HC Deb 30 October 1934 vol 293 cc137-75

No search warrant shall be granted or any prosecution instituted under this Act against any candidate for Parliamentary election or against his agent or against any person or persons under his instructions for anything said, done, written or published in pursuance of his candidature after the issue of writs for the summoning of a new Parliament or after motion made for the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the issue of a writ to fill a vacancy until such time as the return to such writ or writs has been duly trade.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.57 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Our intention in moving this Clause is that there should be at' least complete freedom to speak during Parliamentary elections. All Members here, who have taken part in Parliamentary elections, know that, while they always have due regard to the truth, they are sometimes apt to get rather heated. Probably at the next election strong things will be said about this Bill, but, whatever is said, at least Members ought not to be in danger of being challenged for statements of that kind.

Then there is the further fact, and I think the most important fact—it is no use trying to conceal it—that this Bill is capable of being used by members of one political party against another political party, and I want to say now what I was going to say before when it was ruled that I was going rather wide. I have never been quite sure as to who was responsible for this Bill. I am not quite sure that the Attorney-General is responsible for it. On the back of the Bill there are the names of the representatives of the Air Force, the War Office and the Admiralty, but I sometimes wonder, in view of their complete absence from these discussions, whether Tory headquarters have not been as much responsible for the Bill as even the Forces whose representatives' names are on the back of it. I have also wondered whether the Government, knowing, it may be, of certain places which are used for the kind of documents to which the Attorney-General has referred here, would not be prepared to wait their time and make their raid during a general election, and precipitate another kind of "Red Letter."

It seems to me, that this Bill, in the hands of a Government, is capable of being used for things of which most citizens and most political candidates in this country have scarcely dreamt, and certainly it would be possible, if a Government or a party were so minded, to take note of every speech that candidates make or every leaflet that they use, and to bring such candidates and their agents within the purview of this law. We are asking that, at any rate during the time of an election, candidates and their agents and those who act for them should be able to speak and act freely, without any difficulty or fear of the danger of being brought within the compass of this Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to get the Attorney-General to accept the principle of this proposed new Clause, but I trust that the House at any rate will see that it is necessary, whatever they think about the Bill and its objects in general, first, that no political party should be able to use a Bill of this description against their opponents, and, secondly, that candidates and those who take part in elections should be able freely to speak their minds without being in fear of the law.

10.3 p.m.


The hon. Gentleman's speech in reference to this Clause was, if he will allow me to say so, most reasonable and moderate in length, but I am bound to say I am not sure that I fully understand what is in his mind. Let me look at the Clause, because I want the House to consider its language, although I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of the proposal quite apart from the particular form of the Clause. The proposal is that no proceedings of any sort shall be instituted against a candidate, or his agent, or any person acting under his instructions, for anything said or done or published in pursuance of his candidature, until after the election is over. The House will notice that this immunity till the election is finished is only in respect of that which is done by persons acting under the candidate's instructions in pursuance of his candidature. Who is to say whether a particular speech is in pursuance of his candidature or not? Suppose that an agent or a worker or a canvasser acting on behalf of a condidate goes up to the barrack gates and says to a number of soldiers: "You are not bound to obey, and, if you take my advice, you will not obey, your superior officers." Is that to be regarded as a speech made in pursuance of the candidature of the candidate or not? Who is to settle this question? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Lunacy Commission!"] That is perhaps more true than kind. I should not have thought of saying anything half so unkind about the hon. Gentleman, who is always so friendly even in his opposition.

But let me try to deal with the matter as one of substance. The hon. Gentleman says the object is to secure complete freedom for a candidate at a Parliamentary election. We on this side take a different position from that taken by hon. Members opposite about the Bill. It has been said more than once that the Bill is to interfere with political opinions. I have said over and over again, and I take leave to say again, that it has nothing to do with political opinions until a man says or does some thing to persuade a soldier that he need not obey his lawful orders. That is an offence, and I take the view that it ought to be an offence. There is the safeguard of liberty in every country that it shall have fidelity on the part of its soldiers. I do not care whether you have a Communist, a Socialist or a Tory Government. It must know that the weapon that it is lawfully entitled to use shall not break in its hands when it uses it. If you want to alter the system under which an airman is going to bomb native troops or a soldier is possibly going to be used to protect the public in a great industrial dispute, do not be guilty of the mean offence of going to the soldier, who has sworn to obey his orders, but go to Parliament or to the Government of the day.

I am not going to admit for a moment that the right to express opinions freely at an election is going to include the right during the election to go to a soldier and persuade him that he may be false to the oath that he has solemnly undertaken. I do not believe that has anything to do with freedom at all. It is licence of the worst character. There is not an hon. Member opposite who need be afraid of anything that he has in his mind to say about war. Many of us on all sides of the House take part from time to time in meetings of the League of Nations' Union. There is not, I should think, a bench in this House which has not Members who have expressed themselves as to peace, and the wickedness of war, in terms as sincere, as searching, and I hope as eloquent as the speeches which hon. 1Iembers opposite make. Members may make those speeches at the next general or by-election with as much fervour and as much security as they have ever made them in the past. What they must not do—and they know it as well as I do—is, under the cover of expressing political opinions, to attempt to persuade soldiers to disobey orders which have been lawfully given to them. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, in spite of what I think is the inaccuracy of the language of his proposal, wants immunity for a political candidate whatever he says even to a member of His Majesty's Forces.


I want the same rights for a Parliamentary candidate as those who represent the party that preached revolution in the Curragh and were endorsed by the Tory party.


Who were so fierce in their denunciations of the people who attempted to seduce the soldier or sailor from his duty? It was a constant complaint on political platforms that the Law Officers of that day did not do their duty and prevent them from seducing the soldiers from doing their duty. It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth now to say they want to be as free to do that as the people were who did that act. That is a pure debating point. I put the question plainly to him in all good temper. I believe that in his heart he does not want the right to go to a soldier and seduce him from doing his duty. He does not stand for that. Some people do stand for that. If I were to accept this Clause, it would merely be giving a period of three or four weeks' licence to those people who do not care a rap for the liberties any more than they do for the constitutional government of this country. The hon. Gentleman has echoed what has been said more than once, a doubt as to who is responsible for this Bill—whether the Attorney-General or the Admiralty. I will tell him who is responsible for it. It is the Government, who have their supporters firmly behind them in standing for this elementary right of a constitutional Government that its servants shall not be interfered with in carrying out the duties which Parliament has entrusted to them.

10.12 p.m.


The case that the Attorney-General has so eloquently and successfully demolished is not a case which anyone on this side of the House has made. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is on the Paper."] If the hon. Member will refer to the Amendment Paper he will not find it there. The offence of which we speak is not the offence of seducing the soldier from his duty. No Parliamentary candidate whom we could defend would seek to commit that offence. The Attorney-General surely knows that, and, therefore, his eloquence was directed to something that does not exist. The offence is not the seduction of the soldier but the possession of literature which, if it were distributed—there is no need for it to have been distributed—in the opinion of someone might do so-and-so. The whole thing turns on the opinion of the authorities as to what would be the effect of the document if, in fact, it were distributed, and it seems to me that, in circumstances of political stress, when feelings are much on edge, the ordinary perfectly loyal, straight- forward election literature of a Parliamentary candidate could easily be held by someone taking a biased view to be literature the mere possession of which was an offence under this Measure.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

There must be intent under this Bill to commit -or to act.


