HC Deb 11 July 1932 vol 268 cc1068-82

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40.

Lords Reason:

The Lords insist on their Amendments in page 12, line 5, and in page 86, line 36, and disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 86, line 36, for the following reason:—

Because they consider that, for certain offences, whipping may be the most suitable form of punishment.


I beg to move "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendments, in page 12, line 5, and in page 86, line 36, and doth not insist on its Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in page 86, line 36, to which the Lords have disagreed."

I need hardly say that it is no great pleasure for me to move this Motion. Hon. Members know my views on the subject and, as I have had occasion to speak repeatedly on it, both in this House and Committee, I am not once more going into the merits of the proposal. I think hon. Members will agree that there is a question to be discussed which has merits on both sides and that at every stage close attention has been given to this principle. The position which we have to face here has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Hon. Members know that if we disagree tonight with this Amendment, the Bill automatically falls. We all know that we have had our run, thanks to the Patronage Secretary, this Session, and that we are not likely to get it again, so that if the Bill falls now, it falls definitely. I, who have spent some three months with it, am perhaps sufficiently immodest to think the rest of the Bill has considerable merits. The Noble Lady opposite shakes her head, but there is at least one Clause in the Bill to which she appeared to attach great importance, and I think it would indeed be carrying out a foolish surgical operation on the nose simply to put the rest of our faces in the proper place if we were, for the sake of this one item in a long Bill, to lose all its merits.

Might I make one appeal to my hon. Friends? I do not make it to the Opposition, not because I believe them to be particularly bard-hearted, but because I realise that they are entitled to take what advantage they can of the Parliamentary situation and to gain, if possible, party advantage for themselves and unpopularity for the Government, but I do appeal to the supporters of the Government. If any of them go to-night into the Lobby against this Motion, every one of them goes hoping that the Motion will be carried. There is not one of them who will vote against the Motion who will want to see it defeated and the Bill lost. If they go into the Lobby, they will go believing and knowing that the loyal supporters of the Government will carry this Motion and will save the Bill. I feel as strongly on this question, I suppose, as does anyone, and I am not sure that it is quite the game to gain a little vicarious popularity, knowing quite well that others are going to prevent the logical consequences of one's action being carried out; and it is for that reason, and because I know there is not really a single Member of this House who wants this Motion to be defeated and the Bill to be lost, that I appeal to hon. Members to agree with the Motion.


I feel sure that I shall be expressing the views of a goodly number of Members belonging to all parties in this House when I say that we regret very much the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment. We have had this subject under discussion on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs on many occasions, and let it be remembered that this Bill has already been in another place on two occasions. Let me give the reason, in a very few words, why we shall go into the Lobby to-night in order to register our protest, first of all, against the assumption of the other place that they know better than the elected representatives of the people what is good for the children of this country, This is an excellent occasion, almost the last night of this Session, to register our protest against the callousness of the old gentlemen sitting in another place. We are satisfied that none of the arguments which apply to the corporal punishment of adults applies in the case of children. It has always been said by hon. Members who support whipping, "Oh, look at all these motor bandits." They ought to know that we are dealing here with juveniles. Hon. Members have argued as if whipping was a deterrent. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman opposite knows full well that the number of orders for whipping have declined in this country, and there has been a decline in the number of juvenile offences too. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen want to know the facts, they had better look up the criminal statistics. Ever since 1923 the Home Office has been closing reformatory schools every year. If whipping were a deterrent, the facts I have given would not have occurred.

Members in the other place, as far as I can gather from the Press, completely failed to distinguish between corporal punishment by the father or mother, corporal punishment by the schoolmaster, who is always with the boy, and similar punishment in a police cell by a big burly policeman, who has never seen the child before and will never sea it again. I noticed that one Noble Lord apologised profusely to me without mentioning my name. I am glad that he did, because he was wrong and I was right. The House of Commons is always more right than their Lordships in another place. There is a vast difference between corporal punishment in the home or school and corporal punishment that is carried out by a policeman. Whipping may give delight—and I think that it does, unfortunately—to some of the landed gentry in the rural districts of England, but in the most enlightened communities the magistrates are declining to order the whipping of children. I hope that it will go forth from, this House if the House of Gammons accepts the Amendment put forward by the other place that, in spite of it all, the decision of the House of Commons is practically unanimous against whipping children by order of the courts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I never thought that hon. Members were so callous. We shall register our protest against the Amendment. I should be sorry, of course, to see this very good Bill go by the board, but this Amendment is a bad blot on an otherwise good Measure.

12.30 a.m.


