HC Deb 22 March 1935 vol 299 cc1501-17

12.1 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 37, line 37, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert "two Chambers."

The effect of this Amendment would be to require that there should be a second chamber in every Province. When the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were put into effect, with unicameral legislatures, we had the system of dyarchy, with important subjects reserved, but under the new system there is to be complete autonomy, and that being so it seems wise to institute in every Province a complete legislature, that is, one with a second chamber. It may be argued that there will be difficulty in providing a supply of capable men for both chambers, but there is also the possibility, in the view of some people, that we may not get the necessary number of efficient men for a lower chamber. At any rate, with the legislatures charged to deal with a larger list of subjects of a most important character it does seem necessary to have a revising chamber in order to provide a check on hasty legislation.

12.3 p.m.


My hon. Friends and I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to bring about a directly opposite state of affairs, namely, only one Chamber in every Province. We are opposed to two Chambers. We felt there were strong arguments for two Chambers' in the case of the Federation, in so far as the Princes were involved there, but we do not feel those arguments apply with any force in the case of the Provinces. At the moment all the Provinces have single Chamber Legislatures, and we fail to see any reason for suggesting that some of them should now have two Chambers. Surely the democrats in India will feel that we are giving them a democracy of a kind which suits the Conservative Party in this country, intended to safeguard Conservative interests both in this country and in India. We on this side have never felt there was a strong case for a second Chamber in Great Britain, and that that case is becoming weaker year by year and we feel that when we are setting up new Legislatures we ought not to set them up on lines which we as a party intend to put an end to in this country. We fail altogether to understand why it should be proposed that some Provinces should have two Chambers and others only one.

I have been making inquiries among my hon. Friends, and they tell me that the reason might be that there is a higher standard of education in the Provinces named, but that would be a good reason for a single chamber, and I see no reason whatever in that for two Chambers. We are told that the reason might be that these are bigger Provinces with an older tradition and a higher prestige, but again I cannot see that that is the reason for giving a single Chamber in the remaining Provinces. The Fifth Schedule lays down how the assemblies are to be elected. There is a method of election to the Legislative Assemblies that makes it unnecessary for the Legislative Council to be elected at all, because we think that that is over-lapping, and is not democracy. Our experience in this country ought not to be allowed to commence in India, and hence we oppose the amendment.

12.6 p.m.


I support the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. MacDonald). Feeling has been aroused in India against the Bill from many points of view, one of which is that the Bill does not give the common people of India the democracy to which they think they are entitled. The suggestion to put up two Chambers is likely to add force to that argument. It might be easily said that what the Government propose to give to the democracy with the one hand they propose to take away with the other. The only reason I have ever seen for a second Chamber is to enable people who consider that their interests are at stake, people of wealth, captains of labour and others with vested interests, to put a spoke in the wheel of the aspirations of the elected Chamber. From that point of view, this proposal is a very bad one.

I do not make any pretentions on this matter, but it would appear that asking the Provincial Legislatures to have a second Chamber is almost the same as if we were to go to our county councils and say: "We know that you are elected persons, but we are going to set up another body to revise the work that you do." The present proposal seems to arise from a traditional Conservative policy that proper legislation is impossible unless there is a second Chamber. No particular principle is at stake. While the Government are prepared to set up second Chambers in certain Provinces, in other Provinces they are content with one Chamber. If there were any principle at all, the Government would either say that there is no need for second Chambers and would in that case wipe them away, or they would say that there is need for second Chambers and would apply that principle to every one of the Provinces. I view the proposal with a very great deal of misgiving.

Politicians in India who represent a point of view which may be comparable with the point of view of ourselves on these benches object to the Bill, not because they do not want a Bill giving them some democracy, but that the Bill sets up a form of democracy in which the common people do not have a real voice in the government of the commonwealth of India. When this matter was considered in regard to the Province of Bombay there was no question that others should be brought in on the same lines. I repeat that this appears to be merely following out traditional Conservative policy which I suggest is getting outworn. There is need not for more second Chambers but for the abolition of second Chambers.

12.11 p.m.


