§ 11.2 p.m.
§ Sir H. CROFT
I beg to move, in page 25, line 6, at the end, to insert:(c) for securing that no member of either Chamber who is a representative of a Federated State shall be entitled to vote on any matter mentioned in the Federal Legislative List, or on any other matter within the competence of the Federal Legislature, if such matter has been reserved to the competence of that State by the Instrument of Accession of that State.We have been discussing many Amendments dealing with comparatively minor, although important, matters, but the Committee will agree that this Clause demands our searching examination. I feel that an apology is almost due to the Princes of India that we should be discussing this Clause. They have told us that they cannot accept the Bill yet we go on discussing matters which affect them very definitely. The reason for the Amendment is clear. It is designed to get rid of an extraordinary anomaly in the Bill under which representatives of the federating States are allowed to vote on matters affecting the Provinces, while the representatives of the Provinces have no corresponding power with regard to the States. That is an anomaly which has struck many hon. Members. It is something entirely new. It is a violation of the principle that there should be no representation without taxation.
346 Under the Bill we have the extraordinary situation that representatives of the States are able to interfere in matters for which they have no responsibility so far as taxation is concerned, whilst the representatives of the other bodies are in an entirely different position. If in this House we had an arrangement by which Scottish Members could vote on questions like education in England when Scotland had decided to have no education at all, you would have a similar position. I cannot believe that such a system is going to last in India. It is so clearly unjust that I cannot conceive that it can stand for any length of time, and I hope the Government will give very sympathetic attention to the Amendment, because clearly the Clause is establishing a precedent which it is almost impossible to justify.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Is it not a precedent which has actually been set by the presence here of North of Ireland Members, of which no one thinks of complaining?
§ Sir H. CROFT
The right hon. Gentleman knows much more about these things than I do, but I was under the impression that the Members from Northern Ireland had to pay precisely the same taxation as the people of this country. They have an equal voice and taxation with representation. In India you will have an entirely different situation. When I was considering this subject, I said to myself, How contrary it is to the whole principle here, where you have separate communities living in Northern Ireland who come under the aegis of this Government and bear a common burden with the taxpayers of this country.
§ 11.6 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLER
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply very shortly, following the example set by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. There are in the practice of the Imperial Parliament here certain anomalies which bear some similarity to the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member has experienced in the future presence of State's representatives in the Indian Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has expressed one, and there is another in the presence in our midst 347 of, I will not say too many, but a great number of Scottish Members, who take part in our deliberations and upon whose point of view and upon whose interests we very often deliberate and vote, and vice versâ. There are these anomalies in this Parliament, and there will undoubtedly be a certain anomaly in the presence of States representatives taking part on occasion on points of view and issues primarily of interest to British India.
This subject has been considered throughout all the discussions of the Round Table Conferences and all the occasions when these matters have been discussed between representatives of British India and representatives of the States, and it may help the Committee if I give some idea of the conclusion to which the various minds that have considered this problem have come during the last several years. The general conclusion has been that it would be almost impossible to frame any such provision as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, and that it would be undesirable to do anything which would result in differentiating the functions and powers of the different categories of members in the Federal Legislature. The general conclusion come to is that we should settle this matter in the proper and true British spirit of a convention, rather than by trying to come to any artificial device to achieve the desired end, because we do not believe it would do so. The Princes and their representatives have always been against any artificial suggestion by which this desired end could be achieved, and they have always insisted that on any matter on which the future fate of the Government, for example, was concerned their representatives should have the right to decide upon the future of that Government. That is one of the practical difficulties which arise and make us believe that the best way to deal with this complicated matter is upon the lines of a convention rather than upon the lines of some provision in the Act.
§ Miss RATHBONE
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the British Indian delegation agreed with that conclusion?
§ Mr. BUTLER
I think they were fully aware of the difficulties and acquiesced in the view that a convention was desirable to try to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on this subject.