The hon. and gallant Member interrupts me to say that there must be intent. There must be intent in the opinion, again, of the person who constitutes this an offence. In normal times we should probably agree that no great harm to liberty would be done, but the whole process of this Bill is that it may be applied in abnormal times, and we all surely have seen with regret that the traditional impartiality of the courts will not always stand the strain of severe division of opinion, especially on matters sunk as peace and war, and religious questions.

I remember very well when I was a soldier in uniform during the War, going into a police court in the New Forest to shelter from the rain, and seeing there a dozen men before the bench, each charged with the offence of riding a bicycle without having a rear light burning. Everyone of those men was fined half-a-crown except one weedy fellow, who, it was stated, was a conscientious objector, working on Mr. Jones' farm. He was fined one guinea, and the others half-a-crown. That is an example. It sounds now, at this distance of time, to be a pretty good joke, but it was evidence of a state of mind on that bench which will be no joke when this Bill has been passed. It meant that these people were capable of using their judicial position to impose a special penalty for an opinion and incapable of interpreting election addresses which might have been issued by well-known people. The Prime Minister's election address; for instance, in the famous-Woolwich by-election would undoubtedly have been held by the type of persons who constituted that bench to be a document which, if distributed, would constitute an offence under this Bill. Any one who took part in that by-election in Woolwich just after the War when the present Prime Minister was a Labour candidate, will remember very well the sort of opinion which was passed by respectable people on the kind of literature he was issuing to his prospec- tive constituents. Having regard to the fact that Woolwich is an Arsenal and a military town, and that in the ordinary exercise of the normal distribution of literature by a parliamentary candidate to his constituents, the candidate, in this case the Prime Minister, would have sent those documents to people serving in His Majesty's Forces because those people were his voters, and he undoubtedly had them in his possession for the very purpose of distributing them to members of His Majesty's Forces. If those documents were put before the sort of people who sentenced the New Forest conscientious objector to pay a guinea instead of half-a-crown, they and the possession of them, would undoubtedly be held to constitute an offence under this Bill.

I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are discussing is not the virtue or the vice of the act of seduction of a soldier but the uses which may be made in times of trouble of the Clauses in the Bill. I submit that they can be used for purposes for which it is quite possible that the Attorney-General has no wish at present that they should be used. A careful reading of the Act will show—and what I am saying now is supported by some of the best jurists in the country—people who hold the very highest position as professors of law in our universities—that this Bill can be used by a repressive Government to stamp out opinion which it regards as unpopular. It is for that reason that we are asking that this Clause should be accepted.

10.21 p.m.


It is very difficult to follow the hon. Member in the interpretation which he has put upon this Clause. It is not only a question of dealing with people who are endeavouring to circulate documents in depots and other military posts, but the Clause also covers people who are affected by Clause 1. It applies to any person who maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty. Such person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. The proposed new Clause endeavours to exclude from the provisions of the Bill, whether applied to Clause 1 or any other Clause, Parliamentary candidates. What is a Parliamentary candidate? It amounts to this, that at the time of a general election half a dozen people gathered at a street corner in Glasgow or any other big city may decide that their leader would be a likely person to represent them as a prospective candidate at the election, and under this Clause he would be excluded from any prosecution which the Government of the day might consider it advisable to put into operation. That is not all. Under the Clause not only is the individual candidate excluded, but any agent or person or persons whatsoever under his instructions. It is reasonable to suggest, and I think it is a fair argument to submit to the House, that a candidate of that type who has been adopted for the specific purpose of preaching sedition at the time of an election could enlist in his services and give instructions to numberless people acting on his instructions for the whole purpose of defeating the Act.

It may be said that this Clause would apply only to a properly nominated Parliamentary candidate, but the Clause does not say so. Let us assume for a moment that it did say so. It only means to say that the people who are anxious to bring about a revolutionary state of affairs in this country, provided that they have the finances at their disposal—they seem to have a lot of money, which comes from some place or other—have only to arrange for the adoption of a Parliamentary candidate at the time of a by-election or a general election at every depot throughout the country, in every centre where it would serve their purpose best, and under this Clause those people would be excluded from the provisions of the Act in regard to prosecutions. I do not know whether the hon. Member, with his experience of the War Office in the first Labour Government, and his friends who support him realise in exactly what way this Clause could be used by subversive elements in the country and outside it. I suggest that it is not right that a responsible party should come to this House and put on the Order Paper a Clause which would entice and give every encouragement to people to do their best to bring down the constitution of this country.

10.24 p.m.


It would appear to me that there is nothing more necessary for the maintenance of democratic government in this country than a provision that a Parliamentary candidate should be subject to no limitation of any unreasonable kind in presenting his case. As long as he puts before the people of the country reasons why they should vote in one way or another there should be no restriction whatsoever upon his conduct. A Parliamentary candidate is a person who is seeking to be elected to this House to change the laws when he has been elected. The very fact that he is a candidate in the first instance is evidence ordinarily that he is seeking to change society by changing the laws of the existing constitution. A man in that position ought to have the greatest possible freedom of utterance. If any limitation is imposed upon him a limitation is imposed on the, people as a whole. If he is not in a position to state freely everything he thinks should be said, the people of the country are debarred from receiving from him the issues upon which the election is being fought.

Any limitation which is imposed on a man seeking election is a limitation imposed on the voter, because voters do not vote upon men but upon issues. If the country is to be afforded an opportunity of deciding on the merits of different matters they should be stated quite freely in an atmosphere of the frankest discussion. Therefore, if some candidates work under any restrictions the whole system of democracy works against one party and in favour of the other. The party which is seeking to change the order of society is under grave limitations. It is fighting against the established order of things, against established values and institutions and, therefore, is considerably handicapped at the start. If these limitations are added to by a fear of the vague and ambiguous penalties imposed under this Bill, then the forces of progress are put under unreasonable restrictions.

Let me ask the Attorney-General a question. Suppose that I, holding extreme pacifist views and also holding the conviction that the promptings of a man's conscience are the supreme consideration for him, that no laws can override what he conceives to be his duty, am a Parliamentary candidate and have in my possession 20,000 copies of the speech of Bishop Barnes, the one which appeared in the Press recently in which he exhorted members of His Majesty's Forces not to bomb helpless populations in Afghanistan, and that I distributed that leaflet to my constituents. I ask hon. Members to read Clause 2—not Clause 1; everybody has been reading Clause 1. Clause 2 says: If any person, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence. I say that any just and dispassionate interpretation of that Clause would bring me within the reach of the Bill, and that all the leaflets which I distribute to the people of my constituency, conveying the opinions of an eminent ecclesiastical authority, would be conceived to be a violation of the law. I hope that the Attorney - General will be good enough to reply. I am not committing an offence, but I am counselling the commitment of an offence; I am saying that men who have sworn an oath of allegiance ought not to allow that oath to be set against the promptings of their Christian conscience, and that they should have regard to the principles of Christianity first and their fealty to the Crown second. Occasions do arise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit, because I have heard him speak with very strong feeling in the Debates in this House. He will agree that circumstances will arise in the lifetime of many men when they have to choose between conflicting allegiances. The history of this country and its Constitution has been written by men who have put their consciences before their allegiance to authority. If I had those leaflets in my possession, conveying to my constituents the declared and considered opinion of an ecclesiastical authority, would I be committing an offence under this Clause?