I take some objection to the fact that the Under-Secretary has brought up this matter at this time of the morning. On the 3rd June I complimented him on standing firm against the House of Lords, and I said that the time had come when we should assert the powers to which we were entitled. I have followed closely the Debate in the House of Lords. I wanted to find out the reasons why they opposed this 12.30 a.m. change, and I have followed the Debate that took place in the House of Lords. Viscount Snowden stated the case in the Lords and pointed out that at no stage of this Bill in its progress through the House of Commons had there been any real opposition to this reform. There had been some speeches against it, but there had been no Division on the question on the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, or Third Reading. The Noble Lords, however, were determined to fight the Measure on this point, and some of the arguments used were remarkable. Some Noble Lords asserted that a whipping had done them good, and one Noble Lord said that he had been whipped many times. Lord Snowden pointed out to him that in that case there was no deterrent effect and that whipping had proved ineffective since it was repeated so many times.

One Noble Lord, however, said that the time had come when they must assert the rights of the House of Lords against the House of Commons. It is upon that point that I urge the House of Commons to take up its position. Unless they assert themselves this will happen time after time. The argument of the Under-Secretary is that we must lose the Bill or accept this Amendment. We were faced with the same difficulty on the Coal Mines Bill. We had either to accept the changes made by the House of Lords or lose the whole of the Bill. We must get out of this morass in which we find ourselves through being compelled to accept a certain number of Amendments from the House or Lords or else lose a Bill. Their Lordships feel that, at this stage of the Session, rather than lose a Bill the Government will accept the changes that they have made. We on this side of the House are determined to assert the rights of the House of Commons. The importance of this matter is so great that I hope that Members on the other side of the House will show that they are with us on this matter. If they believe that whipping should be made a thing of the past, they will come into the Lobby with us against the House of Lords.

Viscountess ASTOR

When the Lords Amendments were first considered by this House, the Under-Secretary made a moving speech, to which he himself has referred to-night and from which I should like to quote in order to show the House how they are being treated by the Government. The Under-Secretary then said: Hon. Members will realise that these provisions were not only fully discussed by the House and by the Committee, but at no single stage were they even challenged, let alone defeated in this House. In the circumstances, apart from any other consideration, I think that it would be proper for this House not to allow a decision which they had come to so unanimously and after such careful consideration to be rejected without a protest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1932; col. 2071, Vol. 265.] What are we to think of the Under-Secretary when he comes down to us with that argument and then goes back on it to-night? I cannot understand how he has the face to ask us to do this, nor can I understand how the Government have the face to allow the House of Commons to be put in its place in this way by the House of Lords. The whole conduct of this Bill has been desperately disappointing, and nothing has been so disappointing as the position taken up by the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I have a perfect right to say this. The hon. Member said some of us were voting against this Amendment for popularity. I am not thinking about popularity; I am thinking about principles. I am not taking those remarks lying down. Some of us put principles above office. The moment any one stands up against the Under-Secretary he talks in the most petulant fashion. Now he will get back a little of what he has given. I have no political ambitions, but I have principles. He knows perfectly well that, if, when he brought in this Bill, he had made a speech about the children in the unregulated trades, he would have carried the whole House with him—


The question we are now discussing is the Lords Amendment. We cannot discuss the whole Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR

The Under-Secretary referred to that Amendment. That is why I referred to it, but I shall not pursue the matter. Think of the speech which the Under-Secretary has himself made. He knows perfectly well that this is a retrograde step. He knows that, even if the Lords did reject the Bill, the Government could bring it in in another Session if they wanted to do so. Imagine the position of the House of Lords in the country if they rejected the Children Bill because the House of Commons would not allow whipping. Throughout the country people feel very keenly on this point. We all know that whipping in certain circumstances is useless. I cannot understand how the Under-Secretary, after the speeches he has made, has the cheek to come here and tell us that the whole fate of the Bill depends upon it and that we must give way. I beg hon. Members not to be put off by that. Surely hon. Members are not going to give way merely because the Under-Secretary goes back on the speech which he made less than a fortnight ago. Are not hon. Members going to stand up to the House of Lords? Are they going to allow the Lords to oppose this reform because some old Die-hard was whipped in 1862 If the House of Commons is going to give way, then I have a higher regard for the House of Lords than for the House of Commons. It is all very well for the Government to say that they have not much time. I am terribly disappointed in the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member says that we fought over it for three months, but, at any rate, he had a very easy time of it.

