HC Deb 04 March 1931 vol 249 cc537-52
Mr. W. S. MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 3, to leave out the word "and."

This is followed by a consequential Amendment involving the addition of two parishes which are to be transferred from Gloucestershire to Warwickshire. I would not have brought up a matter of this local importance if I were not convinced that it represents the wishes of those who, after all, are most intimately affected by the passage of the Bill and whose claims to be heard before the House can never be denied. The boundary between the three counties of Gloucester, Warwickshire and Worcestershire is an extremely complicated and tortuous line. There are islands and peninsulas of one county almost completely surrounded by territory belonging to another. That was until recently a matter of very small importance. The local authorities of these outlying parishes have arranged with the neighbouring counties to serve them efficiently in such matters as health services and the Poor Law but, after the Local Government Act, 1929, which centralised the service of Poor Law and health upon the county councils concerned, it became necessary to try so to rectify the boundary that it would become easier for the county councils to serve those outlying parishes.

With a view to effecting this object, the three county councils concerned negotiated together for the transfer of parishes from one county to another so as to make the county boundary a straighter line and the administration of those services more readily effective. I have nothing but praise for the manner in which those negotiations were conducted. On the whole, they carried out their extremely difficult task with marked diplomacy and with great success. The House will readily apprehend the difficulty of rectifying a thing like a county boundary. One comes up against all sorts of problems, such as local patriotism, and the more practical question of rateable value and so on. In effect, the negotiations took the form of counties exchanging one parish for another. The result of those negotiations on the whole, as embodied in this Bill, has been extremely successful, and for the Bill as a whole I have nothing but praise. I did not take the step of opposing it on the Second Reading, and I would not oppose its Third Reading. I ask the House to-night to help me to make a good settlement better, because in the negotiations which were conducted by the three county councils on the basis of exchanging one parish for another, using parishes as counters, it was inevitable that certain matters vital to the parishes concerned should be left out of account, and that in consequence at the end of the negotiations we should get anomalies and grievances which by these Amendments I am striving to rectify.

I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House that I have nothing but praise for the attitude of the officials of the Ministry of Health throughout this very difficult task. In regard to one parish, Beckford, they met my objections in a most helpful and courteous manner. I do not attach the least blame to the hon. Lady or to her Department for the way they have con- ducted this very difficult task. But often in the best arrangements and after the help even of the most perfect officials, little matters are bound to creep in. it is these matters with which I am occupying the attention of the House to-night. It is the special prerogative of this House to put them right before the Bill goes through. I am not talking in the least for my county council. I have not consulted them, for the obvious reason that they are a party to the negotiations which led to the agreement scheduled in this Bill, and if I were to consult them and make them a party, as it were, to an attempt to vary the settlement they had arrived at, it would place them in an intolerable position.

I am not advancing the views of my county council. They are bound to the agreement which they have made. They do not wish to go beyond it. I am voicing the opinions and desires of the parishes concerned, and that is all with which I am concerned on this occasion. Admington and Quinton, the first two parishes, lie on the borderline of Gloucestershire and Warwickshire. They form part of an excrescence from the county of Gloucester which is called the Chipping Campden peninsula, and sticks right into Warwickshire. Gloucestershire was afraid that if parishes were whittled away from this peninsula, the whole peninsula would in time be lost, because it would be too small to become a rural district council; but, owing to other changes in this Bill, that danger no longer applies, and all we have to consider are the wishes of the inhabitants, and what is to their benefit in this matter. These parishes wish to go to Warwickshire, and to be included amongst the parishes transferred from Gloucestershire to Warwickshire.

Their claim is a very real and a very strong one. The position is that they have always been centred on Stratford-on-Avon. All their commerce is with that ancient town, which for marketing and other purposes they regard as their natural metropolis. I do not wish the hon. Lady, in reply, to point out to me what the county councils have agreed to. I ask her to reply to the considerations which I am offering. Take the case of education. That is, of course, an extremely important matter to anyone who lives in a rural district. If these parishes remain in Gloucestershire, as the Bill, unamended, proposes, it means that for secondary education the children will have to go to Chipping Campden, and will have to climb three miles over the Cotswold Hills, and travel a great deal longer on the flat land. They are shut off from the school by a range of hills which it is impossible for a child to climb on a bicycle, and dangerous to descend.