10.31 p.m.


I can only speak by permission of the Chair and the House. The hon. Member is a little vague in the nature of his question. What he asks me to suppose is that he has in his possession 20,000 copies of the speech delivered by the Bishop of Birmingham. The Bishop of Birmingham, if I may say so, was somewhat studiously vague in his statement. I have a copy here. He said: Knowing that my words as published in the English press may reach members of the Royal Air Force concerned, I say that I cannot think that a Christian man could act under orders in this way. The hon. Member supposes that he has had 20,000 copies of that sentence printed.


And its context.


The rest of the context was only a reference to me.




Then I have not here the whole of the passage. I do not want to evade the question, but that was the gist of the sentence.


If it assists the Attorney-General in his argument I will accept that statement.


Then I am to assume that the hon. Member as a candidate has possession of copies of this speech, whatever were the other words that accompanied those which I have read. If the hon. Gentleman had 20,000 copies in his possession and there was any evidence that he was wanting to give those copies to members of his Majesty's Forces in circumstances which led them to believe that they need not obey orders, the hon. Gentleman would come under this Bill. Let me add this: The hon. Gentleman has used some eloquent words about conscience. He wants freedom of conscience for a Bishop of Birmingham or himself to say to a man "You need not drop a bomb when you are told to do so by some superior officer." Let us see where that leads? If freedom of conscience is to be given to a man to say that, is the same freedom of conscience to be given to a man who, in an industrial dispute, seeing the soldiers in the street under orders not to shoot until they are told, tells them to "Shoot and never mind the consequences?" If you are going to have freedom of conscience allowing individuals to interfere—[Interruption.] Even the party opposite cannot claim a monopoly of conscience, and conscience leads people in very funny directions.

10.44 p.m.


I do not think the learned Attorney-General has done his case any good by his parallel. He has mis-stated the position. In the first place, the mere possession of these docu- merits would be an offence. [HoN. MEMBERS: "With intent!"] If I had these 20,000 leaflets in my possession, what would I have them for? The mere possession of 20,000 leaflets—


With intent.


I am very glad that the hon. Members who interrupt are not presiding over our courts. As a matter of fact, if it were proved in court that had in my possession 20,000 leaflets of the speech of the Bishop of Birmingham, the possession of those leaflets would itself be evidence of intent. I am prepared to bow to superior legal authority on the matter but I am told that the only way in which a judge could arrive at any conclusion on the question of intent would be by consideration of the circumstances of the case. You cannot get at intent except through the surrounding circumstances. A person would not have 20,000 such leaflets in his possession merely to gloat over them but with a view to distributing them.


Not necessarily. May I suggest that the hon. Member might have taken those leaflets from an ill-advised supporter of his who had the intention of distributing them?


Hon. Members opposite are being driven to the most fantastic suppositions in order to support their case. We have had it from the Attorney-General that if the Bishop of Birmingham wrote to the Press his letter, which could be read by any soldier, sailor or airman in Great Britain, after this Bill becomes law, he would be guilty of an offence.


The hon. Member will pardon me but I never said anything faintly approaching that.


The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that if I distributed these leaflets among my constituents and if they could get into the possession of soldiers, sailors or airmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then, precisely what, is the position?


It is very difficult indeed for the hon. Member and myself to conduct a Debate about supposititious circumstances in regard to which we are not sure that we both mean the same thing. I do not complain of the hon. Member but I have not said that the mere possession of leaflets or the writing of a letter of this kind to the papers would be an offence. It would only be an offence if there were what lawyers call overt acts, showing an intention on the part of the person circulating the leaflets to affect the loyalty or the allegiance of the soldiers to whom they were given. I do not profess to be able to give an exact answer on rather vague statements of fact and while I do not complain of the hon. Member, he must not put into my mouth words which I have not used.


It is extremely difficult to follow the Attorney-General's point. If I distribute leaflets containing the speech of the Bishop of Birmingham among any soldiers, if I state to the soldiers, "You are Christian people and it is in my judgment an un-Christian act for you to bomb defenceless villages in India. You may be called upon to do so, and if you do so you are not Christians"—would that be an attempt to procure disobedience to their allegiance?


Yes, under the present law as well as under this Bill.


Now we have it quite clearly from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is at present illegal in Great Britain to call upon soldiers to be Christians. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We are indeed very much indebted to a pillar of Christianity in this House for the statement that you may propagate the principles of Christianity anywhere except among His Majesty's Forces. I would like to put a further proposition to the House, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help me again. I understand that 'a soldier is subject to the laws of the country, that if a soldier be asked by his superior officer to fire upon a civilian crowd, it is not enough for the soldier to plead that he acted upon the instructions of his officer if his act is indeed illegal. I remember a Debate in this House some years ago in which that point was made. that we have still in Great Britain kept the soldier subject to the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, 'and that if a soldier be called upon by his superior officer to violate the law, it is not sufficient for him to plead in extenuation that he obeyed the instructions of his superior officer.

As a Parliamentary candidate, am I not perfectly entitled to argue that it is inconceivable that any set of circumstances could arise in Great Britain in which members of His Majesty's forces could be called upon to fire upon a crowd of men engaged in an industrial dispute, and that indeed, if they were so called upon, they would be violating the law and that they should be prepared in such circumstances to disobey the instructions of their superior officers? If I distributed a leaflet in which I pointed out to the soldiers that in these circumstances they should refuse to obey the instructions of their superior officers, should I come under this Bill? Of course I should. In fact, it is impossible for me, as a candidate for Parliament, to treat a member of His Majesty's forces as 'a citizen with full citizen rights, and I want to know why the Government have not the courage to take the next logical step and deprive the members of His Majesty's forces of any right to vote at all, because we are being forbidden to place before them many of the real, live issues which may arise in politics in the immediate future in this country.

Questions of participation in civil conflicts and in conflicts with other countries are bound to arise more and more in British politics, and it seems to me that all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to procure can already be procured under the existing law. There is no need to add a single word to what is already on the Statute Book to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman every protection he requires to prevent individuals of malicious intent committing acts of subversive propaganda among members of His Majesty's forces, and if that be so, I want to know why this 'additional disability should be placed upon Parliamentary candidates, because of all people they should be the freest to state their views to the people as a whole. So far from the right hon, and learned Gentleman acting as the custodian of British liberties and the Constitution, this Government is gradually frittering away the liberties. of the British people and introducing into the British Constitution principles utterly alien to the traditions and spirit of the British people.

10.44 p.m.


The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Capt. A. Evans), arguing against the new Clause, pointed out—and I see the point—that there was some danger that it might be taken advantage of, if it was adopted, by a Communist candidate who had become a candidate for the one purpose of carrying out agitation for causing the troops to mutiny, and he suggested that he would probably be subsidised by funds coming from abroad. I should like to ask whether the Attorney-General really thinks there is substance in that argument. I ask it for a particular reason, because I hold in my hand an extract from one of those letters which the Attorney-General has been good enough to write recently to correspondents defending the Bill from different angles, and in it he appears to indicate that some danger of this kind does exist. I think it will be helpful if he were to enlarge upon it. He used these words: You ask me when the troops the case. to-day, of their splendid an organisation erate purpose of of affairs. It is abroad. That may be so and it may be the foundation of the Bill and the reason behind it. If it be so, we ought to be told more about it and what particular country is permitting an organisation of this kind to foment trouble among our troops. I think our troops are far too sensible to pay any attention whatever to propaganda of that kind coming from abroad, but I wish the Attorney-General would tell us which this hostile foreign government is. Surely it cannot be our great friends the Soviet Government of Russia, because our Government has quite recently rightly supported its election to the League, of Nations as being a government which is carrying out all its international obligations; therefore, it cannot be guilty of

subsidising and fomenting mutiny in this country at the same time. The two things are utterly inconsistent. It may be some other country which the Attorney-General has in mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Third International."] The Third International is under the control of the Russian Government; that has always been the charge in the past. Before we can decide whether the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend are justified or not it would be helpful if the Attorney-General would enlarge upon the very serious charge that he has publicly made against some foreign government.


