HC Deb 10 April 1935 vol 300 cc1165-77

Motion made, and Question proposed [9th April], "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Question again proposed.

3.38 p.m.


The question before the Committee is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Before we proceed, may I say a few words about the order of business to-day? When we have finished Clause 296, which I understand will take only a few minutes, we shall be at the end of Part XIII. That brings us to Part XIV, dealing with Burma. The Committee will remember that, with the general assent of the Committee, a promise was given from the Chair that when we came to Part XIV there should be an opportunity given for debate on the general question of the separation of Burma. I have come to the conclusion that the most convenient place to take that discussion will be on the question that the first of the Burma Clauses, Clause 298, stand part of the Bill. There is a Government Amendment down to that Clause which we shall have to dispose of first. Then we shall take the question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" and we will have the debate on the separation of Burma from India. After that, we shall come to a long series of Clauses which, with a few important exceptions, are repetitions of Clauses in the India part of the Bill. There are a very large number of Government Amendments down to those Clauses which again, with a very few important exceptions, are repetitious of the Amendments which have been made in the India Clauses. I think, therefore, that I shall materially assist the Committee if, in dealing with these Clauses and Amendments, I put them to the Committee as rapidly as is compatible with decency and order. I will, therefore, warn hon. Members that if for any reason they want to say anything on any of the questions which are thus put rapidly from the Chair, it will be well that they should not merely rise in their place but should call, and call loudly, otherwise it is likely the Chair may not see them nor hear them. I have been through all these Clauses and Amendments with the greatest care, and I will pause and go more slowly before attempting to put an Amendment which is not merely a repetition or a consequential Amendment. I hope that will meet with the general approval of the Committee.

3.41 p.m.


With regard to the present Clause, Clause 294, I hope that this will not prevent in any way the very important points which arise on the Clause being clearly put before the public and the Committee. The Clause, after all, raises the entire position which is going to follow in India on the passage of the Bill. While everyone wishes to get on to Burma as early as possible, I think there should be an opportunity for an appropriate statement on the Clause.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)

May I remind the Committee that there was an agreement reached among all sections of the Committee last night that we should reach the end of the India chapter last night? I do not want to burke any discussion, but it is difficult to carry on if these agreements are not observed.


The Secretary of State is somewhat ungrateful considering the rapid progress which is being made with the Bill and the enormous number of Clauses which have been got through. I do not think he should complain in these querulous terms. I have given no undertaking except the general one given in the first instance, that the matter should be disposed of within the 26 days plus four, but I agree that other views may be expressed. At the same time, if it is desired to have a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to bring out important points on a Clause like this, I think it would be a great mistake to stop such discussion by the Committee.


I should never have mentioned the matter were it not for the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who is regarded as the right hon. Gentleman's principal representative and I made this arrangement last night.

3.43 p.m.


May I corroborate what the Secretary of State has said? I was approached myself, I think it was by the Secretary of State himself, about a quarter past nine with an inquiry as to whether we would co-operate to secure the completion of the India part of the Bill by 11 o'clock last night. We had two or three Amendments of our own which we desired to discuss but, in accordance with the undertaking arrived at with those who are supposed to be entitled to speak on behalf of their section of hon. Members, we succeeded in suppressing ourselves in order that the discussion might be brought to an end by 11 o'clock. If we are now going to have a long discussion on what has blown over since last night I shall in future want to know who is entitled to speak on behalf of hon. Members opposite.

3.44 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

The Committee will permit me to say that the suggestion was put before me at an early hour last evening and I said that as far as I could speak for myself and my friends we would endeavour to get to the end of Chapter 13 last night. Two or three Amendments took longer than was contemplated, but I gave an assurance that as far as I could influence the situation we would try to bring the discussion on this Clause to an end about four o'clock to-day.

3.45 p.m.


As one who was in no sense a party to this agreement, of which I had no knowledge at all, may I say that I moved an Amendment about a quarter past nine last night and perhaps interfered somewhat with the arrangement that had been made. I think that when arrangements of this kind are made they should be announced to hon. Members so that we should all be aware of them. If but a few hon. Members make an arrangement of this kind it is somewhat unfair to blame other hon. Members who are not aware of them if they are not observed.