§ Sir H. CROFT
Surely the hon. Gentleman would not be guided by the representatives of India when the Legislative Assembly itself is of no account?
§ 11.10 p.m.
§ Lord SCONE
The Under-Secretary of State has stated certain objections to our proposals, objections which in places have reason behind them. I suggest that if he investigates a little more closely he will find that whatever anomalies exist in our Constitution have no relation to the anomalies he and his friends propose to set up in the Indian Constitution. "Without wishing to go into matters with which we are all familiar here, there is a certain amount of reciprocity in the proceedings of this House and of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and complete reciprocity between the relations of Scotland and England. Here we are proposing to set up a strange form of legislature in which, while the representatives of Indian States are to be permitted to inquire into the most private affairs of British India, the representatives of British India are to have absolutely no counter say in the administration of the native States. It is not to be expected that the Indian Princes would submit for one moment to any such interference, but it is skating rather lightly over a very important question to say, in a somewhat airy way, that all this can be settled in the good old British style of a convention. We are not dealing here with a convention of English-speaking peoples, but with a vast number of different races, speaking different tongues, with different religions and having a wholly different outlook. I suggest that the Under-Secretary would do well to investigate the matter much more closely before brushing aside our Amendment in a somewhat cavalier fashion.
§ 11.12 p.m.
§ Viscount WOLMER
Had the House not been exceedingly tired and jaded, the Under-Secretary would have given us 349 a speech that was a little more adequate to the importance of this matter, because we are here up against one of the bedrock difficulties in which the Government have involved themselves in the whole of their federation plan. I was amazed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) cite the example of Northern Ireland as a precedent, and the Under-Secretary talk about the position of Scotland. There is no sort of analogy at all. What Acts of Parliament have Scotland contracted out of? What Act passed by this House does not apply to Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Housing!"] This House has the power to legislate for Scotland, and it does legislate for Scotland, This House can make any Act it likes applicable to Scotland. In all respects Scottish Members are in exactly the same position as English Members, although they do not happen to be so numerous. Therefore, there is no difference between England and Scotland in this respect. If you want an analogy for the plan the Government are pressing, you must visualise a situation in which it was a condition of the Act of Union that this Parliament should not be competent to legislate for Scotland in regard to, let us say, whiskey—some subject that we could not touch. To make the analogy real, take Income Tax. That is going to be the case in regard to all the States. Assume that it was a condition of the Act of Union with Scotland that this House could not impose Income Tax on Scotland. There you have the sort of position which will arise under Federation; and it will not only be in regard to such vital matters as Income Tax, but it will be in regard to all the reserved subjects. That is a wholly different situation from what prevails in regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland. My right hon. and hon. Friends are talking absolute' nonsense and throwing dust in the eyes of the Committee in producing analogies of that sort.
This is really a very important matter. Under the Federation you are going to have representatives of the States coming down and voting, perhaps turning the whole division, on subjects, when it will be beyond the competence of the Federal Legislature to bring those matters into their States—voting on questions which, under the Instrument of Accession, under the Constitution, cannot possibly affect their States. What will the rest of India 350 have to say about that? Will British India regard that as a just settlement? Everyone who has studied this question knows quite well that British India does not regard that as just. When Bills touch important questions and when the division of opinion is evenly matched and the votes of the States make all the difference in the division lobby and decide whether the Bills are passed or not, the most intense feeling is bound to arise. You are going to have one of the great causes of cleavage between British India and the States in future.
