place, since the Second Reading of the Bill evidence has accumulated in all directions of the strong opposition which is felt by those engaged in this canal boat traffic. May I mention some of the changes which have been made in the Bill in Committee? The original Bill was described as A Bill to amend the Canal Boats Acts, 1887 and 1884, and the Education Act, 1921, so far as it relates to children on canal boats. The first two Clauses of the original Bill have been altered. Clause 1 of the original Bill read as follows: This Act may be cited as the Canal Boats Act, 1929, and shall be construed as one with the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 and 1884, which Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 to 1929. Clause 2 of the original Bill was: On and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, no child under the age of fifteen years shall reside or travel on or in a canal boat. Clause 1, as amended in Committee, now reads: Subject as hereinafter provided, on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, no child over the age of five years and below the age at which, under the law for the time being in force, his parents cease to be under an obligation to cause him to receive efficient elementary instruction, shall reside in a canal boat except—

  1. "(i) during the period between the last school hour in any week of the school which the child is attending and the first school hour of that school in the following week; and
  2. "(ii) during the period between the end of any school term of the school which he is attending and the beginning of the next school term of that school:
Provided that the residence of a child in a canal boat during any period as regards which a registered medical practitioner certifies that in the interests of his own health or the health of other children he ought not to attend school shall not be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of this section. In place of the bald provision in the Bill as it came before the House for Second Reading that no child under 15 years shall reside or travel on a canal boat, we have the very different provision applying the Bill only to children over the age of five years and up to the age at which children leave school and allowing children to reside on canal boats at all other times. We have also an important proviso in the Clause in relation to the health of children. Clause 2 of the amended Bill is an even wider departure from the provisions of the original Bill. Clause 2 says: On and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, no woman or child below the age at which under the law for the time being in force his parents cease to be under an obligation to cause him to receive efficient elementary instruction, shall reside in any canal boat while it is being used for the conveyance of manure, night soil, or refuse, or any other foul or offensive cargo. This brings the question of the health and welfare of women on certain boats under review for the first time. It was not dealt with in the original Bill. These are some of the differences between the Bill as it came before the House for Second Reading and as amended in Committee. I am well aware that the promoters of the Bill will take the obvious point that some of these alterations have been put in as a result of Amendments moved by those who opposed the Bill in Committee. That is true, and some of them have been put in by the promoters themselves, but, from the constitutional point of view, that argument is not valid in considering a Motion of this kind, because it has always been held that when a Bill is fundamentally altered in Com- mittee upstairs, the House is open to be convinced that the alterations make a strong case for recommitting the Bill or sending it to a Select Committee. It has always been held that there are limits beyond which a Standing Committee cannot go in altering a Bill, and that if they go beyond these limits the Bill has to be sent to a Select Committee or recommitted. So much for the alterations which have been made in the Bill.

Now I come to the second point which is referred to in my Motion—the question of the petition of persons interested in the welfare of the women and children living on canal boats. The only information that we have on the subject of the conditions on board canal boats has been obtained through the agency of a Committee appointed by this House, or appointed by a Minister. It is the evidence of what is usually known as the Chamberlain Committee, which reported as long ago as 1920, when the conditions were different from what they are to-day. We who oppose the Bill have been astonished since the Second Reading stage—we knew on the Second Reading that there was opposition to the Bill in many quarters—to discover that the whole of the people employed on the canal boats are in opposition to the Bill, not merely as it passed Second Reading but as it has since passed through Committee. Not only does the opposition come from those employed on the boats. Before this House passes a Bill which is opposed by all the people who will be affected by it, there ought to be an opportunity for a Select Committee to take evidence and to hear the views of the people concerned.

Apart from that, there is another interesting fact about the opposition to the Bill. Every single social worker amongst the canal boat people with whom we have got into touch—clergymen, lay missioners, people who have devoted their lives to social reform, and have assisted in educating the canal boat children—is opposed to the Bill. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite differ from that view let them get up and mention the name of any single social worker who has had experience of these people and is in favour of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear who he is. We can produce the names of many clergymen, lay missioners, and of a gentleman who is an official of the Church Army and has been in charge of the school in which these children are educated. All these people are opposed to the Bill. Another point which should influence the House is that among these social workers we have found a strong opinion that it is possible under the existing law, with good will and if energy is shown on the part of the Board of Education, greatly to improve the educational facilities which are available for these children. In other words there is no need to alter the law. It is obvious that inquiry by a Select Committee would be by far the best method by which information could be conveyed to the House, so that when the House is in possession of that information it could decide how best the law should be amended, if indeed amendment is required at all. I have not been able to find any evidence that such amendment is required.

