HC Deb 30 October 1934 vol 293 cc95-113

A special tribunal of five persons appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by the Commons House of Parliament shall be set up to which persons convicted of an offence under this Act shall have the right of appeal against such conviction on the ground that it is an unreasonable interference with the liberty of speech and action formerly enjoyed under the constitution of this Country.—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.20 p.m.


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

In moving this Clause, I would repeat what I said when I spoke on the previous one, that we are submitting new Clauses and Amendments with the object of limiting the operations of what we regard as a very bad Bill. It may well be that we should not have moved such a Clause as this in the case of other Measures, but we view this Bill with a great deal of apprehension and think this Clause will limit its operations. Under it we are asking that any offender who has been convicted by the ordinary courts shall have a right of appeal to a body of five persons whose names shall, in the first place, be drafted by the Attorney - General, but who are to be approved by the House of Commons. We seek to differentiate between the class of crime dealt with under this Measure and other crimes, because we think that the prosecutions which will arise from this Bill will Come, roughly, under two heads: they will be called either seditious or political. So far as we are concerned, let me say that we can see little difference between what is called a seditious crime and a political crime. What appears to one man to be sedition may appear to another person a perfectly legitimate political point of view. Therefore, we put forward this proposal for a new appeal tribunal, because we feel that in this class of crime, or alleged crime, different issues arise from those met with in the general run of crime.

I expect the learned Attorney-General will not disagree with me when I say that, in the first place, the offender will be tried by an ordinary criminal judge, and then may have an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Quite frankly, the judges at the moment are, in the main, drawn from politicians. [Hog. _MEMERS: "No!"] Well, a large number of them are—[Hog. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and all of them, the overwhelming mass of them, have dabbled in politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] Why should they be ashamed of it? Is there any reason to be ashamed of having dabbled in politics and being politicians? Certain people in this House make me wonder where we are travelling. I am a politician, I have been in politics for 12 years, I am earning a livelihood, and I see no shame in being a politician. I am as proud of my calling, and am as honest and devoted to my job, as any accountant or lawyer who is not in politics is proud of his job. After all, a politician is devoting himself to the common weal and the wellbeing of his constituents, so why be ashamed of being in politics? Why hide the facts?

Take Scotland. All the judges in the High Courts in Scotland are not politically trained, but the big majority—not all, but most—are active politicians. They have taken an active part in political discussions. Take the Lords of Appeal. There is Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan—nearly every one of them has been at some time or other associated with politics. These judges will be trying offences, or alleged offences, about which they already have strong feelings and have taken part in discussions upon them. It will be entirely different from trying an ordinary criminal, because though a politician may be good or bad, at least he has not been in crime. We shall be asking these men to try other men for alleged sedition, knowing quite well that the alleged criminal will start off with this handicap, that, very often, the judge or other person trying him has already expressed political views on the subject. Take the learned Attorney - General and the learned Solicitor-General. Everybody knows that they are going to the bench sooner or later.


The sooner the better.


And why should they be ashamed of it? They are both going to the bench. Possibly they will go quicker if political events move fast. This is the peculiar thing, that as their party goes down and becomes unpopular the way of escape for them is the bench. In that they are unlike other politicians, who suffer and lose their jobs. Before the deluge comes they will get a better job and clear out, and leave their fellow politicians to their fate. What is happening here is that the Attorney-General is leading his Government into passing an unpopular Measure—it is that, say what you like—and when the time comes he, unlike any other Cabinet Minister, will be promoted for having led his Government to death, and will sit on the bench; and the Solicitor-General will sit on the bench also and they will try men for crimes under this Bill. The men on whom they will be sitting in judgment will be presumed to be innocent.