There used to be a secondary school quite close by, but it has been closed down. If the parishes are transferred to Warwickshire, the children will receive secondary education at Stratford-on-Avon, which they can reach within a distance of six miles along splendid metalled roads on the flat. If the parents, as many do at present, rather than face the danger of sending their children over the hills to Chipping Campden, send them to Stratford-on-Avon, they will be sending them into another county, and the result will be that the fees will be doubled, because they come from a different county. If, as I propose, the parishes are transferred according to the unanimous wish of the inhabitants, it means that the children will get the benefit of the school at Stratford-on-Avon at half the fees they pay at present. Chipping Campden is connected with these parishes by a very poor train service which is no use at all, whereas there is an excellent service of omnibuses to Stratford-on-Avon. I ask the hon. Lady to tell me if in her opinion it is to the benefit of the children's education that they should remain in Gloucestershire, and whether it is not the case that if these parishes are transferred, the education of the children will greatly gain?

Then, as regards hospitals—another important matter—if the parishes remain in Gloucestershire, they will have to go, for infectious diseases, to Cheltenham, a distance of 20 miles, instead of the six miles to Stratford-on-Avon. Then for infant clinics—and I take these points, because I think the House will give them attention—the place which serves this district will be Chipping Campden, which is practically inaccessible to the inhabitants. It means that if a poor woman goes to a clinic at Chipping Campden, she will have to stay the whole day and night before she can get back.

It means as regards these infant clinics, that if these parishes remain in Gloucestershire, as at present, with the centralisation effected by the Local Government Act, the children and parents, many of them very poor people, will have to go to Chipping Campden, whereas, if my Amendment be accepted, they can get that attention which is so important in the early years of life, at Stratford-on-Avon with greater ease and facility.

I am not exaggerating the position when I say that if the matter is allowed to remain as at present in the Bill, the infant clinic services in these parishes will be practically non-existent, whereas if my Amendment be accepted, the infantile service at, Stratford-on-Avon will bring to bear on those children the attention which the House desires to give them in their early years. I would ask the hon. Lady to say whether she considers it to be for the benefit of the children concerned that they should remain in Gloucestershire and have to go to Chipping Campden, and whether she thinks it is in the interests of the sick people that they should have to go to Cheltenham, or whether it would not be better that they should come under my Amendment and receive these services at Stratford-on-Avon.

In regard to the Poor Law, we are in the peculiar position in that part of the world that in Chipping Campden there is no institution. The institution that has been used in the past is at Preston-on-Stour, which is being transferred to Warwickshire. It will mean that the aged and infirm who happen to come within the Poor Law will have to go to Stow-on-the-Wold or Winchcomb, which are 20 or 30 miles away, completely out of touch with their friends and relations, with the result that it will be impossible for the ordinary man with a small income to visit them. At Stratford-on-Avon there is a splendid and well-equipped Poor Law institution and if, as I suggest, these parishes are put under the guardianship of that district it will mean that the aged and infirm people who, through misfortune and poverty, have to go into the institution can be allowed out to visit their friends in the neighbourhood and can be visited by their friends and relations, without placing an intolerable strain upon the slender means of many of these poor people. I ask the hon. Lady to say whether it is not better in the interests of the poor people involved that they should be transferred to Warwickshire and receive the benefit of the Poor Law institution in Stratford-on-Avon, rather than be forced to go to Stow-on-the-Wold or to Winchcomb, places with which these people have no connection whatever.

These are the main objections to the proposed scheme. There are other matters, such as the petty sessional division, and the registration of births and marriages. The present connection with Chipping Camden dates from the time when horses instead of motors were the means of transport. The situation has entirely changed and to-day it will be for the benefit of the people if my Amendments are carried. I took the opportunity of testing the opinion of the parishes last Saturday and I only heard of one man who objected to the transfer to Warwickshire, and that was a man who was a keen admirer of Hammond, the cricketer, and he wished to remain connected with the county in which Hammond was born. If we look to the interests of the poor, the children and the sick I maintain that my Amendments deserve the support of the House.

Mr. SMITHERS

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. VAUGHAN

I will not follow the hon. Member into all the details, and I will not delay the House at this late hour. Every hon. Member who has served on a local authority knows perfectly well that when a larger authority proceeds to make certain decisions there can always be found a small minority, sometimes in the places themselves, who will oppose what is intended to be done. I have received a letter from the Clerk of the Gloucester County Council asking me to be so good as to support the Bill introduced by the Ministry of Health and to object on behalf of Gloucestershire to the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member. As one of the Members of Parliament for Gloucester county I am the only Gloucestershire Member on this side of the House, and the Gloucester County Council, which is overwhelmingly Conservative, has asked me to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member, who sits on the Conservative side of the House.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