3.46 p.m.


A Parliamentary agreement which has been entered into must be implemented, and if the Government insist that no further word must be said on this grave and serious matter we must submit to it. The point is one of considerable importance and a reasonable statement ought to be made. The Debate which was in progress last night was not completed, but if the Government like to insist on cutting it off abruptly they can do so, but I do not think they would be serving their own interests in curtailing debate. In twenty minutes the matter could be disposed of. I never suggested more than that. The Secretary of State who has received so much assistance from the Committee in the progress of the Bill seems to be most challenging when dealing with this matter. Anyone who looks at him can see the state of irritation in which he is.


The Government are not trying to insist on anything. As a member of the Committee I have a strong prejudice in favour of carrying out agreements which are made by other hon. Members, and if it is the wish of any section of the Committee to continue the Debate the Government have not the least intention of standing in the way.

3.48 p.m.


It is possible that there appears to be a little disagreement where in fact there is little or none. These arrangements have nothing to do with the Chair but they are usually communicated to the Chair and I was given to understand that the understanding arrived at after the Committee failed to finish Part XIII last night was that we should finish these remaining Clauses about four o'clock this afternoon. If we had started the Debate at once without this discussion—[Interruption]—which I was about to say I initiated—we should have started the Debate about seven minutes ago and might have completed it before four o'clock, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) himself spoke of requiring only about a quarter or half an hour. May I assure the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a point he put to me, that as far as I am personally concerned that if I ever feel any resentment against anybody in these proceedings I shall try my hest to hide it.

3.49 p.m.


I suggest that it is possible to have a general agreement to carry on on general lines, but that a little elasticity here and there does no harm to the progress of business and is desirable on certain occasions. We were discussing this Clause last night, which sets up the present Legislature at Delhi in the same position during the transitional period as the Federal Assembly is to be when the Bill comes into full operation. With one exception—the Legislative Assembly is not to be able to raise money by loan. We have called attention to the extraordinary position which will thus be created by the proposals of the Government. The Assembly may be obliged to carry on with the powers under this Clause for an unlimited and indefinite period. The conditions for setting up the Federal Assembly may not be fulfilled. The accession of the Princes is a primary condition. The other condition is that there should be a state of financial stability and equilibrium to justify handing over the central government to the new Federation. Neither of those conditions has yet been fulfilled. There is a third condition that I would suggest. It is that the organized parties in India who will be responsible for the working of the new Federal government should at any rate be in the frame of mind that they will work it willingly and efficiently. That is far from being the case. There is no one of the organised parties in India who accepts this Bill or has any intention of working it as it stands.

Under all these conditions there is to be a long delay, and during that delay the Legislative Assembly is to have all power. It will be intolerable. In view of the Government's own admission that the period may be long and the conditions will be unfulfilled, the Committee would be well advised to reject the Clause. It is certainly going to be unworkable, and, as the Government have said, intolerable. More than that, it is going to be dangerous. The Congress party dominates the Legislative Assembly, and it has indicated that it is entirely unwilling to work the system set out in the Bill. In these circumstances, with a restive and hostile Legislature, nothing can be anticipated but a state of chaos and confusion in the administration of the central government of India. I do not want to elaborate these arguments, but the Government will be well advised to withdraw the Clause and bring in a new Clause setting up a more carefully thought-out system for the period of transition. This is a sort of slap-dash, clumsy, rough-and-ready way of getting over the difficulty, and I seriously doubt whether the Government themselves and their advisers have given sufficient time to consideration of this part of the proposal.

3.55 p.m.