It may be convenient at this stage if I answer some of the general points which have been raised by hon. Members in regard to second Chambers. The Committee will see that on the one hand we are asked to approve that there should be second Chambers in all Provinces, and, on the other hand, as far as I can see, that there should be no second Chambers at all. Between these two extremes, the Bill suggests second Chambers for five Provinces which may with justice be regarded as the major Provinces. I shall have a word to say about the Punjab and the other Provinces in a moment.

This matter has been more carefully considered than might have been gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). There has been close and detailed consideration of it from the earliest days of the Statutory Committee. The Statutory Committee set out the arguments on both sides in this matter, and came to no final and definite conclusion. The franchise committee also considered the matter and came to the same general conclusion as the Statutory Committee; that was, not to decide finally on the matter. The Bound Table Conference sub-committee engaged on studying this matter recommended that, generally, the three Provinces of Bengal, the United Provinces and Bihar should have a second Chamber. The result of the discussion in the Joint Select Committee was that the Provinces of Madras and Bombay were added. The result is that the five Provinces included in the Bill are having a bi-cameral Legislature.

It will be seen that this matter has been exhaustively considered for several years. The reason why these Provinces have been suggested for second Chambers is partly that by general discussion it is agreed that they would be suitable for a bi-cameral form of government, partly because there are certain interests in them which we think would be well served by a bi-cameral form of government and partly because the Provinces or Presidencies concerned have at one time or another signified their approval of, or have wished for, a second Chamber. In general terms, our information goes to show that in all these cases the second Chamber would be acceptable, but in some cases considerable opposition has been manifested. I think that puts the situation quite fairly.


Do I understand that applies to the five Provinces which are included in the Bill, but that there are elements in those Provinces that would approve of the second Chamber.




Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us what bodies have recommended second Chambers? For example, have the existing Provincial Councils of the Provinces that are to have second Chambers, approved of the idea, or have they disapproved?


In at least three of the cases—I have not the exact details—the actual legislatures have approved. In all five cases we have a substantial recommendation from the Provinces that there should be a second Chamber. The Joint Select Committee, when they reviewed this matter in detail, decided that it was in the interests of these Provinces or Presidencies that there should be second Chambers. When I come to the case of the Punjab, for example, it may help to explain why there is a difference between the Provinces. The suggestion for a second Chamber in the Punjab was rejected without a division by the local legislature in 1932. Throughout the discussions upon second chambers there has been very marked opposition to the establishment of a second Chamber in the Punjab, and we have not desired to press it absolutely against the expressed wish of the Province. With regard to the other Provinces—Assam, the Central Provinces, Orissa, the North-West Frontier Province and Sind—the main argument against the establishment of a second Chamber has been the difficulty of finding personnel to man two chambers of the legislature satisfactorily, the difficulty of expense and the feeling that in these Provinces, which are rather smaller than the other Provinces, it may not be necessary to the same extent to have two chambers of the legislature. Those are the reasons why, partly through the history of the case, partly through the needs of the particular Provinces, and partly from the size of certain Provinces and the personnel, we have decided to insert in the Bill "Second Chambers only" for the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces and Bihar.

The only other arguments which have been brought forward have reference to the belief that some hon. Members have in two Houses, and the belief that some hon. Members have that two Houses would be disastrous. I can only say that the predilection of myself and, I believe, of my right hon. Friend, is probably well known to be in favour of two Houses, and that the predilection of hon. Mem- bers opposite is very distinctly against it. I think that those who want to study the matter further would be wise to read the books and treatises on this subject, and that I should not take up the time of the Committee further upon it.


May I suggest that it would be convenient on this Amendment to deal as far as necessary with the specific Provinces or districts referred to in the other Amendments and then only to take a formal motion on them?

12.18 p.m.


