HC Deb 11 November 1931 vol 259 cc104-17
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin)

I beg to move, That, until the adjournment of the House for Christmas, Government Business do have precedence at every Sitting, that no Bills other than Government Bills be introduced, and that no Ballot be taken for determining the precedence of such Bills. The right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite me and myself have often voted on these Motions, but unfortunately not in the same Lobby. The difference between the Mover of a Motion of this nature and those who oppose it is the perennial difference between the motorist and the pedestrian —it all depends upon the point of view and where you are. This seems to be a most reasonable Motion. It is reasonable as regards its form and every Member of the Opposition has voted for it in his time. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that he proposed to take private Members' time for such duration of the Session as might exist between now and Christmas. It seems hardly necessary to say much on that subject, but for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with our procedure perhaps a word of explanation may be advisable. It has become the common practice of all Governments to take the time of private Members during the weeks immediately preceding the Christmas Recess, and therefore this Motion is not an infringement of the rights of private Members. I do not think there would be any difficulty in proving that statement. It is familiar to all old Members of the House that at the beginning of every Session it is usual to have a ballot for private Members' Bills, but under this Motion that procedure will be postponed until the House meets again after the Christmas Recess. There is, of course, a practical difficulty. If we were to ballot for Bills now, we do not know, and shall not know until the adjournment on which day the House will be called together again, and therefore there is a possibility, and more than a possibility, that Members, in choosing days on which to put down their Bills, might choose a day on which the House would not be sitting, and then they would not only lose their opportunity for the moment but it would be gone for ever. When we meet again, we hope there will be a prolonged session in front of us, and there will be ample opportunities for private Members to put down Bills on days when they may fairly hope to have them considered.

Then there is the question of Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. Here again a difficulty faces us at the moment, perhaps not so much a difficulty as unfairness between one private Member and another. If anyone succeeded in introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule in this Session, and selected a day for it which happened to be a working day of the House, it might very well be that the fortunate Mover of a Motion under the Ten Minutes Rule would get in if front of people who entered by means of the Ballot, and their case would be prejudiced. We want all to start fair when we meet again in either January or February, as the Prime Minister, in the exercise of his wisdom at the right time, may decide.

I may just add, for the comfort of the House, that under our present Rules such Wednesdays as are sacrificed between now and Christmas have to be made good in time before the Easter Recess. What the House stands to lose is the Friday, and they will lose just as many Fridays as happen to come in the time that we are in Session between now and Christmas. Supposing, to put the most favourable aspect upon it, that it will be about three, then that is the total sum of the loss which the private Member will suffer. That is the situation. The reason for it, of course, is that in the early part of the year, when private Members' business is permitted under the Rules of the House, the private Members have a very liberal allocation of time, and our anxiety now is to get through the necessary business of the House and adjourn in order that we may have time to make preparations to meet the very difficult conditions that we have to meet, and be prepared with such legislation as we may find desirable when the House meets after the Recess.


The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the reasons for this Motion was that, if anyone took advantage of the Ten Minutes Rule to introduce a Bill, it would, in effect, block the Bill of a Member who had been fortunate in the Ballot. How does that affect the ordinary Member who walks up to the Table and presents a Bill? Does not that have a blocking effect in just the same way?


The point raised by the hon. Member opens up the difficulty of someone under the Ten Minutes Rule anticipating what someone else wants to introduce under the Ballot—


He can walk up to the Table and introduce his Bill without any Motion under the Ten Minutes Rule.


Yes, and I do not think it is quite fair as between one private Member and another. The matter is perfectly clear; it is a balancing of the methods by which the private Member takes his opportunity to introduce his Bill into this House.


I think the point which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) desires to put is that a Member now may just hand in his Bill, without a Motion under the Ten Minutes Rule at all—[HON. MEMBERS: The Motion says, "no Bills."] Does this mean that you cannot hand in any Bill?" If so, let us be clear about it.


I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I thought the point was perfectly clear, and I did not touch on that particular aspect of it. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the words of the Motion, he will see that it says: that no Bills other than Government Bills be introduced. That makes it quite clear. With these few words I submit the Motion to the House, with every confidence that the Loader of the Opposition, who in the past two years has so often supported these Motions, will support it.