There is another reason for the Bill going to a Select Committee. We have had practically no guidance on the Bill, except from junior members of the Government. Their assistance has been very useful so far as it has gone, and I have no complaint to make against the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for what they have done in trying to assist the Committee upstairs; but in the Committee stage of the Bill we have not had a single statement from the person who, above all others, ought to express an opinion on a Bill of this kind, and that is the President of the Board of Education. He refused to speak on the Second Reading, and, although present in Committee, took no part in the Debates. Throughout the Committee stage we were also without the assistance of a single Law Officer. I do not wish to make a complaint against those members of the Government, because I realise that they have been very hard worked and that there have been other Committees sitting, but we do say that it is not right, on a Bill which affects the happiness and welfare of a considerable section of the barge population of the country, that we should be without the assistance and the opinion of members of the Government who are most concerned.

If hon. Members will look at the Bill as it has passed the Committee, it will be obvious that had a Law Officer been present during the Committee stage the Bill would not have passed in the form in which it left the Committee. I think that some of the Amendments made in the Bill, although the promoters and ourselves are responsible for them, would have been in some better form if there had been a Law Officer present to advise. It is not the business of the opponents of the Bill to make the wording of the Bill better than it is. All that we have to do is to bring forward arguments in support of our view. I sincerely hope that the House will accept this Motion. If this Bill, instead of applying to only some 3,000 people applied to some 300,000, I do not believe there are many members of the House who would support it as it stands, because they would know what would happen in their own constituencies if they broke up the homes of the people as this Bill proposes to break up the homes of the families on the canal boats.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN

The promoters of the Bill have been good enough to ask me to take charge of this Bill, and it therefore falls to me to reply very briefly to what the Noble Lord has said. First of all, there was his constitutional point as to the alteration of the Bill in Committee. It has always been the right of Committees to alter Bills, and there is not the slightest doubt that this Bill has been altered, not only within the rights of the Standing Committee, but by the express agreement of the House. I took part in the Debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), whose absence we all deeply regret. I said that the promoters would limit the Bill to the residence of children on canal boats solely in respect of school age. A more specific declaration than that could not have been made. In the second place, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), I dealt with two very proper questions which were put to me. He asked about the children going on the canal boats during the school holidays, and I replied that that would be considered in Committee. The point was not only considered, but met. I claim that what has happened upstairs was by the express agreement of this House on Second Reading. I know the ingenuity of the Noble Lord well, and I admire it, but I really have never heard a more courageous, constitutional point put to the House than that which he has put to-day. Another point that he made was that because a large number of very reputable and sincere opponents of the Bill met a number of Members of this House and presented a petition and debated the merits of this Bill, this House in response should send the Bill back to Committee. Constitutional! Why, I leave it at that!

Mr. PALIN

I have not the intimate knowledge possessed by some Members of the House of the lives of the people whose case we are discussing, but I sat for 16 years on a local authority, and heard the reports of the canal boats inspector every month, and I am quite satisfied that it is not necessary for the industry that women and children should have to live on canal boats. I am satisfied that, to a large extent, the industry is carried on under the conditions which this Bill seeks to impose. We are asked to recommit the Bill because certain clergymen and other social workers have opposed it. A certain number of doctors and clergymen can always be found who will support the existing order and oppose any change.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

You very seldom get unanimity among them on that.

Mr. PALIN

The hon. and gallant Member who has just interrupted, makes one feel very sad indeed. He takes my mind back to the days when we were seeking to prevent children of tender years entering the cotton mills.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE.

It was our party who stopped that.

Mr. PALIN

In those days when a gentleman of the type of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just interrupted was asked if he did not think that the inhaling of fluff from cotton would injure the lungs of these infants, said "No" and added that they could get rid of anything of the kind by means of expectoration. This is the type of mentality which some of these gentlemen bring to bear on such questions. I hope for the honour of this nation that the Bill will not be re-committed.