Is there any man in this House who, if he were charged with a political crime under this Bill, would like to be tried by either of the two gentlemen named, knowing the views they have expressed? To be quite frank, nobody would like it. They would not like to be tried by men who had already, to some extent, shown their hand. Therefore, we are advocating this proposal for an appeal tribunal because, looking at the composition of the bench and the class of crime dealt with, we see how easy it is for prejudice to be created. Therefore, we say that in addition to the appeal to the ordinary Court of Criminal Appeal, an appeal should lie to an additional court of five persons approved by this House of Commons. There has always been a great deal of argument on this point. I do not take the view that justice should be outside the control of the House of Commons, which is the view held everywhere; but I am not going to argue that. It may be a good rule or a bad, and I think it is bad, but it is accepted. I am not going to argue it, for the two reasons that to do so would be out of order, and that it would draw me away from my Clause.

The House of Commons has no control over the judges, and we assume that that is for the good. I accept that for ordinary crime and litigation, but when it comes to political or seditious offences on which the judges may have already expressed opinions, the House of Commons should have some power of review as to how the law is being used. The Attorney-General has said all along that he has no intention of using the Bill with any degree of oppression against anyone. That is all right to those who do not know the Attorney-General, but not to those who know him. I do not say this harshly, but I think that in political matters he is cruel. I do not know a more cruel force in this House in political matters than he. [Interruption.] Yes. In ordinary crime, 99 times out of 100, a person knows he is doing wrong, but in every one of these alleged offences a person thinks that he is doing right, and that he is performing a duty to the nation. Is it fair that that person should be handed over to a man who has already revealed his point of view? That would be wrong, and that is why I ask for a tribunal of five persons, to be appointed by the House of Commons.

What is crime to one Government is possibly not crime to another. As an. analogy, take Northern Ireland. I am not going over the history of that country; it is sufficient to point out that at the time of certain events in Northern Ireland one body of people who were likely to be the Government held that the actions of Lord Carson were perfectly right, and another body held that the actions were seditious. The present Government might make their political opponents guilty of sedition, and we ask that the House of Commons should set up a body of five people responsible to the House to consider the subject after the judges, if an aggrieved person has appealed. That is a necessary safeguard. This kind of offence should be lifted out and treated differently from the others. We do not accept the Bill, but we are seeking to find a means of limiting the powers of dealing with political opponents.

I said something a moment ago about judges coming from politics. There might well be a case in which a Government did not want to prosecute but in which a judge was exercising a private vendetta against people whose only offence was that they differed from him. Because of that, the House of Commons ought to set up this appeal tribunal, and to accept the proposed new Clause as some restriction of the proposed powers.

7.38 p.m.


I beg to second the Motion.


I hope for two reasons that the proposed new Clause will not be accepted. I intervene because so much has been said about this being an unpopular Bill, and it is a good thing that some of us should state quite clearly that we do not believe that it is an unpopular Bill and that we support it wholeheartedly. There are two grounds for opposing this Clause, and the first of them is that political and seditious crime should not be treated in any way differently from other crime. A crime is against the law of the country because it is anti-social, and has been considered by the law-makers to do harm to the body politic. You may do harm to the political body, or murder someone who, you think, should be out of the way. That is often done by people who think they are perfectly right There are murderers, forgers, swindlers and others who think they are perfectly right in what they are doing. I cannot see that it is in any way less a crime when it is engineered against the State, presumably, and only presumably, from motives of conscience, than is the more common form of crime committed against individuals or property from exactly the same motives. In passing, I deny that political crime is by any means always done from motives of conscience. As often as not it is done from motives of pure gain, and I cannot see that it is susceptible of any other treatment than that which is accorded to the ordinary criminal.

I deny point-blank the suggestion that a judge who has been a Conservative in politics is likely to be less fair in trying a Communist guilty of sedition, or that the judge who has been a Socialist in politics would be less fair in trying a Fascist for sedition than a judge who is notoriously opposed to the taking of life would be in trying a murderer. There may be bias in ordinary crime as in political crime, but I deny that it would lead the judges to form unfair conclusions. Like many other hon. Members I have sat in judgment on my fellow-men at quarter sessions, and I have found almost invariably that our justices act simply and solely according, not to the nature of the crime, but according to the law on the subject, and I am convinced that my legal friends who have far greater experience than I will bear that out. An accused man either is, or is not, guilty according to the law.