I am very glad on this occasion to be able to say that I do not intend to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. When I listen to him at any time, he almost persuades me that I ought to be his supporter, and I think-that his speeches have a similar effect on a good many other people, too. On this occasion I do not need very much persuasion, because it is perfectly true that private Members will have a considerable bulk of time when we reassemble, but there are one or two things that I should like to say. I do not quite see that the question of "motorist versus pedestrian" applies, because I do not quite see what this time is wanted for, even for three weeks. I went through the King's Speech, and have read it over again, and honestly I do not see any reason at all why any time should be wanted. It seems to me that, with the exception of the Statute of Westminster, about which we are all agreed, we are going to be engaged in doing nothing very thoroughly.

The only other thing that I want to say, and I say it quite seriously, is that I hope it is not going to be assumed that, although the country has sent to this House an overwhelming number of Members of one point of view—of a dozen different points of view if you like, but apparently of one point of view—I hope it is not going to be assumed that this House is to have no function at all but to register certain decisions of the Executive. I think it would be a very bad thing for it to go out that 615 people come to this House and then quietly go away for long holidays, coming back quietly to register what someone tells them to register. Quite apart from any partisan feelings on the matter, I should have thought that in the crisis each Member of the House would be expected to contribute something of thought and time to the solution of these problems, and I just want to enter my protest against any idea that this House of Commons is not going to meet as regularly and take up as much time as any other House of Commons of recent years. I repeat that I do not think the electors sent 615 of us here to have comfortable long holidays and to come back and register the decisions of the Executive.


Of course, in all the circumstances, I feel compelled to support this Motion, but I hope it is not going to be considered a precedent, because I venture to suggest that it is rather a bad precedent. The original idea of starting our Sessions in November instead of in the New Year was to give more chance for Bills to become Acts of Parliament in each Session. Anyone who has had long experience of private Members' Bills knows that many go to Committees, and many receive prolonged discussion, but comparatively few ever go through the Report stage, and even fewer get a Third Reading. We saw, in the last Session of the late Parliament, a great "slaughter of the innocents," including the Slaughter of Animals Bin. Members spend many weary hours moving Amendments and discussing private Members' Bills, only to find at the end of the Session that their energy has been wasted, because the Bills do not reach the Statute Book. I would suggest that a way out of the difficulty might be that the precedent of some other Bills, like the London Passenger Transport Bill, might be followed, and that, instead of Bills which do not pass in one Session of Parliament being dropped, and having to go through all the weary stages over again in the next Session, they might very well be carried over.

I agree, however, with the Leader of the Opposition that there is a specially strong case at the present moment for encouraging Members to introduce Bills. We have an immense majority of some 500, and it seems to me that it will be very difficult for the Government Whips or the Ministers to keep those 500 fully occupied. I have no doubt that the Treasury Bench considers that it contains all the available talents, but there are in this House many Members of great experience, and, of course, many ex-Cabinet Ministers, full of energy and full of ideas, who, no doubt, would like to be employed in showing their abilities in the form of private Members' Bills I would suggest that in future Sessions, instead of being discouraged from introducing private Bills, the time should be put back as long as possible and Members should be allowed to table their Motions in November. In the last Session of Parliament, the precedent of the first year was followed, and Members were allowed to ballot for Motions. I should like an assurance that it is only because this is a new Parliament, that we are supposed to be passing through a real crisis and that there is to be work for us to do during the next few weeks that this precedent has been initiated and that in future years we shall go back to our valuable private rights and be allowed to formulate our ideas in Bills and Notices of Motion.


This Motion, as far as I can see, hands over to the Govern- ment full control of business, and it practically debars anyone from raising any issue of importance, because the second Motion provides that no Notice of Amendment shall be given on going into Committee of Supply. In effect, it means that, between this and the Christmas Recess, no one, except by means of urgency, can really effectively criticise the Government. I admit that a majority of Members have a mandate for some form of Protection. There is no doubt about that. Some of us differ as to the meaning of the word. We have a mandate for protection, but it is to protect the working class from being evicted from their homes. Others have a mandate for other forms of protection. The Prime Minister yesterday said he hoped to make an announcement before the House rose. Those who favour Protection cannot raise it on the Address, because there can he no announcement made before the Address finishes. Further, by the second Motion, even the official Opposition is debarred from raising anything.

