§ Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
The majority of these Amendments are, in the natural course of things, drafting Amendments. There are, however, two or three Amendments of substance, 2082 and, if the House will permit me, I will call attention to these as we proceed.
§ 11.2 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I do not think that it would be fair to the House to allow the consideration of these Lords Amendments to be taken at this late hour without a mild protest from some of us who spent many hours on this Bill in Committee upstairs. I would remind the House that we have only had these Amendments in our hands for 24 hours and that there are 14 pages of them. Further, we are in this position. In other circumstances, we might have had a champion on the Front Bench in the person of a Minister of Transport who would have known our desires and what took place in Committee. As it is, we are in the miserable situation of having a new Minister of Transport who knows nothing of what occurred upstairs and is unacquainted with the motives and undercurrents in the proceedings there. Consequently, we are in a defenceless position as against the House of Lords, and, although I have always been taught to treat that assembly with the greatest respect, I do not think anybody can doubt that on motoring matters the Lords have bees in their bonnets. All the time when we were considering this Government Measure upstairs, there was another Bill in the House of Lords which was treated there with very little respect, and I maintain that the same treatment has been given to motoring matters in the case of this Bill as was given to that other Bill concerning which no consideration was given to the wishes of the Commons and the wishes of the Committee upstairs. I hope that these Amendments will not be looked upon as mere drafting Amendments. Some of them make big changes in the Bill, and I sincerely trust that we shall be able to discuss them to-night or that we shall be given more time by the Government to discuss them on another occasion.
§ 11.4 p.m.
§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in protesting against the rushing through of this Bill. I do not agree with the Minister that most of these Amendments are drafting. A number of them are very important Amendments, and, not only that, but they are similar to Amendments which the late Minister resisted in 2083 Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill. I think we ought to give these matters very careful consideration before the House agrees with another place in Amendments which were rejected when proposed in this House. I feel that this is not a proper time at which to consider 14 pages of Amendments which only arrived in this House this morning. Hon. Members have had the greatest difficulty in going through the Amendments and examining them in the time which has been available. I should like to add my protest to that of my hon. and gallant Friend about the way in which this Bill is being forced through.
§ 11.5 p.m.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
I wish to join in the protest of my two hon. and gallant Friends. The very first Amendment of all is one on which I voted in the opposite direction to the last speaker. It raises, by chance, issues of fundamental importance with regard to law enforcement in this country. There is no opportunity to discuss this adequately at this time of night, before a House which, with all due respect, has not devoted the full time, care and consideration to the Bill that many of us did for long and weary weeks upstairs. It is unfair to the rest of the House, with this added disability, already pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), that there has been a change of Minister in the meantime. They are both able and competent gentlemen, but nevertheless the new Minister cannot have that detailed acquaintance with the Bill which we all acquired during the many long and weary weeks upstairs, when, for nearly two months, I think, we discussed the first Clause, which raises fundamental issues, in respect of which some of us hold the very strongest views and which we regarded as a dangerous and reactionary Clause. Very important Amendments to that Clause have been made in another place, and I think it is quite contrary to good Parliamentary practice that these Amendments should he considered at this time of night by hon. Members who cannot have had any possible opportunity of giving to these important changes the consideration which they deserve.
§ 11.7 p.m.
§ Captain STRICKLAND
I want to add my protest against this procedure, which seems to me to reduce the Debates, both in Committee upstairs and in this House, to a farce. When Members of this House have devoted weeks of their time to discussing in the greatest detail measures which affect the vast majority of the citizens of this country; when in five days' discussion in the House of Lords we have the whole of that upset, in so far as we discussed certain Clauses; and when we are faced after 11 o'clock at night with meeting certain Amendments moved in another place, it is not fair. If they were merely drafting Amendments, or Amendments which really strengthened the purpose of the Bill, as outlined by the Minister in presenting it, there might be some reason for agreeing, but when you find that in Committee upstairs the Minister strongly resisted an Amendment which has afterwards been discussed in another place and there again resisted by the Government spokesman and then inserted in the Bill, because the Government feared to face defeat in that Chamber, and then you find the Bill brought here and the whole matter reopened for discussion after 11 o'clock at night, it is not treating this House with the respect which is its due. I can see no reason why the Bill should be rushed through to-night. The Session is not to be finished on Tuesday next, but is to be carried forward until October. There is no -specific reason why we should not be given greater time to understand what is behind this new move in another place, and I hope we shall record our protest against the loss of the privileges of this House at what can only be called the dictate of the Second Chamber, over and above the discussion in this House and in Committee upstairs. I hope the Minister will see his way not to push the Bill through to-night, because it must meet with the greatest possible resistance from those of us who honour the privileges of this House.
