HC Deb 25 June 1936 vol 313 cc2066-83

8.33 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, at the end, to insert: Provided that this section shall not apply to any person engaged upon trade union business with persons employed in connection with the aerodrome. When I raised this question on the Second Reading, the right hon. Baronet's reply was that the question of trade union representatives on aerodromes was a matter between the trade union and the contractor doing repair work or erecting buildings and so forth. That is all very well and, if it were just a question of the contractor and the trade union, it might be left where it is. But it is proposed in the Bill to give a third party the power to control entry upon the aerodrome, and it is very necessary that that power should be given, but we are very much concerned about the possible misuse of it. There is the possibility that people with certain prejudices in connection with trade union matters will use the power given them to make it difficult for trade union representatives to carry out business which in many trades is regarded as quite normal. I speak particularly of the building industry, where the attendance of a trade union representative upon the job is a regular thing. My experience with regard to this matter has been at service aerodromes. When I was at the Ministry the matter was very urgent and many trade unions were raising the question of the attitude of certain commanding officers with regard to the entry upon aerodromes of trade union representatives and the manner in which they should conduct themselves. All that we desire to do is to safeguard the position and not to interfere with discipline and control of the aerodrome grounds, but we desire that the common and normal method of trade union representation and control shall not be interfered with merely as the result of the prejudice of other persons who previously had not been able to exercise any influence in that direction.

8.35 p.m.


I am sorry to have to interrupt the harmonious trend which we have been pursuing lately in accepting practically all the Amendments put before us, but I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and for very good reasons. It would be entirely anomalous to insert in a Clause which deals with trespass that one particular type of person should not be dealt with if he is a trespasser. If he is a trade union official going about his duty, he is not a trespasser, but if he is trespassing on land forming part of an aerodrome, it is a little difficult to see why such an entirely anomalous provision should be made in favour of one class of person. If that is not class legislation with a vengeance, I really do not know what is. You might say, for example, that* lawyers entering neighbouring aerodromes should not be dealt with for trespassing on land forming part of an aerodrome. Where is the matter to stop? If trade unions were thought by Parliament to require some special kind of provision, it ought to be in some general Act dealing with the matter, but it is most inappropriate that a provision of this kind should be put in a special part of this Bill.


I regret having the presumption to cross swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman.


I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Report Stage of the Bill, and that he has exhausted his right to speak on the Amendment.


I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am following the usual rule.


I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that recently we have been dealing, with Bills from the Committee upstairs, but on this occasion the Bill was taken in Committee of the Whole House.


Is it possible to put a point?


To ask a question, yes.


The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the trade union representative as a trespasser, and I submit that he is begging the question, because the effect of the Amendment is to rule out trespass on the part of a trade union representative. I submit that that is the point of the Amendment.


I am afraid that my argument still applies. This Clause provides that any person who trespasses on land forming part of an aerodrome shall be punished. What the hon. Gentleman would do, if his Amendment were carried, would be to give to trade union representatives a licence to trespass.




I am afraid that that is exactly what the Amendment does. It says: Provided that this section shall not apply to any person engaged upon trade union business with persons employed in connection with the aerodrome. In other words, any such person engaged in trade union business cannot be guilty of a trespass. There are plenty of circumstances in which he would not be guilty of trespass and would not come under the Clause, but to give him a general licence, as the Amendment would do, to commit trespass, I am sure, is not what the hon. Gentleman intends, and would not be appropriate.


Am I correct in understanding the Solicitor-General to say that it is not the disposition of the Government to regard the presence of a trade union official at an aerodrome endeavouring to get in touch with his members working there as in the nature of a trespass?


Certainly not.


If that is so, would the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to issue instructions that this Clause is not to be interpreted in such a case as though he was committing a trespass?

8.40 p.m.


When we were dealing with the matter before, the whole question of trade union representation was brought into the picture and the history of the fight for the rights of men to stand at the gates was gone into, and I am surprised that we are wasting the time of the House going over that matter again. This is not a case of ordinary trespass. We dealt with that matter in the last Debate. Trespass was defined that night, and the Attorney-General Lad to submit certain things which meant a great change from what was done in the Bill at the time. We ask for this Amendment because of the practice of a great many organisations and employers, who insist on preventing their workers from exercising the right to organise and their representatives from seeing whether the conditions under which they should be employed are being carried out, and whether or not the proper wages are being paid. We have, as working-class people, always to fight against that kind of organisation.