The consequence is that you effectively closure any kind of opposition. Two reasons are given. One is the sham, flimsy excuse that, if you did not do it, those Members who balloted now might lose a day or two by not knowing when we are to resume after the holidays. That has always been the case, and Members who have balloted have always had to take their chance. When the right hon. Gentleman moves a Government Motion he ought to justify it on Government grounds—on the ground that they need this time for Government business. Other issues are side issues and he has no concern with them at all. What Government business is it proposed to introduce? If he had said there was a large amount of dumping which impaired the lives of the common people, that might have been a wrong reason, but at least it would have been a justification for taking the time. He might have said, "People are being evicted from their houses. We need a Rents Restrictions Act to safeguard these poor people and, therefore, we need time." That might have been a wrong or a right reason, but it would have justified this step. But he says, "We are going to do nothing. We are going to say nothing with regard to these social evils, the evil of dumping, the evil of rent or the evil of wages. We are going to take private Members' time for no reason at all except that private Members may lose these Fridays. "If the right hon. Gentleman could outline any programme which would mean the amelioration of the conditions of the people, one would not oppose time being taken. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that we are elected to represent people and not just to do what the Executive tells us. Some of us are outside because we refused to do that. I welcome him as a comrade. I hope that it shows a new spirit in the Labour party Front Bench and that we are not here to do just what our leaders say, no matter how great they think they are, and that Members are coming here to assert their views and ideas. I hope that Members on all sides who wish to see their ideas carried out will join us and beat the Government.


Is it the intention of the Government to give us the time we should have had had we gone on in the ordinary way—the 12 or 13 Fridays and so many Motions? Is it intended to give us that time after the Recess?

Lieut-Colonel MOORE

May I reinforce what the hon. Member has said? According to my right hon. Friend private Members are not going to lose anything through the attitude taken up by the Government. Does that mean that we are to get three further Fridays in the next Session? I should also like to know if it would be possible still to have the ballot in this part of the Session so that Members may know what Bills are to be introduced and have an opportunity of considering them during the Christmas Recess and deciding whether to support them.


I want to ask you, Sir, for a Ruling with reference to the Prayer that appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself and other colleagues, on the question of the Regulations under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act which is necessitated by the administrative action of the Government. I want to ask your Ruling as to whether a Debate on that Motion is debarred by the Motion which is presently being moved.


No, I do not think for a moment that the Motion we are now discussing can have any effect upon it at all.


I think, if I might suggest with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be advisable to answer the rather substantial point put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). As I understand the position, the sole justification for this Motion—it can be the only justification—is that the Government require the time. As one who for many years before the War and immediately after the War invariably supported the rights of private Members to make their voices heard, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to suggest that he was entitled to speak on behalf of private Members. I am sure that that was the meaning of the Leader of the House, and I hope that before the Motion is put he will give an assurance that that is so. Little as I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals, I must say that there is some substance in his point. The Motion has been moved because of the urgency of Government business which has to be got through before the House adjourns.


In view of the way in which the Government galloped through legislation before the General Election, cannot we at least have restored to us private Members' rights under the Ten Minutes Rule?


With regard to the question of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, of course, if the Government did not want the time for their own work, they would not have put down the Motion. As regards the question of the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway, seeing we desire to take private Members' time, for the purposes which we have given, we certainly must ask for the time covered by the Ten Minutes Rule as well as other times. With regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member, I think I made it plain that Fridays are not to be restored, but that Wednesdays are to be made up before the Easter Recess.