By putting the States in this position I have always felt that you were putting them in an impossible position. No wonder the Princes fear the result. If they follow the convention they know-that great pressure will be put upon them by the interested parties. They will be told, "Oh, you have the power of the vote in the division lobby. If you will not help us in this matter we will take jolly good care to get our own back from you on some other question." Those are the elementary principles of political pressure with which we are not at all unfamiliar even in this Parliament. Therefore it will be quite impossible, unless there is something in the Constitution, for the Princes to keep out of that very invidious position. They will be given the power to vote on questions which do not affect their States in the least. A convention will be no protection; the pressure which is bound to be put on them when feeling is running very high will force them into the one Lobby or the other. Millions represented in British India will say that the Constitution is being worked in a very unjust way. You will not make a success of your Constitution if it is founded on a sense of injustice. If the politically-minded classes of India who are represented in the Assemblies feel that the Constitution is fundamentally unjust as between Indian and Indian that is bound to be a source of great weakness.
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. We are in this position simply because the Government are trying to do the impossible. You have not got the elements out of which you can build a real Federation. Therefore you are forced to these makeshifts, which will not and cannot stand the test of time. You will be putting the Princes in a most 351 invidious position. Such an arrangement cannot possibly work without the gravest friction. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has suggested the only possible safeguard. I do not think and I am sure he does not think, that it is adequate but, as far as it goes, it is the only way of dealing with the question. It is no defence to say that it has been found impossible to frame rules which would operate. It is only impossible in the sense that the Government are attempting a task which cannot possibly be carried out but subject to that, I suggest that the Amendment indicates the only way of rescuing the Princes from a very serious and difficult position
§ 11.22 p.m.
§ Mr. AMERY
I venture to submit that the position of Northern Ireland is not so dissimilar from that of the Princes, in this connection, as my Noble Friend has suggested. Under the Northern Ireland Constitution a very wide field of legislation is reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament, in which this House is precluded from interfering. Yet representatives of Northern Ireland do come into this House and exercise the right to vote and speak on these same subjects—
§ Mr. AMERY
I am dealing at the moment with the question of legislation apart from that of taxation. The Amendment is concerned with special points of legislation on which the Princes may reserve their rights. At any rate, some anomaly does exist in that respect, here in this House, and we have not, so far, found it a great difficulty. There are other kindred anomalies to that which I have indicated and if they arouse feeling, it generally happens that those who benefit by the anomaly are pleased, while those who suffer, feel injured. When the Prayer Book Measure was defeated by the votes of Scottish and other Members to whom it did not apply, all who sympathised with the majority were well content and I dare say the same thing would apply—
§ Viscount WOLMER
And that precise fact has been given as the reason and is 352 the reason why the decision of the House of Commons in that matter is being flouted in practically three-fourths of the parish churches of the country at the present moment.
§ Mr. AMERY
I do not propose to enter into a discussion with my Noble Friend on that point. But I venture to say that these anomalies, affecting certain items out of the long Federal list, are not going to prove so difficult as has been suggested. In any case, our own experience in this House—and I presume it will also be the experience in the legislature in India—is that bodies are formed which support a Government in its general policy, and you could not possibly work Parliamentary institutions under a system which would preclude Members of Parliament from giving votes which might affect the life and future of a Government. Therefore, as between the two difficulties, which are inherent in the situation, I submit that it is desirable that Members of the Parliament should remain free to support a Government on all matters essential to the life of the Government. It is possible that in the ordinary course a certain discretion will be used by representatives of States as to refraining from voting on occasions which are immaterial to the Government on matters which States have declared to be reserved to themselves. If we are not prepared to face that issue we are really saying that no federation in India will be possible because under the complex and difficult situation in India we shall never get the Princes to agree to an absolutely uniform scheme of federal legislation.
§ 11.26 p.m.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE
I agree with my Noble Friend that this is a difficult matter, but I assure him that it is a question which has been considered for a long time. I would ask him and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to refer to the Federal legislative list. 353 If they will look, for example, at such items as No. 7, posts and telegraphs; No. 25, aircraft and air navigation; No. 28, copyright, inventions, etc.; and particularly No. 42, duties of Customs, they will see that it is impossible to say that the representatives of the States in the Legislative Assembly shall have no chance of voting on such matters, which must affect their States. It would be impossible to have a solution which prevented them from taking any part in considering these matters. The probabilities are, judging from the discussions that took place previously, that a convention will arise under which, except in matters in which the States have a definite interest, they would not take part; but, if it be a question of choice between two evils, it seems clear that we cannot exclude the States from taking part and voting on matters in which they have a vital interest.