§ 11.10 p.m.
§ Mr. T. SMITH
I want to join in these protests," but from an entirely different angle. While this Bill was in Committee upstairs I do not think I agreed with any Amendment of hon. Members opposite, and I do not suppose I shall agree with them on these Amendments. I think, however, that a protest ought to 2085 be made because 11 o'clock at night is not the proper time to discuss 14 pages of Amendments to a Bill that has so many controversial Clauses. I cannot agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that we ought to protest merely because another place inserted Amendments. I know from experience that if another place had put in Amendments with which hon. Members agreed, they would have welcomed the action of another place. My protest is not with regard to what another place has done on this particular Bill, but because I believe that at this time of the night we cannot give adequate discussion to the various Amendments.
§ 11.12 p.m.
§ Mr. REMER
I also want to join with my hon. Friends who have spoken, because in 1930, when the Road Traffic Act was going through this House, I took no small part in the discussions on that Measure. I was not on the Committee on this Bill, although I applied through the usual channels to be put on, and it is not possible for me to find out what these 14 pages of Amendments mean, having only received them to-day. I know the first Amendment is quite simple to understand, but the others are very difficult, especially in a, complicated Measure of this kind. We have to look back to the principal Act to find out what that Act says. It is a monstrous thing that this House at 11 o'clock at night should be asked to deal. with a Measure which may have far-reaching effects, and to deal with the fines and various other matters affecting our constituents. Therefore, I say it is not right that the House of Commons should proceed with this matter to-night.
§ 11.13 p.m.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I have a word to say on this subject. I speak with a certain amount of diffidence although perhaps with greater feeling than anyone who has spoken. I should imagine that this business would not have been put down without consultation through the usual channels, and that therefore those who have spoken are committed, though perhaps without their knowledge. My little tributary did not flow into the usual channels, and therefore I am perfectly free and at the disposal of the House to render it what service I can. I am speaking for my party. In the whole business of the winding-up of this part of the 2086 Session there has been an unseemly cramming of a large amount of business into a small compass of time. In weather like this and at this season of the year it becomes easy to find the soft spot in hon. Members and to get a lot of business through in two or three days. It is no good complaining of the other place having made too many Amendments. I like to see the other place showing signs of life and interest. The fact that they have produced a nice little brochure embodying 14 pages of Amendments ought not to be held as a reproach against them. But I think the fact that there are 14 pages of Amendments may provide a real remedy for those who feel that a constitutional issue has been raised.
With a much smaller number of Lords Amendments before us I have seen a comparatively few Members of the House proceed, even at this unseemly hour, to examine them very closely. The deeper the ignorance with which you start the longer it takes you to appreciate the full meaning of every Amendment, and with 14 pages of Amendments that process might take up a lot of time between now and to-morrow morning. We here are particularly interested in this matter, because after these 14 pages of Amendments have been disposed of there are a certain number of Amendments which another place has inserted in the Scottish Poor Law Bill. We are standing in the queue behind the traffic people, waiting our turn on the Poor Law. We will wait, and if those hon. Members who are protesting about the Government's way of handling this matter are prepared to start on the 14 pages of Amendments any little assistance that we, from this part of the House, can give in the careful, detailed, meticulous examination of each Amendment on the Paper will be freely and heartily given. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of Transport will recognise at some time to-morrow that it would perhaps be better to postpone tile further progress of this Measure until we resume on 30th October, inspired and invigorated by our holiday and ready to get down to the thing in the proper spirit. If the Government are pressed for time in the short period that exists when we resume I can see one way in which they can get it. As one who 2087 laboured very hard in Committee on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill I am ready, even now, to say that if the Government withdraw it I will not hold that fact against them. If they drop that Bill and give the days which they have set aside for its examination to the Road Traffic Bill there need be no undue delay in concluding the Session. That is a helpful and constructive contribution to the problem before the House. If the hon. Members who have protested are ready to begin, we are ready to take off our coats and get down to the work.
§ 11.20 p.m.
§ Miss RATHBONE
We have already had six speeches on this Motion. I merely wish to submit the observation that on the roads last week there were, if I remember rightly, 140 deaths and about 3,000 accidents, and that therefore there are at least 3,150 reasons why this Bill should be hurried through. The House has discussed the matter in a very lighthearted spirit, but the families of those sufferers do not regard the matter in an equally lighthearted way.
§ 11.21 p.m.