Sir HERBERT NIELD

We have listened to an irrelevant speech and we have also listened to a most persuasive, and; I was going to say, misleading speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). [An HON. MEMBER: "More irrelevance."] That is for Mr. Speaker to decide, and not for hon. Members below the Gangway. It is a scandal if the Parliamentary business of the country cannot be conducted without these interruptions. If it is desired to conduct this Debate in an orderly manner, hon. Members must refrain from interruptions. I desire to reinforce the arguments of the Noble Lord who moved the Motion and to point out, in addition, how completely the House was misled on the Second Reading by sentimental speeches on matters wholly irrelevant to the Bill. It was said that it was detrimental to health to have women and children on the barges.

Mr. MARCH

So it is.

Sir H. NIELD

The hon. Member cannot have read the last report of the medical officer who was called upon to inquire into this matter or the report of the medical officer of health for Birmingham, both of which were quoted ad libitum during the Second Reading Debate. I have carefully re-perused those reports and I have no reason to withdraw what I said previously—that the recent reports of these inspectors are quite opposed to the arguments put forward in support of the Bill.

Mr. SEXTON

It is not so.

Sir H. NIELD

I wish the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) would keep himself under control, though I have been long enough in the House to know that it is constitutionally impossible for him to keep quiet when something is said with which he does not agree. The argument about health which was put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for Second Reading of the Bill was stated in very glowing terms, but now there is no provision in the Bill to prevent these people, on grounds of health, remaining on the boats. Indeed an infant of from one year to five years is to be permitted now, which was not the case in the original Bill—the Bill so carelessly drafted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Some of these societies will have to learn from their subscription lists that they had better restrain themselves.

Mr. SPEAKER

On this Debate we must not go into the merits of the Bill. We must confine ourselves to reasons for or against its re-committal.

Sir H. NIELD

I am sorry, but the provocation which I have received must be my excuse for not keeping strictly to the question. I was pointing out that a child of a certain age may now reside on a boat. A child may be born on a boat. My point is that the Bill as it stands at present is wholly different from the original Bill. Statements were also made in the earlier Debates about the exploitation of child labour. What is the value of statements of that kind if those who make them cannot be cross-examined? That is one of the difficulties of legislating for large bodies of people and taking away, in some cases, their property, taking away the amenities of family life, and driving their women and children into the slums. On the point as to child labour, there has not been an atom of cross-examinable evidence, except from the noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) who gave her experiences. I do not challenge her statement, but we have had general evidence from those engaged in missionary work and others who are brought into contact with these people, and they have definitely said that there is no child labour in the full sense of the term and that the casual performance by a child of an occasional act is all that can be alleged.

We are dealing with a class of people who resent this interference and who are supported in their resentment by a great number of the public. A second petition has been lodged bringing the number of signatures against the Bill up to between 1,500 and 2,000. These are law-abiding and respectable people and it is a reflection upon them to interfere with their proper discretion as parents. The only means whereby this question can be decided properly is by submitting it to a Select Committee before whom witnesses can be examined and cross-examined. In regard to the Chamberlain report, that report is ten years old and it is admitted that during those ten years a great im- provement has taken place in all matters relating to these people. The school attendances are better when the numbers of the children attending are ascertained in the proper way and not by taking one particular school. I ask the House to pause before inflicting a grave injustice on these people, even though only a relatively small number are concerned. I think it was the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who said that this was not a matter of votes and that therefore Members could consider it quite impartially. I urge the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee where evidence can be taken from all those affected.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON

I support the Motion. The procedure which we are asking the House to adopt is a usual one in connection with a Bill such as this, which vitally affects the lives of a section of the people, whatever the number of people affected may be. The barge population of this country are very anxious as to what will happen to them under this Bill. We had a Bill some time ago with regard to shop hours which affected a section of the people and, in that case, the House agreed to send the Bill to a Select Committee in order that the whole circumstances might be investigated. I think, in the present instance, where there are such differences of opinion, a Select Committee is undoubtedly indicated. I was on the Committee upstairs and I was struck by the genuine differences of opinion existing between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill, and we have had an example of those differences this morning. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) said it had been proved that the health of these children was all right, but the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March) entirely dissented from that view. That is a subject which could be properly investigated before the Select Committee, and, at the same time, they could consider the petition which has been lodged against the Bill.