§ 11.28 p.m.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
I want to make reference to what was said by the Noble Lord, who emphasised the anomalies arising under this Clause. That is admitted. The Bill, of course, has anomalies from beginning to end. We are creating a new constitution in circumstances such as the world has never seen before, and no purpose is served by anyone denying that there are anomalies. The only thing I would say is that there is no anomaly in the Bill which is equal to the anomaly of this country continuing to govern India for generations to come. The Indian looks upon the government of India by this country as the main anomaly. I want to deal with two points which the Noble Lord put forward. He asked the Committee to adopt the Amendment on two grounds. First, he said that circumstances may arise when the Princes will take a vote which will antagonise British India. I think that, if the Princes' representatives find themselves face to face with a vote which is likely to have that result, they as men of common sense will refrain from casting a vote which will bring odium upon their States. Under the convention, the States' representatives will not, by casting their votes, 354 rouse the antagonism of the rest of the country. The Noble Lord's second point was that we were by this Clause putting the Princes in a most invidious position, and that we were leaving them open to serious pressure. The answer to that is that it has been asked for by the Princes themselves.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I apologise to my hon. Friend for an involuntary exclamation which escaped me, but I wondered how long we were to be told that federation was necessary because the Princes were pressing for it?
§ Mr. FOOT
I was not saying anything of them. The Noble Lord occupied the time of the Committee usefully in submitting the point that we were by this Clause putting the Princes in a position where great pressure could be brought to bear on them, and opening serious difficulties. I say the answer to that is that the Rulers' representatives have all along asked that this general power should be given to their representatives. The request has come from them, and they are well advised in these matters and capable of defending their own interests. It is a very reasonable request when we consider that we cannot allow the Federal Government to be met by an adverse vote week after week, which may affect the credit of that Government and with it affect the position of the Princes. In those circumstances are their representatives to be denied any power to resist such an attack upon a Government which they may wish to maintain? Admitting that there are anomalies, I think that any other solution would create more anomalies. It is a question of balancing the position to see on which side there are the more anomalies. The whole question, which has occupied the attention of the Committee for only a few minutes, was discussed for month after month during the past four years, and the solution eventually arrived at, inadequate as it may be, met with no protest that I know of on the part of any of the British 355 delegates—whatever may be their individual views there was no essential protest. I think this is the method that creates the fewest anomalies and helps to assure the most suitable Government at the centre, and for that reason, in spite of the effective arguments of the Noble Lord, I shall support the Government and resist the Amendment.
§ 11.33 p.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The Government are to be congratulated on the exuberant character of the support they have received on this Amendment from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). So far as I could follow his argument, he said that what was proposed was very bad, but any other alternative would be even worse. "This is full of anomalies, but anything else would have been fuller still." Then why do it? Here is a system obviously illogical, irrational, awkward, inconvenient, cumbrous, failing at every point to give satisfaction to those for whom it is designed, and causing innumerable points of friction in its day to day work. Why go on with it? "Why break your necks over this federal system?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That is not what I say. That is the anarchistic method of the hon. Member. "Ah," he says to us, "why do you attempt to discuss these great matters? We have considered them on the Committee." He has settled it all for us. But, you know, we are still the House of Commons. We are much more important than the Joint Select Committee. We are superior to them. We put them in their proper place. We review their work. We descry the many defects in their labours. We point out the inconsistencies and the absurdities of the project with which they have finally confronted us. It is no use the hon. Member coming here and saying, "Ought you to presume to interfere? You can put your trust in the Joint Select Committee." This is the old dilemma which faced Mr. Gladstone. I am sure the hon. Member will like a reference to Mr. Gladstone. He is familiar with his career and knows perfectly well that this is the old dilemma that faced him on the Irish question of Members with seats in Parliament on the 356 basis of in and out voting. Are they to vote on all topics or are they to vote on some? That is the real issue. Because it is an old dilemma it does not follow that it has ever been satisfactorily solved. There are many riddles of the world which have never been satisfactorily solved. If they were, I suppose the world would come to an end. When one is solved, another presents itself.