I beg the House to consider this question from the practical point of view. The Under-Secretary said that, if you allowed whipping, you could not whip the boy and put him on probation. Those who are interested in prison reform think more of the probation system than of any other single reform in the last 15 years. This provision, if inserted, will in many cases prevent the probation system being used. When one considers the age of some of our magistrates—even if there was an age limit, I would not agree to giving them this power—I cannot understand how anyone can support putting this power in their hands and preventing the proper use of the probation system. I hope that the House will have the courage of its convictions and vote against this Amendment. If the House does not do so, it will show a complete disregard of public opinion. Members cannot surely go to their constituents and say: "We are in favour of giving to the police and the magistrates the power to whip boys." The whole of the organised opinion of women in the country will be against them. Let hon. Members suppose that it was their own children who were concerned. That, after all, is the real test of legislation. Suppose it was one of their children who had committed some offence, would any hon. Member like his son taken over to a policeman to be whipped? There is not an hon. Member who would want that.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

Yes, and give him another when he gets home.

Viscountess ASTOR

If you did that, he would not come home.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

I have had it myself.

Viscountess ASTOR

Then you did not have enough. I know it is very difficult at this hour in the House of Commons to make people see certain psychological points, because we are much more apt to laugh after Twelve o'clock than before six. Here you have this particular Clause put in in the House of Lords and sent back here. We have had the Under-Secretary pleading with us to turn it out, and then he comes here to-night threatening that the Government are going to drop the Bill and I do not believe for a moment that the Government are going to drop the whole Bill. If they bring it in a second time it will be a better Bill than it is. I would rather see the Bill dropped than see the House of Commons dictated to by a few reactionary Lords who would allow children under 14 to be whipped.


I think someone ought to say a word in support of the action taken in another place. As a schoolmaster and a magis- trate I support it. I think some of us get so psycho-analytical and sentimental that we leave out the factors of commonsense and boy nature. Your normal boy is to a certain extent a fighting animal, and it is a good thing that he should be a fighting animal. He is also to a certain extent a bit cruel and, also to a certain extent, a lawbreaker. The schoolmasters' job is to direct boys' instincts into the right channel, and the birch is a very good instrument in certain cases. You take the case of a boy who thoughtlessly maltreats a smaller boy, or ill-treats an animal. You give to the magistrate what the schoolmaster has found to work very effectively. You make the boy feel some of the pain he has been inflicting. Instead of making a temporary mark on his person those who support the abolition of whipping would label him for life. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) talked about the reduction in the number of reformatory schools, but the Bill creates a number of approved schools.


The reformatory schools would then be the approved schools. That does not alter my contention.


The hon. Member cannot talk about a reduction in the number of reformatory schools that he replaces under another name. In the Bill no difference is made between the Borstal schools and the approved schools because the boys in them are interchangeable. It is better to place a temporary mark on a boy's person than a permanent mark on his character. When you send a boy to an approved school you label him among his companions, much to the regret of his parents. It is better in many cases to take him into a room and give him a good birching than to send him to an approved school. I know a boy who made a smaller boy a catspaw in stealing cigarettes. It was much better to birch the smaller boy and let him go. I am glad that by the action of another place the magistrates will still retain the power of the birch, and that commonsense will triumph.


I will not follow the last speaker into the merits or demerits of whipping. It is not a great constitutional principle whether a boy should be whipped or not, but here is a compromise Bill, a minimum Bill. It was an agreed Bill, and it was brought in because of the understanding that it did not contain controversial points and that there was a general consensus of opinion. I am going to say to the Minister that social reformers owe him a great debt. He has piloted this Bill single-handed because of the absence of his chief. If he sticks to the Bill in its present form he can bring it in again under the Parliament Act unaltered, and send it up to the House of Lords. If it is rejected unaltered three times, he can pass it over their heads. It is a rather drastic proposal, but this is so much a House of Commons' matter. We are so much more in contact with the people. After all there were only some 50 Peers present. We come down in our hundreds from all parts of the country. A few people not realising public opinion try to burke the opinion of the majority of the elected representatives. The House of Lords often assume to interfere in a thing so much affecting the bulk of the people.


May I ask the Under-Secretary why, if this Amendment is not carried, the Bill will have to be dropped?


If the Amendment I moved is defeated the Bill automatically is dropped.


Exactly why, if the Amendment is defeated, will the Bill be automatically dropped by the Lords? Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman has amended the Bill and that the Bill can still be returned to the House of Lords if, having disagreed with the second Amendment, we leave his first Amendment? The first Amendment being accepted does not the Bill remain alive?