The Amendment is a purely working-class claim. The Attorney-General, on the last occasion on which he spoke, said that there was no such thing as trespass in Britain. The law of trespass does not exist so far as a person moving about is concerned, but it does exist if that person moves about in a way that he does some damage, which is quite a different thing. In this Bill, for the first time as far as I am aware, the Government seek to prevent what has always been the custom, namely, the right of the secretary of a trade union or trade unions to have access to the place where his members are working. I can see tremendous difficulties arising if this part of the Clause is not changed. This kind of work will be such that it will require specialists in many cases, and if something goes wrong and for some reason or other the men refuse to work, what will be the method of dealing with them? If you leave the matter as it is, you cannot expect the secretary of a trade union to come and attempt to deal with the difficulties. The idea seems to be in the mind of the Solicitor-General that if the proposal in the Amendment were accepted these men would always be running about the aerodrome. There would be nothing of the kind. The man who looks after trade union business goes to the place where his men may be when he is wanted. He is not always running after them. I hope that it will be seen clearly that on the question of trespass nothing can be brought against the Amendment. The rights of trade unions have been long recognised and the Government should not pinprick in this way. Let us get the thing through in the proper spirit.

8.44 p.m.


I entirely agree with what the Solicitor-General has said with regard to the Amendment, and I am rather surprised that during the moving of the Amendment no legal supporters of the Opposition were present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Then I am rather surprised that not one of them got up to speak about it before the Solicitor-General spoke. However, as the Labour party have their legal defenders here I shall wait and see what they have to say to the Solicitor-General. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to cases where representatives of trade unions had tried to approach commanding officers on certain service aerodromes, and he wanted the House to understand that in those instances they were not received very well by the commanding officers. That is a general statement. He knows as well as I do that if such things did occur and the trade union representatives were on lawful business they had a remedy, as any legal adviser would explain. If a trade union representative goes to an aerodrome on lawful business, he is not trespassing. If, however, the words of the Amendment were inserted in the Clause, then undoubtedly, as the Solicitor-General explained, we should be licensing a certain class to be trespassers. That, as the Solicitor-General said, would be class legislation of the worst type. I am sure that the Labour party would not desire such a thing, because from what I recollect of their speeches they do not want class legislation. Why, therefore, should we make the mistake of falling into an error now? Those who drew up the Amendment did not, I should imagine, consult the legal advisers of the Labour party, otherwise they would not have needed to ask the Solicitor-General to explain what was meant by the law of trespass. Seeing that the legal defenders of the Labour party are here I will sit down and listen to what they have to say to the Solicitor-General, who can look after himself.

8.47 p.m.


I should like to put to the Solicitor-General the position which the Amendment postulates. Does he suggest that in the circumstances related by the Mover of the Amendment a trade union organiser entering the property of an aerodrome is in precisely the same position as a trade union organiser entering the property of a private person? A trade union organiser is placed at a disadvantage because trespass is here made a criminal offence, whereas if he enters the property of a private person the trespass may be a civil offence. Therefore, there is a vast difference in the situation created between trespass on to an aerodrome under this Clause and on private property not covered by a Clause of this character. We suggest that a trade union organiser should not only have the same facilities as are offered to him by private employers, without much trouble, but that he should have facilities extended to him so- that in no circumstances could it be suggested that he had broken the criminal law. As a general rule trespass is a civil offence and not a criminal offence. I respectfully submit to the Solicitor-General that a trade union organiser going on to the property of an aerodrome is decidedly at a disadvantage and may be subject to interference by some truculent person, unless this Clause is amended, and he may be brought before the magistrates and fined £5.

8.49 p.m.


The only Clause that I can recollect that is anything like this one is a Clause that operates in regard to railways, where it is made an offence to trespass on a railway. In that case the penalty is only 40s. I have always understood that that Clause was inserted to make it a rather expensive form of committing suicide if you change your mind after you have started on the project. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that trespass, generally speaking, is not an offence. We all know that owners of property put up notices: "Trespassers will be prosecuted," but everybody knows that that is a prophecy which will never be fulfilled unless a person incidentally commits some damage. He may then be proceeded against. There is also the case that he may be trespassing in pursuit of coneys. That offence, I understand, is not one of trespass, but that he was in pursuit of rabbits. It is desirable that this point should be placed clear of doubt.

The occasion when a trade union representative is likely to be refused admission to an aerodrome, when he is engaged on trade union business, is likely to be at a time when feelings are rather heated, and some of the people who may subsequently have to deal with him—I do not want to say more about it than this—may also be feeling some of the heat that ha? been engendered by the strike at the aerodrome. It is, therefore, very important that it should be made absolutely clear of doubt that if a man goes there on trade union business and not merely because he is a trade union official, he is not committing an offence.

The Solicitor-General may have led the House to think that the Amendment would guarantee exemption to any person who was a trade union official, no matter what might be his business at the aerodrome. That is not so. It does not exempt a trade union official simply because he is a trade union official. It says only that if a person is there doing trade union business he shall not be a trespasser. The position is entirely different from the one stated by the Solicitor-General, and I hope the Government will see their way to remove all doubt by accepting the Amendment. If the Clause means no more than the words say, then all that the Solicitor-General can say against it is that it is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary and if people have the right to go to an aerodrome on trade union business without being trespassers, there can be no great harm in making certain of it by putting it into the Bill.