The deputations from the barge people which attended upstairs a few days ago, have a good deal of evidence to supply as regards the allegations made during the Second Reading Debate and the Committee discussions. A member of one of those deputations handed round the school-books of his children, to show that the children are not being badly educated, but some hon. Members maintain that they are being badly educated. Surely those hon. Members cannot object to these allegations being thoroughly examined. Further, it has been pointed out that the Bill is now entirely different from its original form and this House should inquire as closely as possible before passing any proposal so drastic. There are a number of things which I should like to see inquired into by a Select Committee. There are, first of all, the allegations regarding the health of the children and the women living on refuse boats, because there are differences of opinion on that question. There is also the allegation as regards child labour. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) told us a story of how she was in a lock-keeper's house and saw a child doing work for which it was quite unfitted. Other allegations of that kind have been made, both in this House and outside. Let them be inquired into properly, under oath. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think it is very necessary that they should be. Hon. Members opposite make these allegations, and they have not the slightest proof.

Mr. EDE

It was the Noble Lady on your side!

Captain HUDSON

She happens to be acting with hon. Members opposite, and we are sufficiently broad-minded on this side to realise that there may be differences of opinion. The most important thing that I should like to have inquired into is the question of where these children are to live if this Bill becomes law. This is the first question which the deputation asked, and it is one which could not be answered. We are told that a number of them are already living on shore with their parents, but we have yet to have an answer to that particular question, and I do not think we should pass legislation saying that children should not reside in a certain place unless at the same time we make it clear where they are supposed to live.

Another important matter to inquire into, which was put forward with great force by the men representing the educational side of the deputation upstairs, was as to some alternative scheme, such as a floating school or some school along where the canals run. We know, from what we have heard, that tremendous progress has been made along these lines and is being made every year, and we who oppose the Bill say that along those lines we can solve the problem and at the same time not necessarily separate the children from their parents. Finally, there is the question, which is creating tremendous interest, particularly among women's organisations, as to whether women should or should not be allowed to reside on refuse boats. All those points could and should be thoroughly inquired into, the allegations be substantiated or otherwise, and witnesses seen, and then, and only then, can this House really decide whether it will pass a Bill of this kind. By the comments in papers in this country, by correspondence, and in every other way, it must be obvious to every Member of this House that the passage of the Bill is viewed with great apprehension by a very large number of people.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I should have thought the promoters of the Bill would have been the first to rise in their places and say, "We are so confident of the facts on which we base our desire to pass this Bill that we, above all people, welcome the chance to have our case established on oath and to confound our opponents."I cannot help thinking that this is one of those over-sentimental things which are from time to time inflicted upon this House. I believe we are regarded throughout the world as the most hypocritical people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I mean the people as a whole, of whom the Labour party are substantial and accurate representatives. This is a thoroughly hypocritical Bill. People have lived on barges for centuries. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same ones?"] Well, they have been able to transmit vigorous descendants, most of whom will compare favourably with a large number of Members of this House. All over the world people live in boats. If you go to far more ancient civilisations than ours, you will find that when our forbears were running about dyed with woad there were millions of people living in boats in the East, healthy, strong, vigorous, and in the main people who in physique, in handicrafts, in sobriety, and industry would compare favourably with any of the people of the West. I am speaking of the Chinese, and they live on boats. What is wrong with living on water?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have been waiting anxiously to hear the hon. and learned Member address his arguments to the Motion before the House.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I apologise if I have been swimming at large, but I am arguing that we ought to be able to get at the facts before a Select Committee. I should like to get the Chinese Ambassador to give evidence of the health of those people living on boats. I should like to give evidence myself of living on a small boat. It is true that we were rough and ready and that we ate our herring with our fingers, but we had the answer of the Chinaman, who said his fingers had never been in anybody else's mouth. I should like to see a great deal of evidence. I should like Clause 2 considered, which says that no woman is to reside on a refuse boat, to see whether that is an unhealthy occupation. If disagreeable matters are not to be in the vicinity of the fair sex when engaged in their work, there should be no such things as chambermaids in hotels. In homes where there are no domestics who does the dirty work? It is not the man. He takes good care to dodge his share of it.