The hon. Gentleman is committing the same fault, about which I complained before, of putting into my mouth words which I did not use. I chose my words carefully about something which I knew, and I said "financed from abroad." I did not say "by a foreign Government."


All countries that are abroad are foreign countries. Therefore, some foreign country is permitting an organisation which is carrying on agitation to be financed from there. Has the Attorney-General or the Government made any representation to this foreign Government asking that it will take steps to prevent this agitation being carried on?


We are now getting away from the new Clause altogether.


I will not pursue it any further, but will ask the Attorney-General to enlarge upon what he said, because clearly it will be of assistance to the Committee in coming to a conclusion with regard to the advisability of this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 302.

Division No. 369.] AYES [10.50 p.m
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Dobbie, William Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Edwards, Charles Healy, Cahir
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Hicks, Ernest George
Attlee, Clement Richard Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Holdsworth, Herbert
Banfield, John William Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Janner, Barnett
Batey, Joseph Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Jenkins, Sir William
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Gardner, Benjamin Walter Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Buchanan, George George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Kirkwood, David
Cape, Thomas Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Cove, William G. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lawson, John James
Daggar, George Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Leonard, William
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Logan, David Gilbert
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Groves, Thomas E. Lunn, William
Davies, Stephen Owen Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, Valentine L.
McGovern, John Paling, Wilfred West, F. R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Parkinson, John Allen White, Henry Graham
Mainwaring, William Henry Rathbone, Eleanor Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mellalieu, Edward Lancelot Rea, Walter Russell Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Wilmot, John
Maxton, James. Smith, Tom (Normanton) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banf)
Milner, Major James Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North) Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Nathan, Major H. L. Thorne, William James
Owen, Major Goronwy Tinker, John Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Denman, Hon. R. D. Kerr, Hamilton W.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.) Denville, Alfred Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Dickie, John P. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Dixey, Arthur C. N. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh' d.) Doran, Edward Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Drewe, Cedric Leckie, J. A.
Apollo, Liut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Leech, Dr. J. W.
Apsley, Lord Duckworth, George A. V. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Aske, Sir Robert William Duggan, Hubert John Levy, Thomas
Assheton, Ralph Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lewis, Oswald
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Eastwood, John Francis Liddall, Walter S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Elliston, Captain George Sampson Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Elmley, Viscount Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Llewellin, Major John J.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lloyd, Geoffrey
Bateman, A. L. Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Everard, W. Lindsay Loftus, Pierce C.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm th. C.) Fox, Sir Gifford MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Fuller, Captain A. G. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O (Ayr)
Bernays, Robert Galbraith, James Francis Wallace McConnell, Sir Joseph
Blindell, James Gillett, Sir George Masterman Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Borodale, Viscount Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John McKie, John Hamilton
Bossom, A. C. Gledhill, Gilbert Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Boulton, W. W. Glossop, C. W. H. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradestan)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Gluckstein, Louis Halle Magnay, Thomas
Maitland, Adam
Bower, Commander Robert Talton Goff, Sir Park Makins, Briadler-General Ernest
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Mannigham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Boyce, H. Leslie Gower, Sir Robert Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Marsden, Commander Arthur
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Broadbent, Colonel John Greene, William P. C. Meller, Sir Richard James
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Grimston, R. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Gritten, W. G. Howard Milne, Charles
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Mitcheson, G. G.
Browne, Captain A. C. Gunston, Captain D. W. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Guy, J. C. Morrison Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Burghley, Lord Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Burnett, John George Hales, Harold K. Moreing, Adrian C.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morgan, Robert H.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hammersley, Samuel S. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morrison, William Shepherd
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Harbord, Arthur Moss, Captain H. J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Munro, Patrick
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Nall, Sir Joseph
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Christle, James Archibald Hepworth, Joseph Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Cobb, Sir Cyril Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Nunn, William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Colfox, Major William Philip Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Colman, N. C. D. Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge) Ormiston, Thomas
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Hopkinson, Austin Orr Ewing, I. I.
Conant, R. J. E. Hornby, Frank Patrick, Colin M.
Cook, Thomas A. Horobin, Ian M. Peake, Osbert
Cooke, Douglas Horsbrugh, Florence Pearson, William G.
Cooper, A. Duff Howard, Tom Forrest Perkins, Walter R. D.
Copeland, Ida Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Petherick, M.
Craddock, Sir Heginald Henry Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Critehley, Brig.-General A. C. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Pike, Cecil F.
Crooke, J. Smedley Hume, Sir George Hopwood Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Power, Sir John Cecil
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cross, R. H. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Iveagh, Countess of Radford, E. A.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Dalkeith, Earl of Jamieson, Douglas Ramsey, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Dawson, Sir Philip Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Train, John
Reid, David D. (County Down) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Reid, William Allan (Derby) Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Remer, John R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Renwick, Major Gustav A. Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Somerveil, Sir Donald Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Rickards, George William Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Robinson, John Roland Soper, Richard Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Ropner, Colonel L. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Spencer, Captain Richard A. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Ross, Ronald D. Spens, William Patrick Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Runge, Norah Cecil Stevenson, James Weymouth, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Stones, James Whyte, Jardine Bell
Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Stourton, Hon. John J. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Strauss, Edward A. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Salmon, Sir Isidore Strickland, Captain W. F. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Savery, Samuel Servington Sutcliffe, Harold Wise, Alfred R.
Scone, Lord Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S) Womersley, Sir Walter
Selley, Harry R. Templeton, William P. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Thompson, Sir Luke TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.
Shute, Colonel J. J. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Slater, John Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

10.59 p.m.


Before we go on I would like to ask the Attorney-General how far he really wants us to go to-night. I would point out that up to now we have made very good progress.

11.0 p.m.


respectfully agree that we have made good progress, and I am very much obliged to hon. and right hon. Members opposite for helping us in that progress; but would it be reasonable if we went to the end of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, which is the second Amendment at the top of page 1903? The first Amendment there is to leave out Clause 2. I dare say that will not be moved. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said on the Second Reading that he took no objection to the operation of Clause 1. There are one or two Amendments still to be moved on it, and I suggest that they will not take very much time and that we might have a reasonably long Debate on the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) and then adjourn.


One of the most important of the Amendments to Clause 1 is in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot)—in page 1, line 8, to leave out "or" and to insert "and." If the next Amendment taken is that to leave out Clause 2, and it is disposed of, one wonders whether we might adjourn then, and start tomorrow with the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1).


I cannot help thinking that to-morrow there will be less time, and that therefore there will be a greater necessity to sit up late. If we take the course that I have suggested, I hope that the House will not have to sit very late and that there will be a full opportunity of saying everything on the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded.

11.2 p.m.