So much for the point dealing with the judges. There is a much sounder argument against the Clause than that. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has entirely omitted to point out that the public control which he desires is already available in the shape of a jury. I am speaking subject to correction, but I am practically sure that cases under the Bill will without exception be tried before a jury, or before the accused's peers. We are familiar with the methods of selecting a jury. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) say that accused persons under the Bill would not be tried by a jury?


Not necessarily. They may be summarily tried.


I think I am right in saying that an accused person can elect to be tried by a jury which is to say that he can always have public control. I do not know that anyone suggests that juries are biased, except in the general sense that they are probably biased in favour of any prisoner. If a man who has been tried wants public control and wants a verdict divorced from politics and from the law, he has it in his jury. I do not believe for one second that any judge who may try these cases will be unfair, but if he is I am sure that a jury is capable of righting the defect. All the safeguard that is wanted for any crime is trial by jury, and I see no reason for making a special case of this class of crime. I hope that the Attorney-General will reject the Clause.

7.45 p.m.


I am in a little embarrassment in rising to speak about this Clause. After hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) about myself, the House will perhaps be surprised, if they have not read the Clause, to know that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in it that I should appoint the proposed tribunal. It shows a touching faith in my impartiality which I highly appreciate. I am afraid, however, that even such a personal appeal cannot induce me to accept the Amendment. There seem to me to be two very good reasons against it. In the first place, it is most undesirable that you should have political parties appointing judges. The hon. Gentleman said that he was of opinion, contrary to the popular belief, that the judges of the land should be under what he called popular control. He is 300 years too late. That great controversy was settled in the time of James I beyond the possibility of change, and this country owes its happiness and freedom largely to the fact that it took Chief Justice Coke's view of the functions of judges in preference to the view of the great Bacon, which was that the judges ought to be the servants of the Executive.

The other reason why I think this Clause ought to be unacceptable is that there would be two tribunals administering two different laws in relation to the same offence. One tribunal would be the Court of Criminal Appeal, administering the ordinary law of the land; the other tribunal, which would be a concurrent tribunal, apparently, would administter some new law which would require the tribunal to say whether there had been an unreasonable interference with the liberty of speech and action formerly enjoyed under the Constitution of this country. Just fancy this tribunal, appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by a political House of Commons, deciding what was the measure of political liberty formerly enjoyed in this country. I was almost confident that the hon. Gentleman would not propose this Clause. It is reactionary in effect, if he will allow me to say so, in that it goes back to the thoroughly bad practice which this country, as I have pointed out, long ago abandoned, of judges of criminal offences being appointed or largely controlled by the Executive of the day. I hope the House will see very good reason not to accept the Clause.

7.49 p.m.


I have listened to the Attorney-General with that care and respect with which I listened to him during all the proceedings on this Measure. He refers to the proposal of my hon. Friend as a reactionary one. It may be, or it may not be, but it is attached to a reactionary Measure. The Attorney-General says that my hon. Friend has gone back some 300 years; to the time of James I, for his precedents, but the Attorney-General himself, in introducing the Bill, went further back than that, and our reason for bringing forward this proposal—which we admit is a new proposal so far as our criminal code is concerned—is because the Attorney-General, in introducing the Measure, is starting, whether deliberately or unconsciously, a new era in British political life. The principle upon which we have operated our politics in this country for many years has been that of discussion and persuasion, but it would seem that we are now going to follow the example set by so many countries on the Continent of Europe, and are going to cease to try to persuade our political opponents, or to convince them, or argue with them, and are going to shut them up in prison. That is the meaning of the Measure. It has the approval of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). It is touching to see him finding one thing in common with the present Government. I am not surprised, because he is one of the few Members of this House who have stood up and made an open declaration of belief in Fascist methods. I can understand his enthusiasm for the Measure.