This Clause confronts us with the situation that the entire policy and plan on which the Government have been proceeding step by step during the four or five years of discussion upon this subject has reached a complete stultification and breakdown in its conclusions. It is quite clear that the Princes are not coming in in any period which a reasonable man can foresee. That is quite clear. The "Times" newspaper admits it. [Laughter.] Laugh at the "Times." Is there anything you will not laugh at if you disagree with it? I hope they will see that they are laughed at when any admission which appears in their columns is not agreed with. The Secretary of State has carried his Measure and his policy forward by assuring the House and the Conservative party that it was in deference to the wishes of the Princes, and with his colleagues has again told us that it was upon their co-operation alone that this policy could be contemplated. But the best judges on the spot are quite definite that there is no question of the Princes coming in for years, and it may be never, on this basis. At any rate it is a very great uncertainty whether they will come in at all, into this system of Federal home rule for India, and if they do not come in we are relegated to the provisions of this Clause, that is to say, to the existing system, which has distinguished itself in the last session by bringing matters to a deadlock, so that everything had to be settled out of hand by the Viceroy on his certificate.

This Indian Assembly, whose vices the supporters of this Bill have never failed to describe and to dwell upon, and to emphasise—this Assembly will continue, and will be the heir of very much larger and rather heterogeneous divided powers which will be placed upon it; and on that basis we are to go on in perpetuity—it may be in perpetuity—until the Princes come in, and no one can say when that will be. Therefore the result of all these years of discussion, all the Committees and Commissions, leads you to a point where there is a complete breakdown in the conclusion, and you are at the point which of all points is the one which was declared by the Secretary of State, by the Lord President, by every spokesman, by the eminent members of the Joint Select Committee, to be the point at which you could not possibly rest.


Keep your temper.


I assure the hon. Member that I always keep my temper. I was endeavouring to put a point to the Committee and I do not think that anything I said should have led the hon. Member to make that remark. This is the very situation which they have always declared it was impossible to contemplate. I have never seen a great case advanced in which the whole structure of argument has been so completely telescoped and shattered. Here we are on this Clause facing the kind of situation which is to arise in India. In the Provinces you will have tremendous friction and party strife, and at the Centre you will have not merely this Government, whose weakness you have so repeatedly described, but you will have the confusion of the additional powers. The Princes are not coming in, and unless they come in this is the only system which is to prevail in India.

There never has been a more complete breakdown in a great policy, or what began by being a great policy, than is exemplified in the situation to-day. I was reproached by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with being merry at a time when I indulged in the prophecies of a Cassandra, which prophecies, I have been taught, invariably became the truth. The course of events has produced almost the exact situation which I advised would occur three or four years ago, that you would be able to carry your provincial scheme into operation, but that you would not, and ought not to carry your Federal scheme. If, however, you had faced that, and boldly tried to make a success of your provincial scheme, you would have set up an arrangement at the centre which would have given some improvement in the central government, but did not confer federal home rule on India. You have pretended to give home rule at the centre, when, in the absence of the Princes, you know you cannot do it, and you leave the whole government of India under this vague and confused transitional Clause. I hope the country out of doors will thoroughly appreciate the extreme confusion and bad manipulation and arrangements into which the policy of a mighty Empire is being thrown, not for the purpose of gratifying the wishes of its inhabitants, not for the purpose of producing an agreed solution between the great parties in this country, but, in its later stages, for no worthier purpose, in my opinion, than to save the face and vindicate the obstinacy of people whose hands are on the levers of power.

4.3 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I desire, very briefly, to point out that at present the Governor-General has the power of superintendence, direction and control of provincial subjects. I regard those as very valuable powers from the point of view of efficiency, and both the Simon and Linlithgow Commissions wished these powers increased in regard to such subjects as education and agriculture. But the Governor-General will lose all powers in regard to those subjects, and I feel that that will be a very great loss to the welfare of the people of India. It is bound to lead to increased inefficiency in many provincial services. The Federal Legislature will also lose the power it has at present to legislate for provincial subjects where rules made under the 1919 Act. make this possible. There, again, is a power of giving general supervision with a view to keeping the provincial departments up to standard. Therefore I envisage with great anxiety the fact that if, as seems possible, or indeed probable, Federation may not materialise, or materialise for years to come, we shall have the Central Government of India, to a certain extent, ham-strung in regard to matters which are of great importance to the welfare of the people in the Provinces.

4.5 p.m.