I think that before private Members are robbed of the rights they possess in the House, we ought really to know what is the Government business. Up to this moment we have not had the slightest idea as to what the Government propose to do, and they have no business at all as far as we know. The Government are asking the House to confiscate at the very commencement of a Parliamentary Session the rights and privileges of private Members without giving the House the slightest inclination as to what is the Government business for which the private Members are asked to give up their time. This is a most extraordinary Motion to bring before the House at this stage, because, as I understand, this Parliament is to depend for its future wisdom and guidance, not upon the past blundering of ancient statesmen, but upon the great promise that lies in this House of the wisdom and parliamentary power of the bright young people. We have been told that the House of Commons is to enjoy the rich asset which it badly needs of having fresh minds brought into this House to deal with our controversies. The first thing that the Government, who have rallied the bright young people—male and female—around them, have told the House of Commons is that all this newfound wisdom is to be stifled in its birth, and that the brilliant capacities which are to strengthen our deliberations in Parliament are to have no chance or opportunity, and are to be told so on the second day of the Parliamentary Session.

This Parliament is, I understand, to be not only an assembly to solve great and urgent public problems, but a sort of kindergarten for the training of young politicians to try and undo the blunders of old politicians. I feel that it is rather harsh on the part of the chief school teacher in our parliamentary assembly to come and tell the young pupils that they are not to be heard after all that was told us at the Election about the prospects and possibilities of the tremendous good that these young people would do. Therefore, on behalf of the young Members, and, as an Irishman, in the interests of fair play, and because I have always been in favour of giving youth a chance, especially as I understand from the speeches of these brilliant young recruits to our parliamentary institutions that all the mistakes from which England suffers are mistakes caused by ancient politicians, I think they ought to be given a chance. In their interests, I protest against this Motion, and I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider it.


The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion said that the real explanation is that the Government urgently need the time. If they proposed to take the time up to within three or four days of Christmas, one could understand the necessity for the Motion, but I understand that this part of the Session has been arranged to end somewhere towards the end of this month. If that is so, why should not this part of the Session be prolonged by one week, so that the rights of private Members could be maintained?


Members of the, House are very jealous of their privileges and always have been, but I feel sure that in this instance they would willingly waive them if they were assured that an immediate move was necessary on the part of the Government to deal with the national menace on which the Election has been fought. The Government must be aware that only yesterday some 40 ships arrived in the Port of

London with the object of dumping foreign goods. That is a very serious matter which requires to be dealt with at once. I do not think that any of us expect to-day a reasoned statement as to how it is to be dealt with, but I think that many of us would vote for this Motion with a great deal more willingness and confidence if we had an assurance that the menace of dumping was in the mind of the Government to be dealt with immediately. Whether they intend to put on tariffs or not, it is essential that the Government should have a free hand to deal with the matter, and that they should not find, if they decide to put on a tariff, that the country has been flooded with dumped goods which would make the operation of a tariff nugatory.


The major proportion of those ships contain Empire goods.

Question put, That, until the adjournment of the House for Christmas, Government Business do have precedence at every Sitting, that no Bills other than Government Bills be introduced, and that no Ballot be taken for determining the precedent of such Bills.

The House divided: Ayes, 378: Noes, 9.