There is an extremely important Amendment to be moved from below the Gangway. If we go after half-past twelve, I shall feel inclined to go on all night and finish the Bill. A good many of my hon. Friends will not be able to get home, and may as well stay. We ought to have more time for the discussion, but we know that we are very much in the hands of the supporters of the Government who are so overwhelming in numbers; therefore, I would like to make a reasonable arrangement about it. If we can be sure that we shall finish at about 12 o'clock—the experience of to-night gives ground for that hope, because hon. Members have not made long speeches; I have been bursting to speak but have not done so—and if we can agree to a time, that will be all right, but otherwise, let us go on. We are quite willing to go on. We do not want to go until about two o'clock and then to find ourselves loafing around this House. Hon. Members can adjourn when they like. It is in their hands.

11.3 p.m.


The Government will be perfectly prepared to stop, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) on the understanding that the remaining Amendments are obtained to-morrow at a reasonable hour. I cannot specify a time, but a reasonable hour would be about half-past twelve. If that be agreed in all quarters of the House, the Government will be prepared to stop at the end of the Amendments to Clause 1.

11.4 p.m.


We cannot make any bargain about to-morrow night. The Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill is a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman is always so very reasonable that I am sorry that he cannot see his way to give us extra time during the day for the Third Reading. The business of the Session would not suffer if he would allow us to finish to-night at twelve o'clock and to take the rest of the time to-morrow in getting through the Report stage; and if he would then give us another day in order to give the Bill the Third Reading Debate, which the Attorney-General and other right hon. Gentlemen must know in their hearts it deserves. I earnestly ask him to consider that suggestion.

11.5 p.m.


It was exactly for that reason that the Government suggested that we should dispose of the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. Really, the Opposition want a reasonable time for the discussion on the Third Reading. If that Amendment is disposed of, the remaining Amendments on Report could be disposed of by, say, 7.30 to-morrow, and we should then have from 7.30 till, say, 12.30, which is a reasonable hour, to debate the Third Reading—or say 12.15, to enable hon. Members to catch their trains. That would still leave about five hours for the Third Reading Debate.

11.6 p.m.


As far as we are concerned, we cannot bind ourselves as to time in regard to the discussion of the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. We view it as a matter of important principle, and we cannot be subject, on a question of principle like this, to the Government's time. We have great sympathy with and understanding of the position of hon. Members of the Opposition who cannot get home. It is a very awkward position for them. It is not a fair use of Government time. The theory of government is that Members here are equal, and, when you use your power, it is not merely inequality of numbers, but inequality of position. As far as we are concerned, the Amendment as to the use of troops in an industrial dispute involves a cardinal principle. I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of your statement, whether you would accept from me a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate? If so, I will move it now.


The discussion that has just taken place has really been quite irregular; there is no Motion before the House. I am quite prepared to allow the hon. Member to move, not "That the Debate be now adjourned," but "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."


I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, be now adjourned."

I do so because I think that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition is reasonable, and that we ought to have much more time on this Measure. This is a Motion which is not unusual at this time of night. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to do it without a Motion, thinking that the Government might be reasonable. The amount of time remains the same and the responsibility of dividing it is thrown on the Opposition. The time is too limited. It is not for us to say what portion of the Measure shall not be discussed. It is our job to insist that time shall be given for every matter of importance to be discussed. This is a matter of first-class importance arousing grave public opinion. Why not devote one more day to it and one less to dog racing? This raises in the average man's mind some idea of public liberty and political freedom. It is much better to devote a day to it than to other matters that are relatively unimportant.


I beg to second the Motion.

11.13 p.m.


This is not the kind of Bill that would go through without tempers being frayed to some extent. We could not possibly make 'any bargain, but the Amendment will certainly take a long time. A large number of Members want to speak on it. Is it not possible, without asking us to make any bargain, to agree to finish with the next two Amendments? A Bill that took 16 days in Committee surely deserves more than two days on Report. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should agree to end with the Amendment at the bottom of the page.

11.15 p.m.


I cannot understand the easy way in which the House is taking the most preposterous proposal which has been put forward from the Government Bench. In my time in this House, I have never confronted a situation such as that with which we are confronted to-night, even with Governments who had not behind them the overwhelming support enjoyed by the present Government. Fancy coming here on the first day after the Recess that they themselves fixed and asking the House, their own supporters and others, to sit into the early hours. I have never known a House of Commons where, if the Leader of the Opposition, coming back after an extended period of illness, had made a simple request on personal grounds—because in previous House of Commons the human aspect of things has always had serious consideration—would not have been sufficient without any further reason at all. I cannot understand whether it is the Attorney-General or the Patronage Secretary who is responsible for this, but it seems to be a tremendous confession of weakness on the part of a very powerful Government, at least as far as numerical strength is concerned, to announce to the country that it cannot put through its business inside the reasonable normal working Parliamentary hours.

This House to-day has done an ordinary Parliamentary day's work. There has been no obstruction, and there has been no obstructive speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was not in at the close of each new Clause, but only on one occasion do I remember the Closure being moved. The House of Commons has done a normal day's work. There has been no display of passion or ill-temper. The Government have made substantial progress, and now we come to this hour when further progress cannot be made unless we are prepared to work during an unnatural period which subjects a very large proportion of the Members to considerable inconvenience. The spokesman of the Government comes forward and says, "Unless you give up your right to oppose, unless you give up the right to perform your essential Parliamentary duties, and unless you intimate to the country that your opposition to this Measure is not so very strong after all, we will compel you to sit right through the night." It is a disgraceful and a disgusting attitude to take up, and it is in keeping with the spirit I have complained about on this Measure. It is substituting the big stick idea for the reasonable agreement idea in politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says, we know our limitations because of our numerical weakness, but I for one will not be a party to facilitating the progress of this Measure to the Statute Book in any way whatever. The Government can get this Measure. The ordinary powers which reside in Parliamentary procedure are sufficient to get them this Measure in a reasonable time, although the wisest plan for them would be to drop the proceedings on it altogether. The Attorney-General has repeatedly said, and he has stated it tonight, that the Government have all the powers necessary to do the things that he is asking for in this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will point out the particular sentence in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. It is no use being acrimonious now. In reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) he said: "Just as we can do under the existing law." The Government may proceed with the Bill, but they ought not to add to that indecency the indecency of asking the House to proceed with it at unreasonable hours.

11.21 p.m.


I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and hope that the Government will very seriously consider that more time should be given to the remaining stages. We have spent prac- tically the whole of a normal Parliamentary day discussing four points, and the right hon. and learned Member has very fairly admitted that, there has been no attempt to waste time. Although a large number of hon. Members have spoken I do not think that anyone has spoken at considerable length. We have dealt with those four points, but the points with which we have still to deal in the main part of the Bill are of very much greater substance than any of those with which we have dealt. As we have necessarily spent much time on the new Clauses, is it not reasonable to suggest that still more time will be needed if we fare adequately to debate the very important and substantial points which still remain on the Order Paper. It will be impossible to discuss these points as fully and adequately as hon. Members will wish to do and have adequate time left for the Third Reading. Rightly or wrongly this Bill has been a subject of considerable controversy in the last few months. It arouses the greatest public interest. It happened in Committee and to some extent on the Report stage that the discussion of the technical difficulties of the Bill and the very intricate details have been left to some of us who are back bench Members. In view of the great public interest taken in the Bill there should be a full Debate on the Third Reading in which the more prominent Members should have full opportunity of expressing their views, the Leader of the official Opposition, the acting leader of the party that I represent—


And the Prime Minister, too.