I have wondered whether it was the Attorney-General or the Government that was responsible for this Measure—whether the Attorney-General led the Government, or the Government led the Attorney-General. On many days in the Committee he did not look the enthusiast that one would expect, who was running his own hare. On many a day he seemed to look as if he was merely in charge of a rabbit which he was not very fond of, and I have not made up my mind yet whether he or some other Member of the Government was responsible for shoving this Measure before the House of Commons. It starts a new era in our political life. It starts an era in which we no longer believe in democracy. We do not believe now that people with different political ideas from ours should be allowed to express them; we believe that they should be shut up in prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the proposal, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), who is 0:taking his head, gave expression to it many times in Committee. He would not have me stand here and talk; he would have me in a prison cell any day. He would do it for my own good; it would be done with the highest motives; but it would be done.

We do not believe that this proposed new Clause would really destroy the evil. It will not get an independent tribunal. We do not believe that an independent, unbiased, judicially minded tribunal can be obtained to adjudicate on offences of the kind involved in this Measure. We believe that every tribunal before which a man can be haled for a political offence will be a prejudiced tribunal; we have no illusions about that. The only claim that we make for the tribunal of appeal that we are endeavouring to set up is that it will contain roughly all the existing prejudices. They will all be represented in the tribunal, just as we have in this House a similar tribunal when offences against the House are involved. We have a Committee of Privileges, which no one could claim was without its prejudices. But it is representative of nearly all parties in the House, and we know that, when any case is taken to that Com- mittee of Privileges, while the minority view may not carry in the Committee, it will at least be heard.

I must say I agree with my hon. Friend that, when the Attorney-General makes an appearance of giving something away, it is only because he feels that he is getting something more by the apparent concession; the iron hand is there all the time. In reply to my hon. Friend he says: "The hon. Member for Gorbals cannot trust me as Attorney-General; he thinks I am a harsh man; but he trusts me to set up this tribunal. "In the first, place, the reply to that is that the Attorney-General, whatever he may think or hope on the subject, is not Attorney-General until the end of time. He just happens by a series of regrettable accidents to be Attorney-General in this particular Government which is in power. He knows that he regrets some of the accidents very much, but he is there only temporarily, not for all eternity, and a new Attorney-General would have the appointment of a new Committee.


Apparently it would be the new Parliament, but even that is obscure in the hon. Gentleman's proposed new Clause.


It would not be obscure in practice, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well. It does not say that it would be for the period of one Parliament, and it does not say, either, that it would be for ever. It says: A special tribunal of five persons appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by the Commons House of Parliament"; and whenever the Commons House of Parliament ceases to approve of the tribunal or of the existing Attorney-General, it can make the appropriate change as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. These five men appointed by the Attorney-General have to be submitted to the House of Commons on appointment. Of course it may be that we have got to the stage that an Attorney-General might be found—it is in keeping with the general trend of thought in bringing forward this type of Measure—who would choose only for that tribunal persons of the same political prejudices as himself, but that has not been the practice up to the present time in the House of Commons. When the House of Commons has been setting up representative committees or tribunals, it has always been regarded as the fair democratic game to make the tribunal representative of the various points of view in the House, and to allow even minorities to have representation. We can see under this method the case of a perfectly innocent citizen having in his possession the literature of his own party, having in his house, as I have at the moment—I have not had time to get rid of it—the reprint of that portion of the Memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) dealing with Passchendaele. Presumably that has been sent to every Member of the House of Commons—a. nicely printed booklet or brochure containing just that portion which deals with the Passchendaele experience. If that fell into the hands of a Member of the armed forces, I should think it would have a serious tendency to seduce the young soldier from his duty and allegiance to the Crown—

Commander MARSDEN

Was it written for that purpose?