I was on the Committee, and I am interested. Does the hon. Member know whether his colleague the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) has changed his mind, or is he agreeing with him now?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. VAUGHAN

I cannot tell. This Bill concerns three counties, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire. It has been fully discussed by them. The Minister sent down an inspector who went into great detail regarding the scheme and in addition a local inquiry was held at which much evidence was taken, and of which due notice was given to all the parties interested. An agreement was reached betwee nthe three county councils and the terms are embodied in the Bill. Here we have three county councils coming to this decision after having discussed the matter at length and it is ratified by the Ministry, and all we ask is that this agreement shall be observed by this honourable House and that this local and somewhat parochial opposition shall not be allowed to stand in the way of a great movement.

Captain GUNSTON

The House no doubt is very sympathetic to the point of view put by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I agree in the main with the county councils, but we must remember that there are strong local objections and that country people take more interest in their parish than they do in their county. If it were possible to accept the Amendment, I understand that it would mean the postponement of the Bill which has taken some years to get to this stage. My hon. Friend has made his protest and has put very fairly the grievances of the people affected. Having made his protest I suggest that, if it is not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that it will be open in future to go into the question of these three parishes if the scheme works out very disadvantageously and make some readjustment. If that promise was made I fancy that my hon. Friend would be able to withdraw his Amendment.

Captain EDEN

This Bill has been the result of very prolonged and difficult negotiations, involving considerable concessions by each of the three counties concerned. Those who know the boundaries will know the strange shapes and forms they take, which has made local administration in these areas extremely difficult. I am in a position of some difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) is anxious that two of the parishes in his constituency should be transferred to mine. I should be very loth to try to stop anybody coming into Warwickshire. That is a very natural and laudable ambition. Actually in the early stages of these negotiations with the Warwickshire County Council there was a request for these two parishes to be included in Warwickshire. An exception was made only in deference to the general agreement with the other two counties. If the local parishes, which certainly have their interests in Warwickshire, wish to come in, I do not see why they should not be allowed to do so.

It has taken a long time to agree on this Bill. We set great store on it. We think that it will save money locally and lead to economy in administration. We do not want the Bill delayed for another year. Can the Minister say what the position is to-day? I am told that if the Amendment is accepted the Bill will be delayed for a year. It should come into force on 1st April next. We would rather have the Bill with this fault than have it postponed. There must be a reasonable compromise.

Mr. E. BROWN

I happen to be on the Committee that dealt with the Bill upstairs. As often happens in this House, a Member finds himself on a Committee dealing with a matter, and he finds that he has a particular knowledge of a district. I had that knowledge in this case, as I twice contested the Rugby Division. On the merits of the individual villages I am with the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I think the case made out is irresistible, and it was with some diffidence that I gave my vote for the Order to come down to the House. On the other hand there is no question whatever that the arrangement now embodied in this Order is the result of long, difficult, subtle and delicate negotiations, and it is a matter of balance and compromise between the three great county councils. As I under- stood in Committee—I am open to correction if there has been a change since—if the balance is disturbed the whole thing might have to be reopened, and neither this House nor anyone else would be able to forecast the result. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, while getting her Order, will be able to meet the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston). I think the county council ought again to take into consideration the natural objections of these villagers. Those of us who know the countryside know its natural inertia, and that villagers do not take quite the same point of view regarding posters and placards as townspeople do. Nor is it always easy to find a natural leader for a movement in a village. I hope the Minister will meet the case of Cirencester and help the Order to go through.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence)

This is an extremely difficult problem. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) on the whole gave the scheme his blessing, because it would be an advantage to the three counties concerned. But he raised objections with regard to three parishes. Let me put the case to the House, because it is a difficult ease. I do not suppose that there is anything more complicated than the boundaries of Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire and the reason is a historical curiosity. In 964 St. Oswald, the Bishop of Worcester, an ecclesiastic of great force of character, secured an edict under King Edgar that all Church property, wherever it was found, should belong to the county of Worcester, his diocese being Worcester. The 964 arrangement made by Edgar, has created difficulties and under modern conditions those difficulties are becoming unbearable. It is impossible to deal with poor law or highways on a county basis, when you have "islands" belonging to one county in the territory of another. Further, it makes it impossible for any of the three counties to carry out the duties laid upon them by the Act of 1929 of revising their local boundaries. There were long negotiations between the three counties prior to March, 1930, and in March, 1930, we held an inquiry. There were concerned 63 parishes and 26 of these desired transfer, while 37 did not wish to be transferred. Of these 34 have been allowed to stay as they were, and the whole business is now narrowed down to a question of three parishes.