Yes, and I hope the Prime Minister, too. There should be a Debate on the Third Reading which will do justice to this subject and the interest which it arouses in the country.

11.24 p.m.


The Patronage Secretary is unusually obstinate to-night on this subject. No one on the Front Bench opposite has risen to defend the proposal that we should carry on all through to-night on a Bill highly controversial and on which there are a number of extremely important Amendments still to be considered. The Government can, of course, defeat the Motion before the House and force us to sit to-night and debate the Bill. We shall do that, and they can adjourn when they please. So far as we are concerned, we will sit right through into the morning, and late into the morning, and as long as they sit. But that is not the way that a majority of Englishmen treat a minority. I think this is the worst thing that has happened in this Parliament—to say that you shall have only these two days for a Bill of this sort, however much you may conform to Parliamentary procedure, and however moderate you may be in the length of your speeches. Any one of us could have spoken for an hour on any of the subjects which have been discussed.


They did so for 16 days in Committee upstairs.


I do not think it is dignified or a very fair method of carrying on the business of this House. Whatever may have been done in Committee has nothing to do with what is being done in the House to-night, and we have a perfect right to discuss the Bill. If we had started in the way in which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) used to commence when he wanted to defeat us in the last Parliament, that is to make long speeches and to obstruct, I could understand the attitude of the Patronage Secretary. He may say that we must finish by 20th November. It is no law of the Medes and Persians. If we went one day longer the world would not come to an end, nor would Parliament come to an end. We should start the new session a day later. There is only a tiny minority below the gangway, a small minority on these benches and another small minority on the Liberal benches; altogether we are less than one-sixth of this assembly. You talk about fair play? There is no fair play about this at all. It is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Parliament. I make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We ought to have a full Parliamentary day for the Third Reading. There has been only one days' discussion on the Bill on the floor of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to adjourn the Debate at a-quarter-past-twelve and tomorrow get on with whatever there is to do and give a further day for the discussion of the Bill. I do riot want this question to be decided on any question of our ability to stay late. We do not like late sittings; no one does. They do not do any good or help our debates. I have always set my face against them, but if we cannot get an adequate discussion on this Bill in any other way we must go on all night. I appeal to the Patronage Secretary and the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter.

11.29 p.m.


The Government of course realise that the Opposition can continue the Debate just as long as they wish, and the Opposition realises also that the Government can carry on the Debate if they choose. There is nothing in that. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a very strong appeal to the Government which I do not think the Government would wish to ignore entirely. We have before been successful in carrying on the business of the House in a satisfactory way. The Government did give way to the Opposition at the end of July, and did not begin the Report stage when they could have taken it by sitting late. It was pointed out that we had had a. very long and arduous Session, that Bills had been brought forward at a late period of the Session and it was put to us that it was hardly fair to ask the Opposition to take the Report and Third Reading of the Bill at the end of the summer when everyone was tired. The Government listened to those representations and said that they would not finish the business before the Summer Adjournment. It was understood that two days—to-day and to-morrow—would be devoted to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. As a matter of fact, no opposition was raised by Members of the Opposition. No one said to me at that time: "That is much too short a time to give, and we shall protest when the Bill comes before the House."


That is not a fair point.


I make that point in passing. The Government did give way to the Opposition at the end of the summer Session. We shall be content to get the end of Clause I to-night.

11.32 p.m.


I tried first of all to get an agreement as to how far we should go to-night, and then I realised that the proposal in regard to industrial disputes was one which a number of our people would want to discuss, as I am sure would hon. Members below the Gangway. So I said, "Do not let us discuss how far we will go, but let us fix a time, 12 or 12.15, to adjourn"; and then I asked whether we could have more time for the Bill. That is what we are pressing for now—that we shall not be limited to to-morrow to finish the That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, considering that we have only got so far and there has been no obstruction. The Government ought really not to expect us to go on like this.

11.34 p.m.


I understand the proposition now. Although I have not got a full Parliamentary day at my disposal, if it was agreed that we get the Third Reading by four o'clock on Friday, the Government would move the Adjournment at 12.15 to-night. But that must be agreed in all quarters of the House.

11.35 p.m.


In the use which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has made of the fact that no active dissent was made before the Summer Adjournment from the arrangement—I think a most unfair use—he is imposing upon any Member who wishes to dissent from anything the duty of getting up on every conceivable occasion and making his dissent vocal. What he says in effect is that because we did not vocally dissent at the end of July we are now to be debarred from asking for more time. In view of that statement I am now voicing my dissent to the arrangement. My opposition to the Bill has been clear from the beginning, on the Second Reading and through the Committee stage, and I am not facilitating its progress in any way now.

11.36 p.m.


Speaking with the permission of the House, I only wish to say that we are prepared to accept Friday for the continuation of the proceedings on the Bill. I was not here before the Summer Adjournment, and do not know what happened then, but I think it a pity that that matter was introduced; but, when we are in search of arguments, we can generally find them, and the right hon. Gentleman has given one. If we are going to have Friday, I think we might go on to-night until 12 o'clock, and I should hope that there need be no Division on the Motion to adjourn the discussion now.

11.37 p.m.


I wish to say that we made no agreement, tacit or otherwise, at the end of the sittings in the summer, that only two days were to be given to the Bill. It was at the end of the summer sittings, and we were all pretty tired, and the Government always announce the business for the first week after the Recess but there was no question of any arrangement, and certainly we on this side had no intention whatever of assenting to any arrangement that the discussions should be limited to two days.

11.38 p.m.


I never said that there was agreement, and I never mentioned the word "agreement." I said that it was announced that two days would be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and it was not pointed out at that time that two days would be insufficient, and no complaint was made at that time.


While I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that no agreement was definitely made, I feel that we have been fairly met on this occasion, and I think I am speaking for my hon. Friends here when I say that we are prepared to agree with the' suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

11.40 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "seduce," to insert: by a pamphlet or paper specially prepared for that purpose. This Amendment would make the Clause read as follows: If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce, by a pamphlet or paper specially prepared for the purpose, any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty…he shall he guilty of an offence. I move the insertion of these words, safeguarding the right of any person to circulate any ordinary paper, periodical, or propaganda sheet that may be neces- sary, but at the same time, from the Government's point of view, safeguarding the right of preventing incitement of a deliberate character to the troops to disobey orders or to mutiny against orders. We believe that it is essential that some safeguards and assurances should be given that this Bill is not going to be used for the general purpose of preventing propaganda of any kind or the dissemination of Socialist propaganda to any of His Majesty's forces. I recognise, from the point of view of the Government, as a Government responsible for the defence of the property interests of the ruling class, that any appeal to the armed forces of the Crown not to carry out orders or to mutiny against orders would be of such a subversive character that it might overthrow the rule of property in this country, and should not be tolerated by them. Therefore, I am asking for the assurance that they will only attempt to prevent an appeal of that kind, because, in my own estimation, something more is sought by the Government of this country than merely to prevent appeals of that character. I think there is an attempt to use this Measure for distinctly class purposes, to prevent political parties in opposition to them from reaching the armed forces with their ordinary appeals and propaganda.