In this ease, all the dilemmas and anomalies are brought before us in the most acute form. Here you have the Princes coming in on a variety of Instruments of Accession, some on a limited liability principle, some going the whole hog, and all taking the same out of the federal pot. It is abhorrent and repulsive to the human mind, it grates on the core of reason; no one can bear a thing like that. One of the most profound ideas of life is that you can take no more out of it than you put into it. Here are these Princes, who are to come in with every kind of reservation for themselves, and at the same time are to sprawl broadly over the entire politics of British India.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am very glad to have the hon. Lady's agreement in that progressive sentiment. I ask the Government the question which I asked at the beginning. Is it worth while going on with this when it is such a very bad thing, when the confusion and the worry are so great, and when everybody is asking you not to do so, everybody in India and everybody at home? I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is almost the sole supporter of the Bill. When we come to look upon the support for the Clause and the federal system which hangs upon it, it is the Liberals, represented by the hon. Member for Bodmin, who show the only enthusiasm. There are two or three unfortunate Ministers who have burnt their fingers in this business and do not know how to get the sting out of them. It is a most dismal affair, and, if the Government had the sense and the manhood to out themselves adrift from it, they would stand erect, freed from the cruel and crushing burden, relieved from an infection which, if they do not take the most stringent methods of isolation and inoculation, will prove fatal to their life.
§ 11.38 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
In all our Debates, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has expressed his dislike on very broad lines. He has described Ministers as having burnt their fingers; he seems to have forgotten that he was once in a position in which he often burnt his fingers. I daresay he would be very glad to be in a position to burn them again. When he described the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) as the only supporter of the Bill, that was a rather unkind cut at my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and suggests the reason why he was indignant this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook is not an insignificant Member of the Committee, and we are entitled to claim the advantage of his great authority and experience for what we are doing.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what I am sure was in the minds of a great many people who have expressed it in and out of the House. He remembers the history of the controversies and the Debates which took place upon Mr. Gladstone's proposals; let me remind him that it is not the Government who have proposed to introduce these difficulties into the Bill, but the Amendment. He and his friends are getting into the bog into which Mr. Gladstone fell when he proposed in-and-out procedure, which everyone recognised, after full Debate, made nonsense of that part of the proposals of the Home Rule Bill. I do not think it was altogether fair criticism—I do not suggest that it was meant to be unfair—of the hon. Member for Bodmin to suggest that he said that the proposals in the Bill were bad and that these other proposals were only slightly worse. I think the hon. Member for Bodmin recognised, as any fair person does, that there are some inconveniences, and no doubt some anomalies, in particular proposals. But there are very few perfect things in this imperfect world, and it would be the negation of common sense to make a thing worse merely because it happens not to be perfect.
Perhaps I might suggest a few common-sense considerations to the Committee in 358 connection with this proposal. The Under-Secretary has mentioned some of the points. I would suggest to the Committee that if they look at the matter dispassionately they will come to the conclusion that it is not at all likely that these States representatives will take a very great interest in affairs that do not concern the States which they represent. It is not in their interest that they should interfere. It is much more likely that they will leave those matters which do not concern the States to those persons whom they do concern. But, if this proposal were carried, it would have the effect that it would certainly interfere with the cohesion and with the unity of the Chamber itself, it would make an opportunity for an attack upon the Ministry which would be selected by those persons who would realise where certain supporters of the Government were unable to vote, it would make the whole atmosphere an unreal one; and I venture to think it is much better on the whole that we should allow the representatives of the States to support the Ministry with their votes when occasion requires, and to use the common sense with which, I suppose, we may allow them to be endowed, as well as our-selves in deciding upon what matters they will use their votes, or their influence, or their counsel.