The Under-Secretary has explained to us the reason for establishing a second chamber in certain Provinces. I thought he was rather careful in his statement with regard to those Provinces added by the Joint Select Committee. He did suggest there was a demand in the Provinces, but I think he is well aware that those Provinces never asked for second chambers as Provinces. As regard their legislatures, they were opposed to a second chamber. It came down to this, that certain elements demanded it, and, as he explained, certain interests wanted it. I think it is up to this Committee to examine what those interests are. I was well aware when we went round India exactly what those interests were who asked for a second chamber. They consisted of people like the Talukdars of Oudh and the Inamdars of Bombay. I can remember a packed room of moneylenders who wanted it, and I can remember wherever we went it was always "the interests." This matter was looked into very closely by the Statutory Commission. A request arose for special seats for landlords. We examined what really happened in constituencies, and we found that the landlords got ample representation. The result was that we rejected the suggestion for special seats for landlords. Many of us thought that there was no need whatever for the landlord interest, which was going to be so powerfully represented in the lower House, to be represented in the upper House as well.

What has been put in particularly here are Madras and Bombay. You are leaving out those Provinces where, on the whole, wealth is more equally distributed, but where you have very wealthy capitalists and very wealthy landlords, the interests that you want to protect in the second chamber, they are precisely those interests whose wealth will inevitably ensure their very great influence in the lower chamber. I notice that the Under-Secretary did not put forward the usual suggestion that we were going to get specially good men in the second chamber. He did not endeavour to equate the possession of brains and money. Your upper chambers, if they are to have any utility, are to correct inequality, but the only inequality they are going to correct, and that on the wrong side, is the distribution of wealth. There is no suggestion of having upper chambers to give special advantage to weak minorities. In fact this is formed on the old basis that the people with wealth should have the ultimate power. We think that that is objectionable, first of all on the general grounds that most of us agree that very serious economic evils in India are not so to be overcome, and you are going to strengthen all the reactionary influences; and secondly, it is against the expressed opinion of Indians. I am at a loss to understand why the opinions of Indians in the Punjab should be so important to the Government in this case, whereas they are rejected in every other instance. If it be a good argument in the Punjab to reject a second chamber, it is an equally good argument with regard to a number of other matters in this Bill. We think it is a very expensive, utterly useless and reactionary proposal to establish second chambers in Provinces when they have done perfectly well without them all these years.

12.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES

To save the time of the Committee, I do not propose to speak on general principles, but to confine myself to one Province, namely, the Province of Assam, and I would ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision upon it. The Under-Secretary did mention two points. He said that Assam was not recommended for a second chamber because there was not the personnel available, and it might be too expensive. Only last year in Assam there were three ex-Ministers who were taking no part in public life. One was a Hindu, another a Mohammedan and the third an Indian Christian, and I am quite sure the Secretary of State would agree with me that one of the best places for ex-Ministers would be in a second chamber. The other point is that of expense. In the Assam Legislative Council I have heard it said on all sides of the House, and especially by the Congress party, that the salaries that we were paying Ministers and executive councillors were too great. It was pointed out that the Prime Minister of Japan got less money than an executive councillor in Assam, and for that reason I think we may all assume, if the principles of the Congress party are genuine, as I have no doubt they are, that the cost of the Assam Legislature will be reduced.

On the Legislative Council we used to sit for approximately 30 days a year for a salary of 20 rupees per day while we sat, and one and a half first-class railway fares for travelling expenses. According to my calculation the cost of an upper chamber on these terms, including clerks and everything else, would be about 30,000 rupees a year, and as the expenditure of Assam is 2 crores and 40 lacs, it would amount to about one-800th part of the total expenditure. We have a council chamber there that would do for the two Houses. There would be no necessity for them to sit at the same time, and the same clerks would do. Therefore, I hope I have proved to the Secretary of State that, on the grounds of expense and of personnel, there is a very strong case for a second chamber for Assam, and I hope he will write to India and find out what the present opinion is, because I believe ex-Governors are on my side in this matter.

12.25 p.m.


On general principles I prefer, if we are to have a second chamber in this country or in any province, that it should be a hereditary House of Lords, and not an elected Chamber. My principles are not personal; they are entirely based upon the fact that, if the second Chamber is elected, it has great power, whereas if it is not elected it becomes an advisory body and has not great power. I think that, when we were considering establishing in India that democracy with which we have flourished in this country, we might have taken that leaf out of our own book, instead of inventing this Continental idea of a second Chamber elected by wealthy men. Obviously, you are, establishing there a vested interest in the representation of wealth.