I do not know whether it was written for that purpose, but I could conceive of its being circulated for that purpose, and presumably somebody other than the writer saw some purpose in reprinting it and sending a copy of it to me. Presumably he wants to influence my political thinking on the subject. I am not quite so stupid or so closed to all reason that I am never influenced either by the writings or the utterances of my political opponents. Surely the House would not generally level that charge against me. But if I had not believed in the futility of war before, this publication would have certainly given me cause for long and serious thought. I do not know to whom it has been distributed. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) perhaps has had a copy and has retained it. He has probably not had time to read it. His house can be searched from top to toe. He may be haled into court. He is tried first of all by magistrates. I have every respect for their ability to deal with picking pockets, drunkenness and brutal assaults. I want hon. Members opposite to get off the sort of parliamentary high horse that they sometimes get on and think of the magistrates that they know in their own locality. I do not like slang but, to use a current phrase, let us "debunk" the magistrates and imagine their sitting on the bench, thinking about getting away for lunch, perhaps sleeping during most of the proceedings, because a large proportion. where the hon. Member comes from are hearty, free living, open-air men who find the atmosphere of the court somewhat oppressive and, if they do not actually go to sleep, often become somewhat somnolent. Imagine their being asked to decide, before lunch, whether the hon. Member for White-chapel, having had in his possession this particular document, has had it with the idea of seducing the members of the armed forces of the Crown from their duty or allegiance. He has not brought a dictionary with him. He has not got his private secretary with him. He is absolutely incapable. He is simply flummoxed and says, "How much can we give him?" and he is away for a possible two years, with a fine on top of it.

The hon. Member shakes his head and the Attorney-General, in his careless, irresponsible way says, "No one will ever do that sort of thing. You can reply on this man and the next man being fair and decent." What we are concerned with is not that the other fellow that we are imposing the duty on shall carry it out with a maximum of common sense. In passing our Measure through we have to see that we are not putting into the hands of some persons, police, magistrates or any others, a power which, if operated as we know legal proceedings are operated, would lead to citizens who have done nothing of an illegal or criminal nature being landed in prison and branded as criminals for life. Then supposing there is an ordinary appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It comes up before judges of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) indicated. What is the routine of the Court of Criminal Appeal 99 times out of 100? What they say in a political case is, "If he was not doing this he was doing something very like it. In any case he has had six months already and another six months will not do him any harm." I agree with my hon. Friend that, where it is a murder trial and a human life is at stake, there is in all the courts, from the initiation of any proceedings, a care and a consideration that this life shall not be taken without every precaution being observed. But where political things are involved that does not happen. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) has a wide experience of political offences. The City of London has always been recognised as a hotbed of seditious propaganda.

In the case of a political offence the care that is taken in the case of a murder is not taken and, as any one of us who has been involved in it knows, from the moment of the issue of the warrant there is a carelessness and a lack of regard for what is involved for the other person because we do not like him to begin with, we do not like his ideas, and his views are objectionable. That cannot be obliterated by any means that we know of. From the very beginning of the action there will be prejudices which cannot be neutralised but an independent tribunal, composed not of judges but of five persons chosen by this assembly of Parliament, whatever Parliament it may be, and representative of the various political views which are current in the community is not an unprejudiced assembly but an assembly of men who have experience of being day-to-day engaged in political controversy. It is a group of men who can reasonably be expected to know whether some act has passed beyond the stage of reasonable political controversy and has gone into another realm, which is sedition. It is a group of people who, recognising one another's prejudices, would be prepared to consider the case of the condemned person in a more broadminded way than is achievable in the ordinary routine operation of the courts of law. I admit that the proposed Clause has no precedent in judicial procedure, but this Measure has no precedent. This is something new. We have to confront an evil and a vicious element being introduced into our public life. While we seemingly cannot stop it, we can do our best by a device such as this to prevent the maximum evil of its operation.

8.10 p.m.