Each Amendment has to be treated separately. That we have altered one Amendment does not enter into the question. The House of Lords cannot be asked to consider any Amendment more than twice. This has been considered twice by the Lords. If we disagree again, it cannot be sent back by this House.


On a point of Order. May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to guide the Opposition in this matter. The question is whether, since the return from the Lords an Amendment has been accepted, a subsequent Amendment may be objected to, and yet the Bill remain alive. That, at least, is the conception of some of us who have attempted to look into this matter, and we should like your guidance.


The first Amendment, I understand, has been accepted. The next Amendment has been put as a whole—


I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is this. It is a fact that we have this evening accepted the first Amendment on the Paper, which has come down from the other place, and does that, in itself, keep the Bill alive although this House declines to accept the second Amendment which has come down from the other place?


My view is that if the House insists on this Amendment, that will kill the Bill.


May I ask whether it is the case that, although this House has already amended the Bill—[Interruption.] I think perhaps Mr. Speaker will be able to guide us. Our conception at this moment is that, so long as we amend the Bill at all, all subsequent Amendments moved by their Lordships can be rejected and still the Bill can be returned to their Lordships House. We should like to be quite clear upon that point. Our conception, Mr. Speaker, is that if a Bill is sent to the House of Lords, and they insert certain Amendments, and it is returned here, so long as we accept any one of the Amendments, we can still return the Bill back to their Lordships' House rejecting all the other Amendments. That we understand applies the first time and the second time and as many times as the House of Commons agrees to return the Bill to their Lordships' House, so long as some slight. Amendment is made to the Bill. That is the point we submit to you, Mr. Speaker, for our guidance.


I do not think that the two Amendments can be taken separately. The fact of having agreed with the first Amendment makes no difference to the second one. The second one must be taken on its merits. It cannot be sent back more than once. If it is disagreed with the Bill is lost.


It is very seldom that I appeal to my Noble Friend the Member for the Southern Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

Viscountess ASTOR

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


I agree with the hon. Member very strongly indeed. I have no intention of going into the merits or demerits of corporal punishment inflicted by policemen on children from 12 to 14 years of age. The Under-Secretary of State has referred to the consequences to those who vote against the Government on this matter. I assure him it is not any question of cheap publicity. In fact, I am perfectly certain that the majority of my constituents, and the majority of my friends disagree with me on this particular point. It just happens that I feel very strongly on this particular point. No one wants to see the Bill lost, so why not accept this Amendment which many of us feel very strongly about.


I certainly will not detain the House very long. I had an experience myself when I was a boy, and I have never forgotten it, and it is because of that experience that I shall vote against the Amendment. I was at school when I was compelled to hold another boy for birching. I saw the same boy birched on three separate occasions, and it was not a deterrent. I saw the boy after leaving school, and I saw him ultimately go to an asylum where he remained for the remainder of his life. I do not say it was because of the birching, but I think the birching was given in circumstances that probably aggravated the complaint from which the boy suffered, and which compelled him to commit the crimes for which he was birched. The impression that was made upon me at that time was that it should not be supported in any circumstances. I have seen many boys birched, and I have never known one who did not come back for birching for crimes of other kinds. It certainly was not a deterrent. [Interruption.] In the case of the hon. Member who protested against the speech of the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), one wonders if even at present a birching would not do good. I am going to vote against the Government because of their cowardice. They say that the Bill would be lost, although they have a huge majority and can reintroduce this Bill almost immediately, and, if again rejected, it can be reintroduced again and carried into law. All we are asking for is that this matter which was carried without a Division should be reinserted. Although there are several Members who are probably in favour of whipping, I think the great majority of the Members of this House are actually opposed to it—yet less than 50 Members of the House of Lords upset the decision of the elected representatives of the people, and the Government have not the courage to say that they will not accept the decision and they have decided to force the Amendment through. I am sorry that they are taking the attitude which they are now taking. I have nothing to say against the conduct of the Under-Secretary either here or upstairs for the manner in which he handled the Bill, but I am very sorry at the way the Government, of which he is a member, is not willing to back him in forcing a good Bill through.


I will only detain the House for a moment, but there has been a good deal of quite irrelevant discussion going on. I should like to recall the House to the Amendment we are discussing which gives a bench of magistrates discretionary powers in suitable cases—cruelty or that kind of thing—if they think fit to impose not more than six strokes of the birch rod on a boy of 14. It is idle to talk as if this is a resolution of the constitution[Interruption.]—to say that is absurd. The speeches which we have heard tonight have been quite irrelevant to the Lords Amendment. Do not let us talk this nonsense. Surely we can trust magistrates with discretionary powers to impose not more than six strokes of a birch rod on a naughty boy.