In connection with this matter the counties have to look at other things besides mere good administration. They have to look at rateable value, and the result is that Warwickshire has gained about £11,000, while Worcestershire has lost about £9,000, and Gloucester has lost only £2,000. Those are matters which weigh very heavily with the local authorities in considering this question, and I am assured that if the balance of this arrangement is upset, and if Gloucester is to lose more at the expense of Warwickshire, and if the bargain between Gloucestershire and Worcestershire is not to be maintained, Gloucester and Worcester will no longer hold to the compromise. They will, I am very much afraid, oppose the compromise.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON

I am moving later on that Kemerton be added to Gloucester.

Miss LAWRENCE

I will come to Kemerton. Kemerton is a very long, narrow parish of 434 people running about due North and South, and on either side to East and West of it are three or four parishes which desire to belong to Worcester.

Mr. MORRISON

Which do belong to Worcester.

Miss LAWRENCE

Which do belong to Worcester and which resent having to go to Tewkesbury. You could not possibly make a decent rural district with this spur running into it. Therefore, to make a reasonable area, you would have either to transfer the Worcestershire parish to Gloucestershire, which they very much dislike doing, or leave the matter as now arranged.

My important point is this, that after protracted negotiations, after the inquiry which was held in March, we did not make the Order until December last, during which time every representation was considered. There was no Objection to the Provisional Order until last week. I know the force of the fact that in rural parishes there is considerable inertia, but there was no inertia about the other 63 parishes. They were quite as rural as Admington and Quinton, and they were extremely vocal. But the main point is that after protracted and careful negotiations, the three major authorities have come together. If the balance is disturbed, they may no longer hold to their bargain, and if this complicated business is to be put into the melting pot again, the whole local business in these great counties with regard to Poor Law, highways, and the determination of county boundaries may be put back for a year or more. If you give us our Bill, and if, when the Order is passed, the matter is again discussed and a fresh agreement is come to, nothing in the world could be easier than next year, or six months hence, to pass an amending Provisional Order, and if harmony between Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire in this matter is obtained, nobody will be more glad than the Ministry.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON

If I withdraw my Amendment now, does the hon. Lady give me a pledge that if the feeling still remains as it is, she will, with her Ministry, assist to get me a Provisional Order transferring Admington and Quinton to Warwickshire?

Miss LAWRENCE

Not quite that. If Admington, Quinton and Kemerton and the counties will agree, we shall be ready to assist. I cannot promise that the Ministry would compel the counties to lose or to receive parishes, but if the localities come to ail agreement, we shall be only too pleased to assist.

Mr. MORRISON

In view of the explanation given by the hon. Lady, and in the hope that she means to assist in carrying out the spirit of what she has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 61, line 12, to leave out the words "(f) Kemerton."

I would like to refer to what the hon. Lady has said about this parish, and to say with great respect that she has misunderstood the position. Kemerton is a, small parish which runs out into Worcestershire, and the hon. Lady's argument was that there was no hope of getting a proper rural district without transferring parishes from Worcestershire to Gloucestershire which were unwilling to go. I would point out that in her Bill she is making Kemerton remain a part of the rural district of Tewkesbury; in other words, she is making Kemerton remain for rural district purposes in Gloucestershire, and yet at the same time transferring the parish to Worcestershire. That position exemplifies all that need be said about the case of this parish. They are unwilling to go. They are attached to Tewkesbury for education, Poor Law, hospital and other services. They were very vocal at the inquiry and are unanimous against being transferred, and in order to meet their objections, it is ordered in the Bill that they remain in the rural district of Tewkesbury. Why should they remain a rural district in Gloucestershire and be transferred to Worcestershire? The easiest thing is to give effect to the unanimous opinion of the inhabitants. If they have to look to Pershore for education and for services, they will have to look to a country unknown to them, and though it is true to say that this parish juts out into Worcestershire, if anyone would go to the country and look at it, it would be seen that the country on each side of Kemerton is composed of high hills, one of which is Bredon Hill, well-famed in song. If the contour line be followed as the county boundary, it will be seen to include Kemerton in Gloucestershire. It would be to the benefit of the arrangement as a whole and to local government if we were to give effect to the unanimous wish of the inhabitants and accept this Amendment, leaving Kemerton in Gloucestershire where it wants to be.