I cannot see that that has anything to do with this amendment.


It is absolutely necessary that, when we are considering whether there should be one Chamber or two, the Committee should realise that one of those chambers is elected by 45 per cent. of the more wealthy of the population, and that the other Chamber is elected by 10 per cent. of the more wealthy of the population. The only difference between those Chambers is the percentage of the whole population that is allowed to vote. The Government have accepted the idea that there shall be, in a great many of these Chambers, special representation of rich people. That, I maintain, is not an English tradition, is not based upon English example, but is based upon the fears of the rich people in India with regard to this Constitution. Goodness knows, they have no reason to be at all afraid of this constitution. If we were elected by only that half of the population which had more money than the other half, the views of my hon. friends on these benches would be very materially modified. The principal argument against having this suppositious richly elected second Chamber in the Provinces is that these people, who are already rich, are going to be paid—


The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going much too far away from the Amendment.


It is impossible to discuss this very important question of whether there should he a second Chamber without the Committee realising why the second Chamber is being set up. It is to protect the rich, and to find salaries for them. India is not a rich country, and most of these Provinces cannot possibly afford it, Assam included. It is not merely the salaries of the members, but it is all the fact that you have joint session" to consider, you have elections to consider, your Ministers of State have to deal with two separate bodies instead of one. You have all these additional expenses thrust upon people who are living on the verge of starvation.

I put down an Amendment to leave out Bihar. Bihar is an admirable example of a Province which needs no second chamber. It is not a talukdar Province; it is, like Bengal, a zemindar Province, where the cultivators are small people, where the zemindars are entrenched behind privileges given to them from the Central Government. Bihar has had one-third of its territory taken away and added to Orissa. It is now a homogenous Province, almost entirely Hindu—much more largely Hindu than either the United Provinces on the one side or Bengal on the other. Communal troubles there have been, but there have not been any for the last 10 years in Bihar. You have there a perfect example of a homogenous community, anxious to develop their agriculture and anxious to deal with the very important question of the coalmining which takes place in the north. You have a Province which has exactly the interests and the prospective future of this country. It had, if I remember rightly, an Indian for a Governor not long ago, so much confidence had the India Office in Indians and in that Province. It is proposed now to set up, in that extremely poor Province, this extremely expensive second Chamber. I do not know why the Round Table Conference decided on Bihar. I am perfectly certain that the Legislative Council of Bihar and Orissa at the present time would not desire a second chamber. As there is no argument in favour of it, whether from the point of view of wealth or from the point of view of the protection of British interests, of where there are very few in Bihar as compared with other Provinces, I think we might spare Bihar the infliction of a second Chamber. As for the other Amendments, I should certainly oppose any of the Provinces being cursed with a second Chamber. If the second Chamber were nominated or hereditary, there would be something to be said for it, but there is nothing to be said for a second Chamber elected by the rich, for the rich, to protect the rich in a constitution which already protects nothing else.

12.33 p.m.


Where-ever you have a legislative body, I think it is a safe principle to have a second Chamber. It is possible to see throughout the world what a moderating influence the second Chamber has on the first, especially when the first is actuated by such principles as sometimes permeate it. Let me assure the hon. Member below me, who stated that he was no believer in second chambers, that, if our second chamber disappeared, then democracy in this country, as he understands it, would also disappear. A second chamber acts as a brake upon the wheel of the first chamber to prevent the passing of ill-digested legislation which on second thoughts would not have been passed even by the first chamber.

12.34 p.m.


I was interested to watch the face of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) while the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) was saying that the place for ex-Ministers was in the second Chamber. Let me deal with this question in its proper perspective. First of all, our proposals have behind them a large body of support in India. From the greater number of these councils we have actual resolutions. For instance, it will interest the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to know that the Legislative Council of Bihar have actually approved of a second Chamber.