§ Sir GIFFORD FOX
I also wish to register my protest, and to see the Bill postponed till October. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said that we have already had Measures postponed till October. There is the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, which was strenuously opposed upstairs and three Members of the Government worked hard to get it through, only to find that it is now put off till October. Now we find that we have to sit late and discuss this Bill. As was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), we do not object to the Lords Amendments, but we do object to their being brought down at such short notice. We ought to have an opportunity of looking into them and of discussing them.
§ 11.22 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I think the Minister ought to say one or two words on this. We have no objection to the Lords Amendments to the Scottish Poor Law Bill, because they are very minor in character. They do not make any alteration in principle to the Bill, but rather tend to improve it, but those of us who are interested in it must wait 2088 until the Bill now before us is out of the road. I ask the Patronage Secretary whether, in view of the few Amendments on minor points, the Scottish Poor Law Bill cannot be put on first.
The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has used about the only argument that can be used when she says that this is a Bill which will affect the lives of many people if it does not pass. I am not going to deal with that argument, because there are two ample replies to it, one of which is that the Minister already has all the administrative power required to put a stop to what she complains of. In one Amendment that is down to the Bill, however, there is a proposal to alter a sentence of six months to two years. There may be first-class reasons for that, but one has no right to bring such matters forward at this time of night. There is an issue in that for the Opposition far greater than for those who have raised the point, and one affecting the lives of other people. If the Opposition agreed to it for one section of people, they would be thrown into the unenviable position of having it flung at them that they had agreed to it for other sections. The hon. Lady for the English Universities may say that the Amendment to alter penalties is for a good purpose; that may be, and the House has two or three alternatives. Nobody wants this Bill.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is quite right. There is only one constitutional remedy, and that is for the House to sit till 12 o'clock to-morrow. It is true that there is the alternative of accepting the word of the hon. Lady that the Bill is a good one, but we do riot usually accept each other's word in these matters. Much as we think of the hon. Lady, we like to examine them. The Patronage Secretary has sat here with me many times throughout the night until the small hours, and he knows that, while it can be done, it is a procedure that he does not like. It is neither edifying nor good, and the Government would be well advised to adopt some alternative method.
I am only concerned with the provisions as to criminal penalties. There is an ever-increasing army of men employed in driving vehicles on the roads—working men. You cannot allow them to be under 2089 a penalty of this kind without examination and careful thought, and I trust that the Government will reconsider the matter. The Minister has a reputation, not undeserved, for being smart. Rapid promotion is a better test than any other in this House. He is entitled to say something in reply. He used, when he sat in this part of the House, to make various demands; let him not sit there without doing the same. If he had been sitting here now, he would have raised these points.
What is the view of the Government about these Amendments? Do they intend to-night, willy-nilly, to force them through? Are they not going to give any consideration to the protests that have been made? I know that, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, there has been some agreement through the usual channels. If that be not true, I readily withdraw. I know that in the case of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill there was such an agreement. But we did not agree that that Bill should be taken at the end of a long consideration of these present Amendments. If the matter is so urgent as the hon. Lady says, we shall just have to make a new arrangement of Parliamentary time; that is all. After all, Parliament can almost do as it likes. That is apparent when one sees the ghastly way in which we throw out millions. I trust that the Minister of Transport will make some reply to the points which have been raised, and let us know exactly what he is going to do, because I, for one, while I am very anxious to get home without delay, am not prepared just to allow these things to go through the House of Commons roughshod.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I understood through the usual channels that the Government proposed to take certain Lords Amendments. We had no objection to the Amendments, and we understood that the Government wanted to get them through. But, if there are Amendments which are going to raise serious controversy in the ranks of the supporters of the Government, I think we ought to have known about it, because it is unusual for the House to be kept late on a series of Amendments which are really due to party differences in the ranks of the Government. I think it is unreasonable to ask the House to sit
2090 very late if there are going to be prolonged controversies on matters raised between other sections of the House.
§ 11.31 p.m.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson)
I think that, in the conduct of the business of this House during the last year and before, the Government have done everything in their power to meet the wishes of all sections of the House. Everything has been done that would make for the smooth running of the House. Fully a week ago the Leader of the House announced what business had to be concluded before rising for the Summer Recess and said that, provided that business was concluded, which included the Lords Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill and the other Measures which are down for consideration tonight, it would be possible to adjourn on Tuesday. The Government have to conclude that programme, and there only remains to-night's work to be concluded. I appeal to hon. Members to give adequate and fair discussion to these Amendments. If that is done without prolonged discussion, I am certain that we can conclude our labours to-night at a not unreasonable hour and finish up the Session as we have conducted it throughout in the spirit of all of us doing our best to get the work through which has to be accomplished.
§ Captain STRICKLAND
What steps were taken to consult with those of us who were interested in the matter?