It is clear, of course, as the hon. Member has said, that the Committee must decide this question for themselves, apart from the fact that other bodies like Round Table Conferences, Joint Select Committees and so on have dealt with it in the past, I am not sure he was going to suggest that we were not to decide. I am very glad to recognise that my right hon. Friend thinks that the Committee should decide. Earlier he seemed to throw scorn on our proceedings because there were 200 Members who would troop in to support the Government from other portions of the House; now he agrees that the Committee have to decide this question; so I venture to think the Committee may, like wise people, attach some importance to the fact that a great many people have already considered this question, that they have given time to its consideration, and that they have arrived at certain conclusions. The question now is whether those conclusions are on the whole reasonable and wise ones for the Committee to uphold.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."360
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 200.361
|Division No. 95.]||AYES.||[11.45 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gardner, Benjamin Walter||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Greene, William P. C.||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Banfield, John William||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Milner, Major James|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Nunn, William|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Burnett, John George||Graves, Thomas E.||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Cape, Thomas||Grundy, Thomas W.||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Carver, Major William H.||Hartington, Marquess of||Somerset, Thomas|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hepworth, Joseph||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Cleary, J. J.||Jenkins, Sir William||Taylor. Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Kimball, Lawrence||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Daggar, George||Lawson, John James||Wilmot, John|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughtan)||Logan, David Gilbart||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Donner, P. W.||Lunn, William|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Lord Scone.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W,)||Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander|
|Agnew, Lieut-Com. P. G.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Albery, Irving James||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mabane, William|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Apsley, Lord||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||McKeag, William|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Foot, lsaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Assheton, Ralph||Fraser, Captain Sir Ian||McLean, Major Sir Alan|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Fremantle, Sir Francis||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Balniel, Lord||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Goff, Sir Park||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Graves, Marjorie||Mason, Cot. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Bernays, Robert||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Grimston, R. V.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Blindell, James||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E,||Milne, Charles|
|Borodale, Viscount||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)|
|Bower, Commander Robert Tatton||Hamilton, Sir n. W.(Orknev & Z'tl'nd)||Morrison, William Shepherd|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Hanbury, Cecil||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)||O'Connor. Terence James|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Burghley, Lord||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Holdsworth, Herbert||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hornby, Frank||Peake, Osbert|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Horobin, Ian M.||Pearson, William G.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Horsbrugh, Florence||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Howard, Tom Forrest||Petherick, M.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Christle, James Archibald||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Colfax, Major William Philip||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Colman, N. C. D.||James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.||Pybus, Sir John|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Janner, Barnett||Radford, E. A.|
|Cooke, Douglas||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Ramsbotham, Herwaid|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Johnston, J. w. (Clackmannan)||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rankin, Robert|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Ker, J. Campbell||Held, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Cross, R. H.||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Ranwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Leckie, J. A.||Rickards, George William|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Robinson, John Roland|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Liddall, Walter S.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward||Spent, William Patrick||Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey)|
|Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Stanley, Ht. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)|
|Rutherford, John (Edmonton)||Stones, James||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Stourton, Hon. John J.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Salt, Edward W.||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||White, Henry Graham|
|Selley, Harry R.||Sutcliffe, Harold||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)|
|Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Tate, Mavis Constance||Wilson, Clyde T. (Went Toxteth)|
|Shute, Colonel Sir John||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Simmonde, Oliver Edwin||Thompson, Sir Luke|
|Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Somervell, Sir Donald||Tree, Ronald||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.||Sir George Penny.|
§ Ordered, That The CHAIEMAN do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Captain Margesson.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.362
§ It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.