I should like to have some evidence about Clause 2, and medical opinion on that question. I should like a few of the mothers who have brought up children and know about the raising of children to give evidence as to the disadvantageous effects of removing children and putting them into cheap and dirty lodgings, in the hands of strangers who are not their parents. I should like evidence as to the psychological, physical, and moral effects, because it is difficult enough for parents to put up with their own children, and almost impossible for people to put up with other people's children. I should like some evidence upon that, and I think it desirable that before we make this extraordinary change we should have much more evidence. We have had the argument repeated again and again that a very small number of people are affected, but because the number is small is the very reason why we should stand up for a minority. When we have a great mass, a mob, clamouring for a thing, it should be our duty, as men and lovers of freedom, to say "No. We do not care how violent or how great your mob is, we will resist you. We will risk our seats, and we will risk our return to power even." To put it in the words of our national poet: We will drain our dearest veins, But we shall be free!

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN

I should like to bring before the House the personal knowledge that I have of this question, because I represent Brentford, where, I think, there are more barges and more bargees than in any other part of the country. I should also like to read to the House a few letters that I have had from the children of these people, showing that they have a good education, and that by being able to go back to the barges—

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should defer these remarks to some later stage, because the Motion before the House is merely one for re-committal of the Bill to a Select Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN

I support that Motion. From personal knowledge of the physical health of the children on these barges and of the education that they are getting, I think this Motion should be fully supported.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I do not propose to support this re-committal Motion with arguments such as were adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). I am not able to bring arguments based on China and the barges of antiquity, but I want to go back just as far as the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill. When the Bill was introduced, it was a fundamentally different Measure from the one which we are now considering. Then, it was based on health, but to-day it is based on education. We were told in Committee that a barge was a foul and horrid place, that the cabins were no more than seven feet by seven feet or even less, that people slept there in turns because they could not all sleep there together, that they were unfit almost for human habitation, let alone for habitation by children.

Now we find that the promoters have gone back completely from that attitude, and they are saying that these children, at the most delicate part of their lives, between the time of their birth and the age of five, may live on barges, that they may spend their holidays on barges, that when they have finished their work each week and the time comes for healthy recreation and exercise, they may go back to these foul barges in order to enjoy themselves. How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this Bill is at all the same Bill that he introduced into this House and which he took to the Committee upstairs? Another quite new aspect has been brought in since the earlier stages. That was the amazing confession made by the Noble Lady who supported the Bill. She told us how she obtained some of her information. She told us how she slipped unobserved into a hut by the canal side, how she moved with caution a curtain of the window, and, using a periscope or by some other means—

Mr. PALIN

On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lady's method of obtaining information a reason for the re-committal of the Bill?

Captain CROOKSHANK

On the point of Order. If the promoters of the Bill founded their case on that kind of evidence, surely it is all the more argument for having it thrashed out by a Select Committee.

Captain WATERHOUSE

If the hon. Member waits until I come to the point, he will see that it is relevant.

Mr. SPEAKER

I thought that the hon. and gallant Member's argument was directed to getting more direct evidence.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I was saying that the Noble Lady used a periscope or some other means. What did she see? She saw a child straining with all its might at the lock gates endeavouring to do a task which he was quite unable to accomplish. She was appalled by this brutality, and therefore she supported the Bill. This child has now been forgotten. He may go to the lock gates and strain himself, and his mother and sisters may strain themselves, as long as he does not strain himself on the days when the other children are at school. Such a change in the Bill carries it outside the scope of the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading, and which we discussed for long hours upstairs, and I hope that the House will agree to a recommittal.

Sir D. MACLEAN

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 51.