§ 11.34 p.m.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The Parliamentary Secretary has placed supporters of the Government in some difficulty. He assumed, I have no doubt rightly, that the whole House wishes to get away on Tuesday next. There is no particular reason why they should get away. After all, we live in a time of great difficulty and anxiety and we are going to have a fairly long Recess. That, however, is not the point at issue. When we were on the opposite side of the House we frequently protested against important Lords Amendments being taken after 11 o'clock. We protested that it was not fair to the other place or to this House. In this matter, as in so many others, we are creating a precedent, because we are taking no less than 14 pages of Amend- 2091 ments, some at least important, at this late hour. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite will be very foolish if they do not follow it when they get into office. If hon. Members who are supporters of the Government are satisfied to do that from the point of view of the Government it may be all right, but from the point of view of the House of Commons and the procedure of the House, I believe that it will be a mistake. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—I presume that the Home Secretary is the Leader of the House at the moment as senior Cabinet Minister present on the Front Bench—to see whether we cannot avoid this growing habit of taking after Eleven o'Clock important Amendments from another place. There are 14 pages of Amendments on this occasion, and if this sort of thing cannot be avoided, the sooner the procedure of this House is altered the better.
§ 11.36 p.m.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that he has put the Members of the Committee which dealt with this Bill upstairs in a very difficult situation. He has appealed to the main protagonists who carried on most of the discusion upstairs,
§ but there are many back bench members like myself who spent many hours on that Committee and who now feel that the result of our labours has, in a sense, been somewhat cynically set aside. I think that many back bench Members on that Committee who have no particularly strong feelings but who are trying to balance the pros and cons of the matter, will agree that we have been put into an awkward situation by being asked at the last minute to support Amendments which set aside many of our serious considerations.
§ 11.37 p.m.
§ Mr. ALBERY
Anyone who has listened to the Debate to-night must feel in some difficulty in spite of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. One cannot help feeling that there are important matters to be discussed and that they are unlikely to receive adequate discussion _to-night. I believe that I voice the views of a good many Members here when I say that, if it is absolutely necessary that these Amendments should be taken before the Recess, we certainly would prefer that the House should sit for one day longer.
§ Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 68.2093
|Division No. 358.]||AYES,||[11.39 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Ford, Sir Patrick J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'K'nh'd)||Colman, N. C. D.||Fremantle, Sir Francis|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Cooper, A. Duff||Goff, Sir Park|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Cranborne, Viscount||Goldie, Noel B.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Craven-Ellis, William||Graves, Marjorie|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Greene, William P. C.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Grimston, R. V.|
|Bateman, A. L.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmith, C.)||Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Guy, J. C. Morrison|
|Been, Sir Arthur Shirley||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hanbury, Cecil|
|Blindell, James||Dickie, John P.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Bossom, A. C.||Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.||Harbord, Arthur|
|Boulton, W. W.||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Bower, Commander Robert Tatton||Duggan, Hubert John||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Edge, Sir William||Hepworth, Joseph|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Edmondson, Major Sir James||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Eillston, Captain George Sampson||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hornby, Frank|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Fleming, Edward Lascelles||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Jamieson, Douglas|
|Janner, Barnett||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, G.)|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Palmer, Francis Noel||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Leckie, J. A.||Patrick, Colin M.||Soper, Richard|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Pearson, William G.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Peat, Charles U.||Stones, James|
|Levy, Thomas||Penny, Sir George||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Petherick, M.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Power, Sir John Cecil||Templeton, William P.|
|Loftus, Pierce C.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Pybus, Sir John||Thompson, Sir Luke|
|Mabane, William||Radford, E. A.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Ray, Sir William||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Rea, Walter Russell||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Magnay, Thomas||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Ross, Ronald D.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Mender, Geoffrey le M.||Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Martin, Thomas B.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisaw'k)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Mitcheson, G. G.||Scone, Lord||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Selley, Harry R.||Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Morgan, Robert H.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Albery, Irving James||Gledhill, Gilbert||Paling, Wilfred|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Batey, Joseph||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Remer, John R.|
|Bracken, Brendan||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Renwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hanley, Dennis A.||Robinson, John Roland|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Jenkins, Sir William||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Buchanan, George||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Burghley, Lord||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Cape, Thomas||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Carver, Major William H.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Leonard, William||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Conant, R. J. E.||McEntee, Valentine L.||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Crippe, Sir Stafford||McGovern, John||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Daggar, George||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilmot, John|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Mainwaring, William Henry||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Dobbie, William||Maxton, James||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Edwards, Charles||Milner, Major James||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald||Sir Gifford Fox and Captain Strickland.|
|George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
§ Lords Amendments considered accordingly.