Major LLEWELLIN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I happen to know this part of the world, as I have a relative who lives very near to the parish of Kemerton. I know very well that this parish of Kemerton is connected by all its roads with Tewkesbury, and is very close to it. This has been recognised on page 62 of this Bill, by its being connected up for all essential

services with the rural district of Tewkesbury; and, if it is being kept in the rural district of Tewkesbury, I should have thought that it would have been kept in Gloucestershire as well, because it would simplify the whole rateable position of that district that it should still pay its small proportion of the rates to the county council, through which it gets its services. Although I have been up this valley, I have not penetrated over those high hills into the constituency of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I think that this parish ought to be left in Gloucestershire, where it has always been.

Miss LAWRENCE

If ever there were a trodden battlefield it is the parish of Kemerton. That parish was argued up hill and down dale at the inquiry, and it is one of the cases which was discussed, and worn threadbare, between Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. As to the argument that it should be left in the rural district of Tewkesbury, it is only until Gloucestershire has drawn its new county boundaries when it will go into Worcester for all essential purposes. The intention is that when this business of making the new boundaries is completed, it will go to Evesham for its education and so on. Some of the parishes which are to go into Worcestershire are a great deal nearer Tewkesbury than Kemerton. I do not know anything on which the two counties have fought more than over the body of this parish of Kemerton. Worcester and Gloucester have now agreed. If hon. Members knew how dangerous it is to disturb great local authorities when they are agreed they would not, I think, alter the Bill at this moment. As to Kemerton, if Gloucester and Worcester make peace over that in another manner no one will be better pleased than the Ministry of Health.

Question put, "That the words (f) Kemerton' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 52.

Division No. 182.] AYES. [11.26 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Attlee, Clamant Richard Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw vale)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Barnes, Alfred John Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christophar Barr, James Birkett, W. Norman
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Blindell, James
Ammon, Charles George Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Arnott, John Benson, G. Broad, Francis Alfred
Brockway, A. Fenner Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Brooke, W. Kelly, W. T. Rowson, Guy
Brothers, M. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kinley, J. Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Lang, Gordon Scurr, John
Buchanan, G. Lathan, G. Sexton, Sir James
Burgess, F. G. Law, Albert (Bolton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Law, A. (Rossendale) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lawrence, Susan Sherwood, G. H.
Church, Major A. G. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Shield, George William
Clarke, J. S. Leach, W. Shillaker, J F.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Lees, J. Simmons, C. J.
Compton, Joseph Logan, David Gilbert Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Daggar, George Longbottom, A. W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Dallas, George Longden, F. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Dalton, Hugh Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Davies, Rhys John (Wasthoughton) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Day, Harry McElwee, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Denman, Hon. R. D. McEntee, V. L. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Dukes, C. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Stephen, Campbell
Duncan, Charles McShane, John James Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Ede, James Chuter Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Strauss, G. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony Manning, E. L. Sullivan, J.
Edmunds, J. E. Mansfield, W. Sutton, J. E.
Egan, W. H. Marcus, M. Thurtle, Ernest
Elliot, Ma]or Walter E. Marley, J. Tillett, Ben
Eimley, Viscount Marshall, Fred Tinker, John Joseph
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Mathers, George Toole, Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Matters, L. W. Tout, W. J.
Gibbins, Joseph Maxton, James Vaughan, David
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) Melville, Sir James Walkden, A. G.
Gill, T. H. Montague, Frederick Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Glassey, A. E. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Wellock, Wilfred
Gossling, A. G. Morgan Dr. H. B. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morley, Ralph Westwood, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Palin, John Henry Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Paling, Wilfrid Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Harbord, A. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Haycock, A. W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Phillips, Dr. Marion Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Potts, John S. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Herriotts, J. Price, M. P. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hoffman, P. C. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Hollins, A. Raynes, W. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hopkin, Daniel Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Ritson, J.
Jenkins, Sir William Romeril, H. G.
NOES.
Aske, Sir Robert Greene, W. P. Crawford Salmon, Major I.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Gunston, Captain D. W. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hartington, Marquess of Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Balniel, Lord Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Skelton, A. N.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Smithers, Waldron
Boothby, R. J. G. Kindersley, Major G. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. McConnell, Sir Joseph Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Boyce, Leslie Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.) Train. J.
Bracken, B. Macquisten, F. A. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Marjoribanks, Edward Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Campbell, E. T. Muirhead, A. J. Warrender, Sir Victor
Colville, Major D. J. Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley) Womersley, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Dixey, A. C. Peters, Dr. Sidney John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Remer, John R. Mr. W. S. Morrison and Major Llewellin.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Cht'sy)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.