I can remember that during the period of the war, when Mr. Bernard Shaw was asked how he would end the war, he declared—and it was published in the public Press—that the war could be ended if the soldiers on both sides were to rise from the trenches, turn their backs on one another, shoot their officers, go home, take possession of their countries, and carry on their work. I am not saying that—Bernard Shaw said that—but I think that Bernard Shaw is a very wise man and worthy of consideration. Bernard Shaw would undoubtedly come within the scope of this Bill if he made a statement of that kind to-day, and we believe that the Government are attempting to prevent appeals of that character. While moving this Amendment, I stand for the right to appeal to soldiers, sailors, and airmen and to ask them in certain circumstances not to carry out the orders of the ruling class m this country or of their officers, because when Governments get together, form pacts and agreements, and hind the common men and women of any country to fight in certain circumstances in defence of the interests of the propertied class, I do not believe in soldiers being allowed to go on to the battlefield without having the truth told to them before they proceed there.

Realising that the Government are proceeding with the Bill and that they have the authority in the land, we only ask that proper safeguards should be made to ensure that no political party in this country will be prevented under the Bill from making an appeal to or carrying on ordinary propaganda among the soldiers. We consider that the soldier has the right to have the same avenues of information as any other citizen, and that if the information, the propaganda, is bad for the soldier, the Government may logically argue that it is bad for every other citizen. We ask that this safeguard should be given and that the Bill should apply only to cases where a person has drawn up in a very definite way an appeal to soldiers to mutiny or to refuse to carry out orders. This Amendment is bound to test the sincerity of the Attorney-General when he says that only wants to get at people who attempt to make such an appeal to the soldiers not to carry out their orders and to seduce them from their loyalty to the Crown. I ask the Attorney-General to accept the Amendment even from his own point of view, and to show that he only aims at taking power in the circumstances which I have described.

11.47 p.m.


I beg to second the Amendment.

One of the difficulties with which we are faced, a difficulty which will become more apparent as the Bill proceeds, is that we are put in an awkward position in supporting or moving Amendments. It does not follow, however, that in doing that we are supporting the Bill; we are only trying to lessen the full force of it. I support the Amendment for another reason apart from the broad reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). What is an attempt to seduce a soldier? If you eliminate speech and do not eliminate talk, you immediately put in danger of arrest almost every relative of a soldier. When the last war started a number of people in this country thought that it was wrong and that it ought not to be fought. Among those people was the present Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister said that the war should not have been fought. If he spoke to a soldier and said in ordinary conversation, "I think this war is wrong," then under this Bill he would immediately be open to the charge of seducing that soldier from loyalty to the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It all depends on what you mean. We say that a person should have a right to the personal approach, that a man is entitled to say to his son or relatives, "You are a mug to go into the army; you are being used wrongly."


He can buy out.


I would only refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who knows that the £35 required for buying out would buy Bow and Bromley. Besides if a war has just started or if you are a valuable soldier, they will not allow you to buy out.


If the hon. Member had organised a strike and then some of the trade unionists refused to carry out the orders of the executive, would he regard them as honourable men?


I would say that they were dishonest. But the difference is that you are taking power here.


You have the power to starve.


Sometimes when I am talking to hon. Members I wish that we had. We think that there is a difference between a person conducting an ordinary conversation and the organised distribution of pamphlets. The personal appeal to the soldier should remain, and for that purpose I second the Amendment.


The House, I am sure, has not misunderstood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment or the hon. Member who has just spoken. We realise that they dislike the Bill, and that they misunderstand the Bill. So far as this Amendment is concerned, it really is impossible, because everybody knows that the spoken word is often more potent than the written word. I should regard any of the three hon. Gentlemen as much more powerful incentives to mutiny than printed pamphlets. I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hardly think the hon. Member can have expected that I should.

11.55 p.m.


As the Attorney-General knows, I sat through the Committee proceedings and I learned there not to expect anything at all. I got nothing, and I did not expect anything. The Attorney-General is anxious to press this Measure through, however onerously it bears on the citizens of this country, and however big a break it makes with the traditions of the past. Our purpose in proposing this Amendment has been outlined by my two hon. Friends, but I would add this further argument. We are anxious to exclude newspapers and other journals from being interfered with in the ordinary processes of their routine work of commenting on public affairs in one way or another—in the day to day work of producing a daily newspaper or the week to week work on a weekly periodical. We feel that that work should be carried on without a person feeling he must withhold reasonable comment on public affairs because of the possible danger of a prosecution under this Measure. The Attorney-General will say that a person who is carrying on a publication legitimately is adequately safeguarded by the insertion of the terms "maliciously and advisedly," but he will probably recognise that those are subjective things. Whether I do a thing maliciously and advisedly is a point about which only I—the person doing it—can be really quite sure. If the editor of the "Daily Herald" writes a leading article reflecting seriously on myself and my colleagues, as has happened on one or two occasions, I should be perfectly certain in my own mind that he was malicious; but he would be quite certain, in his mind, that he was performing a great public duty.

Some Ministers are more sensitive than others about these things, but any criticism put forward by a paper that is normally antagonistic to a Government is regarded as being actuated by malicious motives. There have been newspapers in this country with a great record for courage in commenting on public affairs at home and abroad. At various periods the "Manchester Guardian," in whose general political theories I am not a believer, has passed the very strongest strictures upon the actions of Governments which it believed to be reactionary, and it has condemned in the strongest possible terms warlike preparations and adventures on the part of Governments in power. An editor, in a tense situation in which war is breaking out or may conceivably do so, and in the exercise of his public duty, may quite easily utter a call to the people of this country to refrain from joining in any such foolish and mad escapades. Under this Clause, without the Amendment which we are proposing, that editor and other people responsible for the publication of the newspaper, could be hauled into court and subjected to the terms of imprisonment laid down in the Measure or to its heavy financial penalties.

The Bill opens up a new stage in our political journeyings. It destroys that essential product of democracy, a free Press, which is carried on on the assumption that it can comment freely and openly upon all public affairs, even though the criticisms are in direct antagonism to the policy of the existing Government and is critical of the policy that the Government are following. The Amendment would completely exclude the possibility of such a destruction taking place, by excluding from the operation of the Measure all regular, normally-produced journals and publications. It would also exclude the possibility that has been raised so many times of people being prosecuted for circulating quotations from the Scriptures—or at least I hope it would. The Attorney-General brought forward the point that the Amendment would leave the person who makes an appeal oratorically rather than by leaflet free to carry on his nefarious operations. I put it to him that such a man is covered by the existing law on sedition. The orator can be easily got. The justifications of the Attorney-General for bringing forward the Measure have not up to now been directed to the oratorical appeal but to documents and the circulation of documents. It is because of documents, and the circulation of documents. You do not have search warrants to look for oratory; you only require search warrants if you are looking for something more tangible and material than an oration; and the Attorney-General knows that he did not produce his Measure for the sake of getting at speeches. He knows that our concern is not with speeches. He knows—it has been said in this House in answer to questions—that I, or my hon. Friends, or any other Member of this House, whatever his political views may be, can approach the troops and make appeals to them oratorically.

This Measure, if we are to accept the statement of the Attorney-General in good faith, was introduced specifically to get at and to put a stop to the deliberate, malicious circulation of printed material of one kind and another directed towards destroying the whole morale of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. That was the reason given on the Second Reading, and that is the reason that has been adduced subsequently, the indication being that wholesale attempts were being made to penetrate the barracks and battleships and aerodromes with pernicious literature of a seditious kind, and that the disciplinary powers of the officers and the whole powers of the Army (Annual) Act were insufficient to prevent this penetration of the armed Forces with seditious ideas of one kind and another through the circulation of printed documents.