Division No. 1.] AYES. [3.31 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Burghley, Lord Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Albery, Irving James Burnett, John George Curry, A. C.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Dalkeith, Earl of
Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W.) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Calne, G. R. Hall Davison, Sir William Henry
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Campbell, Ernest Taswell (Bromley) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Denville, Alfred
Apsley, Lord Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Dickie, John P.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Cassels, James Dale Donner, P. W.
Atholl, Duchess of Castlestewart, Earl Doran, Edward
Balley, Eric Alfred George Cautley, Sir Henry S. Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Duggan, Hubert John
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Dunglass, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Eastwood, John Francis
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Eden, Robert Anthony
Bateman, A. L. Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric Edge, Sir William
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Chotzner, Alfred James Edmondson, Major A. J.
Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l) Christie, James Archibald Ednam, Viscount
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Elliot, Major Walter E.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Clarke, Frank Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Bernays, Robert Clarry, Reginald George Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Clayton, Dr. George C. Eimley, Viscount
Blindell, James Colville, Major David John Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Borodale, Viscount. Conant, R. J. E. Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Bossom, A. C. Cook, Thomas A. Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Cooke, James D. Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Bower, Lieut.Com. Robert Tatton Cooper, A. Duff Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Copeland, Ida Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Boyce, H. Leslie Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Everard, W. Lindsay
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) Cranborne, Viscount Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Briant, Frank Craven-Ellis, William Ferguson, Sir John
Broadbent, Colonel John Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Brockiebank, C. E. R. Crooke, J. Smedley Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Foot, Dingle M. (Dundee)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Browne, Captain A. C. Cross, R. H. Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Fraser, Captain Ian Levy, Thomas Reid, David D. (County Down)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lewis, Oswald Reid, James S. C. (Sterling)
Fuller, Captain A. E. G. Liddall, Walter S. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Remer, John R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Gledhill, Gilbert Lloyd, Geoffrey Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Glossop, C. W. H. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n) Roberts, Sir Samuel
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Robinson, John Roland
Goldie, Noel B. Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Ropner, Colonel L.
Gower, Sir Robert Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Lymington, Viscount Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Granville, Edgar Lyons, Abraham Montagu Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Mabane, William Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Graves, Marjorie McEwen, J. H. F. Runge, Norah Cecil
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter McKeag, William Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John McKie, John Hamilton Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Gunston, Captain D. W. McLean, Major Alan Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Guy, J. C. Morrison McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Salmon, Major Isidore
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Salt, Edward W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Magnay, Thomas Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Maltland, Adam Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Hanbury, Cecil Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Savery, Samuel Servington
Hanley, Dennis A. Malialieu, Edward Lancelot Scone, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mander, Geoffrey le M. Selley, Harry R.
Harbord, Arthur Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Harris, Percy A. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hartland, George A. Marjoribanks, Edward Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M. Skelton, Archibald Noel
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Millar, James Duncan Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Mills, Sir Frederick Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Milne, Charles Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Hepworth, Joseph Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Herbert, George (Rotherham) Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hillman, Dr. George B. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Smithers, Waldron
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Mitcheson, G. G. Somerset, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert Molson, A. Harold Elsdale Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Soper, Richard
Hope. Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hopkinson, Austin Morgan, Robert H. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hornby, Frank Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Horobin, Ian M. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Horsbrugh, Florence Moss, Captain H. J. Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Howard. Tom Forrest Munro, Patrick Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Nail, Sir Joseph Stevenson, James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N. Stones, James
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Nathan, Major H. L. Storey, Samuel
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stourton, John J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Normand, Wilfrid Guild Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Hurd, Percy A. North, Captain Edward T. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Nunn, William Summersby, Charles H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen.Sir R. (Montr'se) O'Neill, Rt. Hen. Sir Hugh Tate, Mavis Constance
Hutchison, William D.(Essex, Romf'd) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Iveagh, countess of Owen, Major Goronwy Templeton, William P.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Palmer, Francis Noel Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb
Jamleson, Douglas Patrick, Colin M. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Janner, Barnett Peat, Charles U. Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)
Jennings, Roland Penny, Sir George Thompson, Luke
Jesson. Major Thomas E. Perkins, Walter R. D. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Petherick, M. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pickering, Ernest H. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Train, John
Ker, J. Campbell Pike, Cecil F. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Kimball, Lawrence Potter, John Turton, Robert Hugh
Kirkpatrick, William M. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Power, Sir John Cecil Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Knebworth, Viscount Pownall, Sir Assheton Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Knox, Sir Alfred Preston, Sir Walter Rueben Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Procter, Major Henry Adam Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Pybus, Percy John Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Law, Sir Alfred Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-
Leckie, J. A. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Weymouth, Viscount
Leech. Dr. J. W. Ramsbotham, Herswald White, Henry Graham
Lees-Jones, John Ramsden, E. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Lelghton, Major B. E. P. Rankin, Robert Whyte, Jardine Bell
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wills, Wilfrid D. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Worthington, Dr. John V.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) Womersley, Walter James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Wood, Major M McKenzie (Banff) Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Russell Rea.
Cape, Thomas Healy, Cahir Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Hirst, George Henry
Devlin, Joseph Kirkwood, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, Thomas W. Maxton, James Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

Question put, and agreed to.