The Attorney-General said that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) showed a touching faith in him.I should say that what he showed was that we have arrived at a stage of things when it is a case of desperate measures when my hon. Friend has to rely upon the Attorney-General. While this is no ideal method, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are on much stronger ground, where matters affecting the liberty of the individual are concerned, than the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General thinks that, after all, the might and majesty of the law in these matters is enough. You have an unprejudiced judge and, if you take this thing out of the atmosphere of politics and Parliament, you are more likely to have a balanced judgment. I should certainly prefer, if liberty has to be interfered with at all, that the final decision should be in the hands of Parliament and its representatives rather than in the hands of those outside Parliament. The Attorney-General says this method has been tried, but it is also certain that this has been the great battle ground of liberty in past centuries, and that any Government that appointed a tribunal, and indeed any tribunal, would be undoubtedly affected by the fact of their being representatives who do not sit up aloft free from public criticism.

There is one difficulty about all this Debate to-night. What we have been discussing in the main, unfortunately, is the machinery that has to be set up assuming that the Bill comes into operation. We have never yet had an opportunity of discussing the real living issues that are at stake in respect of the Bill. We shall get to that later, but it is a question up to the present of discussing the right sort of machinery. But whether we are discussing the principle itself or the machinery, the fact still remains that the question of liberty of opinion for the individual is at stake. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton pointed out the difficulty, in the first place, of having magistrates judging one in this matter. There are magistrates of different kinds. The magisterial bench of this country generally is a body which renders splendid service, but anyone who resides in Tory districts knows that there are persons acting as magistrates totally unfitted to sit in judgment in matters of this kind. We had a magistrate in Committee upstairs. He did not make any hones about the matter. He eyed the hon. Member for Bridgeton, often a more moderate person than myself, very doubtfully indeed, and he could not sit quiet during our very moderate speeches. He went so far as to say that we ought to be "put down" or "shut up" or something of that description. That kind of person is scattered all over the country. You find them here and there. Think of someone going to a person of that description and saying, "Here is the Member for Bridgeton. He must be a doubtful person as he has bought Lord Snowden's autobiography this week."


I did not buy it.


Here is a book attacking the Prime Minister, and I can imagine that in some areas certain magistrates would really get very red in the face when they talked about books of that description being scattered abroad. An innocent person like myself would not be found reading such wild, revolutionary documents, but I do receive, practically every month, a publication issued by the Soviet Government showing with remarkable photographic ability the constructive work which is going on in that country. Great art is shown in its pages. I can imagine some of these informers, seeing this curious document going into homes in some of these Tory areas. I dare say that there are many Members of this House who receive this monthly magazine. Some of the people in those areas would be in danger of being proceeded against for some kind of offence. I can imagine political conditions in this country when a person might be hauled up before a judge, and when the judge himself, even with the best will in the world and true to the highest traditions of the judicial bench of this country, would not entirely be unswayed by the political sentiment of the time.

I, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton, have not made up my mind as to who is responsible for this Bill and for endangering the principle with which we are dealing here to-day. Some say that it is the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. They have stood openly for the saving of this principle, but they have not been in a hurry to show themselves here tonight any more than they were in Committee upstairs. I assume that it is very possible that it will be as much political in its application as it will in its effect upon the various forces of the Crown. It may be that the Government know just where they want to go for this kind of material, and that they know when they are going to make a raid.

Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I think that the speech of the hon. Member is now becoming more suitable to the Third Reading.


I was carried away, and I am extremely sorry. I shall have something to say on that matter very definitely later on in any case. We are dealing with a very crude Bill and one

of the very few methods that could be adopted to safeguard the individual whose liberty is challenged. Every time I should be prepared to trust Parliament with the safe-keeping of liberty, whenever it was challenged rather than leave the decision merely in the hands of the benches. For that reason, if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, we shall certainly support him in this Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 273.