Division No. 282.] AYES. [12 n.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hollins, A. Rathbone, Eleanor
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Hopkin, Daniel Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Alpass, J. H. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Arnott, John Hunter, Dr. Joseph Romeril, H. G.
Atholl, Duchess of Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rowson, Guy
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barr, James Kennedy, Thomas Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Batey, Joseph Kinley, J. Senders, W. S.
Bellamy, Albert Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Sandham, E.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Law, Albert (Bolton) Sawyer, G. F.
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Law, A. (Rosendale) Scrymgeour, E.
Brockway, A. Fenner Lawrence, Susan Sexton, James
Brothers, M. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Leach, W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shield, George William
Burgess, F. G. Lloyd, C. Ellis Shillaker, J. F.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Longbottom, A. W. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Longden, F. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Charleton, H. C. Lowth, Thomas Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Chater, Daniel Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
Church, Major A. G. McElwee, A. Snell, Harry
Cluse, W. S. Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Strauss, G R.
Cove, William G. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Sutton, J. E.
Daggar, George Mansfield, W. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Day, Harry March, S. Thurtle, Ernest
Dukes, C. Marley, J. Tillett, Ben
Edmunds, J. E. Mathers, George Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Melville, Sir James Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Messer, Fred Turner, B.
Foot, Isaac Mills, J. E. Vaughan, D. J.
Forgan, Dr. Robert Milner, Major J. Viant, S. P.
Freeman, Peter Montague, Frederick Watkins, F. C.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Morley, Ralph Wellock, Wilfred
Glassey, A. E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gossling, A. G. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Westwood, Joseph
Gould, F. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) White, H. G.
Gray, Milner Mort, D. L. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Muggeridge, H. T. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Groves, Thomas E. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkesto[...]) Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
Grundy, Thomas W. Palin, John Henry Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, Wilfrid Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Palmer, E. T. Wise, E. F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Hayday, Arthur Peters, Dr. Sidney John Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hayes, John Henry Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Phillips, Dr. Marion TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Pole, Major D. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Price, M. P.
NOES.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Knox, Sir Alfred
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Bracken, B. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Llewellin, Major J. J.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Gunston, Captain D. W. Lymington, Viscount
Butler, R. A. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Macquisten, F. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Marjoribanks, E. C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Morden, Col. W. Grant
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Davies, Dr. Vernon Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon Barnstaple)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Eden, Captain Anthony Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Erskins, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Simms, Major-General J.
Ferguson, Sir John King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Skelton, A. N. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Warrender, Sir Victor
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Waterhouse, Captain Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Wells, Sydney R. Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.

Question put accordingly,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be

nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection."

The House divided: Ayes, 59. Noes, 157.

Division No. 283.] AYES. [12.8 p.m.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Morden, Col. W. Grant
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bracken, B. Gunston, Captain D. W. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Butler, R. A. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Simms, Major-General J.
Carver, Major W. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Skelton, A. N.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davies, Dr. Vernon King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Knox, Sir Alfred Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) Llewellin, Major J. J. Wells, Sydney R.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lymington, Viscount Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Ferguson, Sir John Macquisten, F. A.
Fermoy, Lord Margesson, Captain H. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Marjorlbanks, E. C. Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.
Forgan, Dr. Robert Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Groves, Thomas E. Mills, J. E.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major J.
Alpass, J. H. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Montague, Frederick
Arnott, John Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morley, Ralph
Atholl, Duchess of Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ayles, Walter Hayday, Arthur Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayes, John Henry Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Mort, D. L.
Barr, James Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Muggeridge, H. T.
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bellamy, Albert Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hollins, A. Palin, John Henry
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Hopkin, Daniel Paling, Wilfrid
Benson, G. Horrabin, J. F. Palmer, E. T.
Birkett, W. Norman Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Brockway, A. Fenner Hunter, Dr. Joseph Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Brothers, M. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Phillips, Dr. Marion
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Burgess, F. G. Kennedy, Thomas Pole, Major D. G.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Kinley, J. Price, M. P.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Law, Albert (Bolton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Charleton, H. C. Law, A. (Rosendale) Romeril, H. G.
Chater, Daniel Lawrence, Susan Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Church, Major A. G. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Rowson, Guy
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Cove, William G. Lloyd, C. Ellis Sanders, W. S.
Daggar, George Longbottom, A. W. Sawyer, G. F.
Day, Harry Longden, F. Scrymgeour, E.
Dukes, C. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sexton, James
Edmunds, J. E. Lowth, Thomas Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) McElwee, A. Shield, George William
Foot, Isaac Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Shillaker, J. F.
Freeman, Peter Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Glassey, A. E. Mansfield, W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gossling, A. G. March, S. Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Gould, F. Marley, J. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gray, Milner Mathers, George Snell, Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Melville, Sir James Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Messer, Fred Strauss, G. R.
Sutton, J. E. Wellock, Wilfred Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Thurtle, Ernest Westwood, Joseph Wise, E. F.
Tillett, Ben White, H. G. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Tinker, John Joseph Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Turner, B. Wilkinson, Ellen C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Vaughan, D. J. Williams, David (Swansea, East) Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins
Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Watkins, F. C. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    cc1355-97
  1. NEW CLAUSE.—(Section 1 not to come into force until board and lodging provision available.) 16,999 words, 2 divisions
    2. cc1397-418
  2. CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to children on canal boats.) 8,208 words, 2 divisions