I was amazed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).) I thought that from his great sources of knowledge he would produce some wonderful discovery. In point of fact, we have merely heard another of his Second Reading speeches, another of his dismal prophecies about the future, another of his general criticisms of the people behind this Bill. Let the Committee remember what actually this Clause intends to do. It is intended for the transitional period. I do not take the view of my right hon. Friend that the transitional period is going on for ever. I do not take the view that the Princes are not going to enter the Federation at any time which any of us can foresee. I should have thought that, supposing my right hon. Friend was right that the transitional period was going on for ever, nobody would be more delighted than my right hon. Friend.


You should make better arrangements.


In point of fact, we are snaking substantially the arrangements contemplated in the Statutory Commission's Report. I always had the idea that my right hon. Friend regarded this as—what shall I say?—his Bible. We are setting up almost exactly the kind of arrangement at the centre which was contemplated by the Statutory Commission. There are two differences, I admit. The first difference is that we contemplate the interim period being much shorter than the Statutory Commission contemplated that it would be. Secondly, we do not increase the number of the elected members in the Central Assembly. I should have thought that that would have delighted my right hon. Friend. Speaking generally, we leave the centre very much as it is. We feel that we are able to do that, provided the period is an interim period. If, however, my right hon. Friend were right in his dismal vaticinations—and I do not think that events will prove it—then I agree that a difficult situation would arise—a situation contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and other of my colleagues, namely, the difficulty of reconciling an irresponsible centre with responsible units. But we need not consider that hypothetical situation until it arises.


When will it arise?


My right hon. Friend says never. If he had been here last night, it would have been an excellent thing from many points of view. It would have saved a quarter of an hour's discussion to-day. I have tried to explain to the 'Committee that neither I nor any one who is following closely these affairs is prepared to make an exact prophecy. This Clause is based upon two conceptions—first of all, that it is for an interim and not a permanent period, and, secondly, that being for an interim period we 'propose to make as few alterations as possible in the duties and powers of the Central Government.

4.8 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

With regard to what the Secretary of State said, that the Centre to be set up in the interim period is the same as was proposed by the Simon Commission, may I ask him whether it is not the case that in paragraph 184, Volume II, of the Statutory Commission's Report, they say: We think it essential that the Central Government, in dealing with questions which vitally affect more than one province, should in the future have a more authoritative position than it now enjoys, constitutionally, in the transferred sphere. I ask whether it is not the case, as I said before, that the Central Government is to have no power at all in regard to all the items in the provincial list, and that, therefore, whereas the Simon Commission wished the Central Government to have more power than it now possesses with regard to provincial subjects, the right hon. Gentleman's Bill proposes to take away even the power which at present the Government exercises?


My Noble Friend, for once, is wrong. The Statutory Commission, made no recommendation to that effect at all. It contemplated a situation in which the Central Government would use its influence. I, also, contemplate that situation, and nothing in our proposals is in any way contrary to that.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Does my right hon. Friend deny that the words I have quoted are to be found in paragraph 184, Volume II, of the Report? May I ask him to refresh his memory on the Report?


Will my Noble Friend also refresh her memory as to the recommendations at the end of it?

4.10 p.m.


I feel that it would be improper to me to attempt to answer the Secretary of State, for the simple reason that I gave my word last night in regard to this Debate. But I want to say that what he has said in no way satisfies the point of view we put up last night. We cannot vary our ground, and we hope that on the Report stage we

Shall have ample opportunity of discussing this very vital matter.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 39.