We give in our Amendment the right to prosecute. What the Attorney-General asked for at the beginning was the right to prosecute with reference to the distribution of literature definitely, deliberately and maliciously prepared. We say, "Good enough." We do not like the Bill at all; we think it is obnoxious in its general tendency, and more obnoxious still in its ultimate effect; but we say, "Limit it to what you said you needed it for," and we are proposing our Amendment to cope with the particular situation for which the Attorney-General said the Measure was required. We say, "All right; put that in, and limit the operation of the Measure thereby to the specific thing that you said you required it for." The Attorney-General says, "Oh, no; we cannot accept that, because we want it for a whole lot of other things as well." That is the Attorney-General's answer to my hon. Friends' suggestion.

At the beginning he introduced the Measure in that simple, disarming way of his, as a minor Measure, apologising for troubling the House with it; it was just to put a stop to the circulation of pamphlets—I think he had samples of two that he held up—it was really not to interfere with hon. Members of the Opposition, or hon. Members below the Gangway, or hon. Members who sit behind me, but only just to get at those mischievous, malicious people who are printing these obnoxious papers and sending them out by devious and subterranean ways, through their paid hirelings, I think, and subsidised from abroad. That always makes the flesh creep. It is just to get at that type of thing; it is not to stop legitimate political discussion. It is not to stop legitimate pacifist propaganda. It is not to stop even the propagation of revolutionary ideas. It is certainly not intended to interfere with the dissemination of religious views. It is really directed to the circulation of these leaflets and pamphlets which has been going on. We say, all right. We bring forward an Amendment that makes the Measure that and nothing more. But the Attorney-General says that will not do. He wants more than that. He says he must have this Clause in the widest possible terms which can bring within the purview of the Measure every newspaper editor, every preacher in the pulpit, every orator on the platform, every person in the family circle, every person who has ideas that happen to be obnoxious to the particular Government that happens to be in power at the particular moment.

I ask the Attorney-General to limit it. He says, "No. I want it for wider purposes than that. We must have Clause 1 unchanged and unmodified, to deal with any type of propaganda that tends to make the soldiers support an Opposition point of view rather than a Governmental point of view. "That, I contend, is far too big a claim for a House of Commons that believes in the House of Commons. I am not quite sure whether this House of Commons believes in the House of Commons or not. I am very doubtful as to whether this Parliament believes in the British Constitution or not. I question very much whether the majority in this House believes in the British Constitution to any further point than it happens to subserve their own ends. if the British Constitution is to be maintained as we have known it, it is going to be maintained by a very careful abrogation of all the things that have gone to make it in the past. One of these is free speech, another is a free Press, and another is the sanctity of the home. All these things are attacked in this Measure.

Our Amendment does not remove all these evils, but it limits their operation. It limits the right of the Government to prosecute political opponents. It introduces something tangible into the Bill. The court can approve, or an accused can disprove. The police can say: "This man did produce these things, and he did it with the deliberate purpose of so-and-so." That is something that a prosecution can prove, or the accused person has an opportunity of disproving. Without such an Amendment, you are facing up your community with a chance of being dragged into a court about something which a prosecution can assert, and an accused person can deny but cannot possibly disprove because the whole thing may be completely intangible and indefinite.

The Attorney-General rejects our Amendment and says, "No, I refuse to have the Measure limited to the specific objectives. I must have it in the widest

and most general terms." He simply denies the good faith of his own speeches on the Second Reading and subsequently, and frustrates his attempts on repeated occasions to show that the objectives of the Bill are of a very limited nature directed only to a very limited section of the community; when he rejects this Amendment, he gives the lie to that statement of his opinion. He wants it in the widest possible form to affect the biggest section of the community and to interfere with liberties that have long been established and practised in this land. He does not know any more than I do the consequences of such a change in attitude between the State and its citizens. He does not know what the consequences will be, but I fear the worst. I am going to do all in my power to limit the evil operations of the Measure, and, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I shall be compelled to vote for the insertion of the proposed Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 219.

Division No. 370.] AYES [12.19 a.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, Wilfred
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George John, William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Daggar, George Leonard, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Logan, David Gilbert Wilmot, John
Dobbie, William Lunn, William
Edwards, Charles Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry Mr. McGovern and Mr. Duncan Graham.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Maxton, James
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dalkeith, Earl of
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Apsley, Lord Browne, Captain A. C. Drewe, Cedric
Aske, Sir Robert William Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Burnett, John George Duckworth, George A. V.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanat) Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Duggan, Hubert John
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Caporn, Arthur Cecil Dunglass, Lord
Bateman, A. L. Carver, Major William H. Eastwood, John Francis
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Elllston, Captain George Sampson
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Bernays, Robert Colfox, Major William Philip Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Blindell, James Colman, N. C. D. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Bossom, A. C. Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Everard, W. Lindsay
Boulton, W. W. Conant, R. J. E. Fox, Sir Gifford
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Cooper, A. Duff Fremantle, Sir Francis
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Copeland, Ida Fuller, Captain A. G.
Boyce, H. Leslie Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Glossop, C. W. H.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Cross, R. H. Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Broadbent, Colonel John Culverwell, Cyril Tom Gower, Sir Robert
Greene, William P. C. Magnay, Thomas Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Grimston, R. V. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Malialleu, Edward Lancelot Savery, Samuel Servington
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Scone, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison Marsden, Commander Arthur Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hales, Harold K. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Shute, Colonel J. J.
Hanley, Dennis A. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Harbord, Arthur Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hartland, George A. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Somervell, Sir Donald
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Morgan, Robert H. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hepworth, Joseph Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Morrison, William Shephard Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Munro, Patrick Spens, William Patrick
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Hornby, Frank Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)
Horsbrugh, Florence Nunn, William Stevenson, James
Howard, Tom Forrest O'Donovan, Dr. William James Stones, James
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred S. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Storey, Samuel
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Orr Ewing, I. L. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Patrick, Colin M. Strauss, Edward A.
James, Wing-Corn. A, W. H. Peake, Osbert Strickland, Captain W. F.
Jamieson, Douglas Pearson, William G. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Peat, Charles U. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Penny, Sir George Satellite, Harold
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Perkins, Waiter R. D. Templeton, William P.
Kirkpatrick, William M. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Pike, Cecil F. Thompson, Sir Luke
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Procter, Major Henry Adam Thorp, Linton Theodore
Leckie, J. A. Radford, E. A. Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Leech, Dr. J. W. Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Train, John
Leighton, Major B E. P. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Liddall, Walter S. Ramsbotham, Herwald Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Ramsden, Sir Eugene Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)
Liewellin, Major John J. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lloyd, Geoffrey Reid, William Allan (Derby) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Renwick, Major Gustav A. Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Loftus, Pierce C. Rickards, George William Weymouth, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Robinson, John Roland Whyte, Jardine Bell
Mabane, William Ropner, Colonel L. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Ross, Ronald D. Wills, Wilfrid D.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Runge, Norah Cecil Wise, Alfred R.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Womersley, Sir Walter
McKle, John Hamilton Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Salmon, Sir Isidore Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Austin Hudson.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be further considered To-morrow.