Recently, in the last year or two, in connection with these proposals. In the case of the Provinces where there has not actually been a resolution of the council in their favour, we have made it our business to find out what we believe to be the general feeling. I am convinced that in all these instances there is a substantial demand in the Provinces for a second Chamber. The Committee will remember the duties of these second Chambers. There seems to be an impression in our discussions this morning that the second Chambers will have equal powers with the first Chambers. It is definitely the intention of the Bill, and it was the intention of the Joint Select Committee, that in the case of the Provincial second Chambers as distinct from the Federal second Chamber, their powers should be of a delaying character rather than powers of veto.


And revisory.


Delaying and revisory. That fact immediately appears when hon. Members look at the numbers suggested to form the two Chambers. The Provincial second Chambers will be only about one-third, as far as I remember, in numbers compared with the first Chambers. That is to say, in a joint session, the means by which differences will be settled between them, the second Chamber is bound to be in a substantial minority. The Joint Select Committee itself accepted that plan, but it none the less attached great importance to having these Chambers in the Provinces for which we recommend them for delaying and revisory purposes. Let us remember that Provincial autonomy means the granting of very wide authority, much wider authority than has yet been exercised in any of the Indian Provinces. To those who are cautious by nature, there is strong justification for revisory bodies of this kind, and I base my case upon that need, and I believe it is a very real one.

I come to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn of whether there should or should not be a second Chamber in Assam. There the position is not easy to settle. Assam is a poor Province. In spite of what he said, there is not a large personnel available for two Chambers. None the less, there is the fact that there is a substantial body of feeling in that Province in favour of a second Chamber. I have had evidence brought to my attention in recent weeks that upon the whole the feeling in favour of a second Chamber in Assam is growing rather than diminishing. My own view is that the difficulties in the way of a second Chamber are the two difficulties of the expense of a second Chamber and of finding the personnel. But without giving any kind of pledge upon the subject, I am ready to look into the question of the feeling in the Province, and I own that, if I am satisfied that there is really a strong and substantial feeling for a second Chamber in the Province, even if there are these two difficulties to which I have just alluded, I do not think that I should be prepared to oppose it, but we must have evidence that there is a substantial feeling in the Province itself. I hope that these remarks are sufficient to show why we have selected these particular Provinces and what it is we intend that the second Chamber should actually do.

12.41 p.m.


I wish to say a word of apology for saying that Bihar had not expressed any wish to have a second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was dealing with the question of the Assembly, said that he would attach no importance to the view of the Indian Assembly on a question which meant abolishing themselves. He cannot have it both ways. If he applies that to the Assembly at Delhi which would abolish itself if it supported this reform, it must apply also to the Legislative Council in Bihar. The Legislative Council in Bihar at present is elected in precisely the same way as a second Chamber will be under this Bill, and naturally they too will have a reluctance to abolish themselves. The same principle which applies, if it applies, to the Assembly at Delhi and All-India, must apply also to the Legislative Council in Bihar. Naturally, there will be a reluctance to support a change which would abolish themselves, so I do not attach very much importance to that, but as they have, in their Legislative Council, supported a second Chamber, even if it be that the richer people in Bihar are represented in the Legislative Council, I do not think that in that case I can press my Amendment for leaving out Bihar, since I wish to press for all time the right of the Legislative Assembly at Delhi to throw out the whole Bill.

12.42 p.m.


I am not raising a point of controversy, but I want to say that on general grounds I would prefer not to have the second Chamber. If the question were quite open, I should vote against the second Chamber in India in relation to these Provinces, but there is a long history behind it. There is a very divided opinion. There is some Indian demand in support of the second Chamber, and we are not committed in any sense as to the constitution of the second Chamber, which has to be dealt with later. We shall in subsequent discussions deal with the powers of the second Chamber. I am very anxious that these powers should be limited, as was intended by the Joint Select Committee, simply to the right of revising and imposing delay, and, further, it will be seen by those who care to refer to the report of the Joint Select Committee that it was intended in a certain measure that this should be experimental, and that, while no definite term was imposed, it was suggested that after the first few years of experience a Province that had only one Chamber might make a request for two, if experience justified it, and that a Province which had two Chambers might make a request to have one in future.


With the consent of the second Chamber?