Division No. 152.] AYES. [4.10 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gluckstein, Louis Halle Macdonald, Gordon(Ince)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G.C. Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(I. of W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Goff, Sir Park McEntee, Valentine L.
Apsley, Lord Graham, D. M.(Lanark, Hamilton) McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Assheton, Ralph Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas McGovern, John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Graves, Marjorie McKeag, William
Banfield, John William Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McKie, John Hamilton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) McLean, Major Sir Alan
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Griffiths, George A.(Yorks, W. Riding) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Batey, Joseph Grigg, Sir Edward Magnay, Thomas
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Grimston, R. V. Mainwaring, William Her
Blindell, James Groves, Thomas E. Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Borodale, Viscount Grundy, Thomas W. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gunston, Captain D. W. Martin, Thomas B.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Guy, J. C. Morrison Mason, David M.(Edinburgh, E.)
Brown, Col. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Maxton, James
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Meller, Sir Richard James
Butler, Richard Austen Hammsrsley, Samuel S. Milne, Charles
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Harbord, Arthur Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harris, Sir Percy Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Cazalet, Capt. V. A.(Chippenham) Hartlang, George A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.(Denbigh)
Chapman, col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Morrison, G. A.(Scottish Univer'ties)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Munro, Patrick
Clayton, Sir Christopher Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsford) North, Edward T.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. O'Connor, Terence James
Colman, N. C. D. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Hills, Major Rt. Hon, John Waller Orr Ewing, I. L.
Conant, R. J. E. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Paling, Wilfred
Cook, Thomas A. Holdsworth, Herbert Patrick, Colin M.
Cooke, Douglas Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Peat, Charles U.
Cooper, A. Duff Hore-Belisha, Leslie Penny, Sir George
Copeland, Ida Horsbrugh, Florence Perkins, Walter R. D.
Crocks, J. Smedley Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Petherick, M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Crossley, A. C. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Potter, John
Curry, A. C. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Daggar, George Iveagh, Countess of Radford, E. A.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) Rankin, Robert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Rathbone, Eleanor
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jamieson, Douglas Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Davies, Stephen Owen John, William Reid, James S. C (Stirling)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Denville, Alfred Jones Morgan (Caerphilly) Rickards, George William
Despencer, Robertson, Major J. A. F. Kerr, J Campbell Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Dickie, John P. Kerr, Hamilton W. Ropner, Colonel L.
Dobbie, William Kirkpatrick, William M. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Drewe, Cedric Kirkwood, David Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Duckworth, George A.V. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Ruggles Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Law, Sir Alfred Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Dunglass, Lord Law, Richard K.(Hull, S.W.) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Eady, George H. Lawson, John James Russell, R. J.(Eddisbury)
Eales, John Frederick Leckie, J. A. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Edwards, Charles Leech, Dr. J. W. Salt, Edward W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Leonard, William Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Elmley, Viscount Lewis, Oswald Samuel, M. R. A.(W'ds'wth, Putney).
Emrys-Evans, P.V. Liddall, Walter S. Savery, Samuel Servington
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Shaw, Helen B.(Lanark, Bothwell)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Lindsay, Noel Ker Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Evans, R. T.(Carmarthen) Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Fermoy, Lord Lloyd, Geoffrey Smith, Louis W.(Sheffield, Hallam)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Logan, David Gilbert Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Smitters, Sir Waldron
Fremantle, Sir Francis Mabane, William Somervell, Sir Donald
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Spears, Brigadler-General Edward L.
Glossop, C. W. H. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O.(Ayr) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Spens, William Patrick Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland) Wallace, Captain D. E.(Hornsey) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Stevenson, James Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Wilmot, John
Strickland, Captain W. F. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. Wilson, Clyde T.(West Toxteth)
Stuart, Hon. J.(Moray and Nairn) Warrendar, Sir Victor A.G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Waterhouse, Captain Charles Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour Worthington, Dr. John V.
Thompson, Sir Luke Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Thorne, William James White, Henry Graham TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Tinker, John Joseph Whiteside, Borras Noel H. Captain Austin Hudson and Sir Walter Womersley.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Dawson, Sir Philip Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Atholl, Duchess of Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C.(Blackpool) Sanderson, Sir Frank Bernard
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Blaker, Sir Reginald Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Hartington, Marquess of Todd, Lt.-Col. A.J.K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Bracken, Brendan Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Broadbent, Colonel John Knox, Sir Alfred Wells, Sydney Richard
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) Lennox-Boyd, A.T. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Burnett, John George Levy, Thomas Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Nall, Sir Joseph
Crolt, Brigadier-General Sir H. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W.G. (Peters'fld) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Davison, Sir William Henry Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Commander Marsden and Mr. Donner

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.


I propose to put Clauses 295, 296 and 297 together if no hon. Member has anything to say upon them.


We propose to say a great deal about them on the Report stage if we have an opportunity then.

Clauses 295, 296 and 297 ordered to stand part of the Bill.