Division No. 367.] AYES [8.22 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maxton, James
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Owen, Major Goronwy
Banfield, John William Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Paling, Wilfred
Batey, Joseph Groves, Thomas E. Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Grundy, Thomas W. Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Thorne, William James
Cape, Thomas Hicks, Ernest George Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymoar John, William Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Cove, William G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) West, F. R.
Daggar, George Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Kirkwood, David Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Dobbie, William Lawson, John James Wilmot, John
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Lunn, William
Gardner, Benjamin Waiter Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Mainwaring, William Henry
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Cadogan, Hon. Edward Elmley, Viscount
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.) Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Everard, W. Lindsay
Apsley, Lord Caporn, Arthur Cecil Fox, Sir Gifford
Aske, Sir Robert William Cassels, James Dale Fuller, Captain A. G.
Aesheton, Ralph Cautley, Sir Henry S. Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Gibson, Charles Granville
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M. Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Gledhill, Gilbert
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Christle, James Archibald Glossop, C. W. H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Clayton, Sir Christopher Goff, Sir Park
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Cobb, Sir Cyril Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Colfox, Major William Philip Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Conant, R. J. E. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Cook, Thomas A. Grimston, R. V.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.) Cooke, Douglas Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Cooper, A. Duff Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Copeland, Ida Guy, J. C. Morrison
Bernaye, Robert Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bottom, A. C. Crooke, J. Smedley Hales, Harold K.
Boulton, W. W. Crookehank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Hamlltoh, Sir George (Ilford)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hammereley, Samuel S.
Bower, Commander Robert Tattoo Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Culverwell, Cyril Tom Harbord, Arthur
Boyce, H. Leslie Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Hartland, George A.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Dawson, Sir Philip Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Denman, Hon. R. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Broadbent, Colonel John Denville, Alfred Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Dickie, John P. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Dixey, Arthur C. N. Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Doran, Edward Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Browne, Captain A. C. Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Hepworth, Joseph
Buchan, John Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Duggan, Hubert John Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Burghley, Lord Duncan, James A, L. (Kensington, N.) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Dunglass, Lord Hopkinson, Austin
Burnett, John George Eales, John Frederick Hore-Belisha, Leslle
Hornby, Frank Morrison, William Shepherd Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Horobin, Ian M. Moss, Captain H. J. Somervell, Sir Donald
Horsbrugh, Florence Munro, Patrick Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Nall, Sir Joseph Soper, Richard
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Nunn, William Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Spens, William Patrick
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) Ormiston, Thomas Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
James, Wing-Coin. A. W. H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Steel-Maltland, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur
Jamieson, Douglas On Ewing, I. L. Stevenson, James
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Pearson, William G. Stones, James
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Peat, Charles U. Storey, Samuel
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Penny, Sir George Strauss, Edward A.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Perkins, Walter R. D. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Kerr, Hamilton W. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Sutcllffe, Harold
Kirkpatrick, William M. Petherick, M. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Pike, Cecil F. Templeton, William P.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Leckie, J. A. Power, Sir John Cecil Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Leech, Dr. J. W. Pownall, Sir Assheton Thompson, Sir Luke
Lees-Jones, John Procter, Major Henry Adam Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Levy, Thomas Pybus, Sir John Thorp, Linton Theodore
Lewis, Oswald Radford, E. A. Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Liddall, Walter S. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) Train, John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Ramsden, Sir Eugene Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Liewellin, Major John J. Rathbone, Eleanor Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Turton, Robert Hugh
Loftus, Pierce C. Reid, David D. (County Down) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Reid, William Allan (Derby) Wallace. John (Dunfermline)
Mabane, William Remer, John R. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G. (Partick) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Robinson, John Roland Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
McConnell, Sir Joseph Ropner, Colonel L. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Waterhouse, Captain Charles
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
McKeag, William Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Runge, Norah Cecil Weymouth, Viscount
Magnay, Thomas Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Maitland, Adam Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot Salmon, Sir Isidore Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Wills, Wilfrid D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Marsden, Commander Arthur Savery, Samuel Servington Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Scone, Lord Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel
Meller, Sir Richard James Selley, Harry R. George Wise, Alfred R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Worthington. Dr. John V.
Milne, Charles Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'[...]t'd & Chlsw'k) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Mitcheson, G. G. Shute, Colonel J. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Skelton, Archibald Noel Captain Austin Hudson and Sir Walter Womersley.
Morgan, Robert H. Slater, John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)