Of course, with the very limited vote of the second Chamber, and, in such instances as that, the second Chamber could not override the vote of the Lower Chamber having regard to its very much smaller representation. I do not think that in this matter any great question of principle is involved. I think that Indian opinion, being divided, might express itself in favour of the second Chambers as indeed has been done in some instances. I only want to assert that I am opposed altogether to these Upper Provincial Chambers having the power over the constitution of the Council of State, but I do not want to be held, in the course of later discussions on this Bill, responsible for having supported the proposal for second Chambers for the Provinces as electoral bodies over the Council of State at the centre. To that, I and my friends here are strongly opposed. As the Montagu-Chelmsford report was divided upon this subject, inasmuch as it suggested that a second Chamber might be needed later on when there became a larger measure of self-government, and inasmuch as the Statutory Commission hesitated as to what its recommendation should be, and having regard to the recommendations that we have had from some of the Indians more immediately concerned, I cannot see that any great question of principle is involved. Therefore, I am prepared to support the Government.


Is my right hon. Friend also prepared to reconsider the question of a Punjab second Chamber. I cannot help thinking that if a second Chamber is good for the United Provinces it might be good for the Punjab.


The question is quite different from that in the case of the Punjab. The Punjab is the one Province in which there has been overwhelming feeling against it. I think it would be a great mistake to reconsider that case.


The Amendment has served the purpose of eliciting most interesting explanations from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, and in view of the fact that the Clause goes a long way in the direction desired by the Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


I do not know whether hon. Members who have their names down to the following Amendments wish to move them.


I do not propose to move my Amendment.


Sir Walter Smiles?



Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes 27.

Division No. 120.] AYES. [12.47 p.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Grimston, R. V. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Hanbury, Cecil Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Apsley, Lord Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Aske, Sir Robert William Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rea, Walter Russell
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Reid, James s. C. (Stirling)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Remer, John R.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Horsbrugh, Florence Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ropner, Colonel L.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Blindell, James Iveagh, Countess of Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Bossom, A. C. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Boulton, W. W. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Ker, J. Campbell Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Kerr, Hamilton W. Savery, Samuel Servington
Boyce, H. Leslie Kimball, Lawrence Selley, Harry R.
Bracken, Brendan Kirkpatrick, William M. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Leech, Dr. J. W. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Broadbent, Colonel John Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Browne, Captain A. C. Lewis, Oswald Smithers, Sir Waldron
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Lindsay, Noel Ker Somervell, Sir Donald
Butler, Richard Austen Llster, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Lloyd, Geoffrey Soper, Richard
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Loder, Captain J. de Vere Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Carver, Major William H. Loftus, Pierce C. Spens, William Patrick
Cayzer Sir Charles (Chester, City) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (partick) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Storey, Samuel
Clayton, Sir Christopher McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Cobb, Sir Cyrll McLean, Major Sir Alan Strauss, Edward A.
Conant, R. J. E. Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Cooke, Douglas Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Cooper, A. Duff Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sutcliffe, Harold
Copeland, Ida Marsden, Commander Arthur Sandys, Edwin Duncan
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Tate, Mavis Constance
Crooke, J. Smedley Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Crossley, A. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Denville, Alfred Moreing, Adrian C. Watt, Major George Steven H.
Dickle, John P. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wayland, Sir William A.
Donner, P. W. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Wadderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Doran, Edward Munro, Patrick Wells, Sydney Richard
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. White, Henry Graham
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Wills, Wilfrid D.
Fox, Sir Gilford O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Fremantle, Sir Francis Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fuller, Captain A. G. Patrick. Colin M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Ganzoni, Sir John Peake, Osbert Womersley, Sir Walter
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Percy, Lord Eustace Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)
Goff, Sir Park Petherick, M.
Goldie, Noel B. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Graves, Marjorle Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston) Lieut.-Colonel Sir A Lambert Ward
and Major George Davies.
Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Rathbone, Eleanor
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Banfield, John William Jenkins, Sir William Thorne, William James
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) John, William Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Daggar, George Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) McEntee, Valentine L. Williams. Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mainwaring, William Henry
Dobble, William Maxton, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Parkinson, John Allen Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

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