1.0 a.m.


I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. This is the first time that I have spoken on this matter, but I speak as a Justice of the 1.0 a.m. Peace and as one who has sat on the bench for many years. I am greatly disappointed at the attitude of the Under-Secretary, who has to-night adopted a different attitude from that which he took on the earlier stages of this Measure. Juvenile criminology is a question of psychology and of temperament. As one who has dealt with a number of children and who is the father of six children, I ask hon. Members to consider this matter as though it affected their own children as well as the children of other people. I have always looked upon it as my duty as a Justice of the Peace, in dealing with juvenile criminology and with children who have not had the parental guidance which is essential and which I endeavour to give to my own children as an ordinary working man, to give those children the same guidance that I would give to my own children. There is not a Member of this House who, if he would speak conscientiously, would allow the birch to be applied by a burly policeman in secrecy to a member of his own family. During the whole of my experience as a Justice of the Peace I have never seen a case where birching has brought about the required improvement in any boy. On the contrary, I have seen the action of justice in putting boys on probation, where guidance has been given, result in making them better citizens.

I am very sorry that this House after debating this Amendment for a very long time and with a tremendous majority of Members in this House against it should now take this line simply because the Amendment has come from another place, where they are not in touch and have never been in touch with the rearing and guidance of their children because they put them out to somebody else to look after them. As one who has reared six—all of them a credit to me and to their mother, because they have had the parental guidance which these children do not get—I make no apology for opposing this Amendment. It is our responsibility as statesmen not to apply the whip but to apply common sense and proper guidance. I strenuously oppose the attitude of the Under-Secretary tonight, an attitude which he has adopted simply because this Amendment comes from another place, which is not elected by the electorate and which has no sense of responsibility to the people. I hope that every Member of this House will be guided by his own conscience. If he is consistent and follows the speeches delivered on the last occasion that we discussed this question, he will have no hesitation in voting against this Amendment whether the Bill is lost or not.

Question put, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendments, in page 12, line 5, and in page 86, line 36, and doth not insist on its Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in page 86, line 36, to which the Lords have disagreed."

Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.

Lords Reason:

They insist on their Amendment in page 99, line 13, for the following reason:

Because it is consequential upon an Amendment on which they have insisted.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House does not insist on its disagree-

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 34.

Division No. 304] AYES [1.6 a.m.
Acland-Trayte, Lieut.-Colonel Greene, William P. C. Power, Sir John Cecil
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Grimston, R. V. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gunston, Captain D. W. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Apsley, Lord Guy, J. C. Morrison Rankin, Robert
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rea, Walter Russell
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Hartington. Marquess of Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Blindell, James Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Boulton, W. W. Horobin, Ian M. Rosbotham, S. T.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Howard, Toni Forrest Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Runge, Norah Cecil
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Broadbent, Colonel John Ker, J. Campbell Salmon, Major Isidore
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Brown,Brig,Gen.H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Kerr, Hamilton W. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Kirkpatrick, William M. Scone, Lord
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Burnett, John George Liddall, Walter S. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Lindsay, Noel Ker Skelton, Archibald Noel
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Llewellin, Major John J. Slater, John
Chalmers, John Rutherford MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Somervell, Donald Bradley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. McKeag, William Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Conant, G. J. E. McLean, Major Alan Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Copeland, Ida Maklns, Brigadier-General Ernest Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Craven-Ellis William Marsden, Commander Arthur Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stourton, Hon. John J.
Crossley, A. C. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Tate, Mavis Constance
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- Taylor,Vice-AdmiralE.A.(P'dd'gtn,S.)
Davison, Sir William Henry Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Dawson, Sir Philip Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Train, John
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Morrison, William Shepherd Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliot. Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Muirhead, Major A. J. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elmley, Viscount Munro, Patrick Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N. Womersley, Walter James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst North, Captain Edward T.
Fox, Sir Gifford Nunn, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fraser, Captain Ian O'Donovan, Dr. William James Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Gibson, Charles Granville Penny, Sir George Austin Hudson.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Pike, Cecil F.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Price, Gabriel
Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Rathbone, Eleanor
Aske, Sir Robert William Gronfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Stones, James
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Harris, Sir Percy Tinker, John Joseph
Bernays, Robert Huldsworth, Herbert Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Janner, Barnett Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Leonard, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Curry, A. C. McEntee, Valentine L.
Daggar, George Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Maxton, James Mr. Gordon Macdonald and
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Palmer, Francis Noel Mr. John.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

ment to the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock-upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after One o'Clock.