8.53 p.m.


Is it not possible for the Solicitor-General, having regard to what has been said, to accept the Amendment? If he cannot accept the Amendment he might accept other words with a similar object. The words in the Clause are: "If any person trespasses." That phrase infers that no one has any legitimate right to be present on that particular ground. If it is the intention of the Government that in regard to aerodromes and the performance of work there should be proper co-ordination, then, the workpeople and those connected with the workpeople should have all the facilities which are essential for proper co-operation. Surely, it is not the intention of the Government that any protective Clause which gives access to workmen is to prevent any official legitimately engaged in trade union work from having access. The officials connected with aerodromes and the type of labour there are of a highly technical class and are men who will be required for co-operation.

If we are going to give exemption to any organisations of labour from the law of trespass it should be contained within the Bill. The Solicitor-General is not so dense as not to know the point which is now being argued. I agree that the wording of the Amendment does not carry out exactly what is intended, but the Solicitor-General is aware that we are contending for a right of access for those who are entitled to go to these particular places to deal with the men in legitimate hours. It is not intended to deal with a man who is wandering about an aerodrome at night time, when the men are not engaged in their business, and who, when a policeman comes up and says "Who are you? ", replies "I am a trade union organiser," and who, when the policeman says "I am going to lock you up for trespass," says "You cannot do that because under the Act I am exempted." No one is so silly as to suggest that such a thing should be included in a Clause of this description.

Let me tell the Solicitor-General my opinion about it. I think that in any organisation of men in aerodromes or any other places, if you want to avoid revolt, if you want to have satisfactory arrangements, true co-operation and a better understanding, in critical times, if you want to get better workmanship from the men in their jobs, the thing to do is to create friendly relations between the men inside the workshops and the men who have the right to organise labour. I am not a trade unionist unfortunately, but I say that any man who has any authority as a trade union official is a very valuable man when it is a question of dealing with the conditions of employment. You very often find that the boss on the job is not always able to control the men as well as those who have a sense of responsibility as trade union officials. The Amendment is moved in a spirit of co-operation. It is not moved in the interests of a "nosey parker," because ways and means can be found to send him about his business. But there is the legitimate trade union official who has a right to see after the well-being of the workmen, and I hope the Government will consider the Amendment from the standpoint of co-operation and better relationships. It may be badly drafted, but the Solicitor-General no doubt can frame words which will give protection to the legitimate organiser of labour who should have a right of access in order to deal with the men.

9.0 p.m.


I want to submit a few ideas on this question in the hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude. These are the days of organisation. The employers are well organised, shop-keepers are well organised in chambers of commerce, the legal profession is well organised. All interests are well organised and, therefore, it is essential that the workers should also organise themselves. They have organised themselves relatively well in certain sections of industry. They appoint their representatives. In modern methods of production, particularly in aerodromes, production, takes place on one side of the aerodrome and experiments take place on the other. They are also used for commercial purposes. It will be possible for mechanics to leave their workshops and then play a part in the experiments in the aerodrome. Friction might possibly occur between the representatives of various interests and, therefore, it is essential that the representatives of the men should have access to all parts of the aerodrome in order to negotiate difficult questions which may arise. I have been employed in modern large-scale industry and I know the value of this kind of thing. Unless you have an authority, a card, it is not possible to have access to some places, but if you are acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the men and can show your authority you can have access in that capacity.

I am hoping that the Government will reconsider their attitude so that the legitimate grievances of men employed on aerodromes may be ventilated. They can only be ventilated if their representatives have the right of access to all parts of the aerodrome. Those who have had any experience of meeting the police know how they are treated. Unless you can show some card of authority you are treated as an average member of the public, and the police are, of course, entitled to treat you in that way. But, if you can produce a card showing that you are acting in a representative capacity, they treat you as such, and you can go wherever your duty may take you. Therefore, seeing that military men with a military attitude and mentality will be in charge of aerodromes, and knowing how they react to these kind of things, it is most important, in order that friction may be prevented, that the workmen should have their legitimate interests represented by their trade union organiser. I hope the Minister will reconsider his attitude.

9.5 p.m.


I want to ask the Minister why, in this particular Measure, the Government are asking for this provision when it is not asked for in any Department of State? At the present time we are able to visit aerodromes and even Government establishments, where there are supposed to be many secrets. Now, when it comes to the people to whom we are handing out the subsidy, the condition is being laid down that if any person trespasses on any of the land forming part of an aerodrome licensed in pursuance of an Order in Council under Part I, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5.


That has nothing to do with the subsidy.


It deals with these aerodromes. I am asking that those who are engaged upon business in connection with the working conditions of the employés of the aerodromes shall have the opportunity of being able to consult with the people concerned so that the grievances, if they are real ones, may be remedied before they develop into serious difficulties and give us the trouble which we so often have by reason of the long-continued existence of grievances. It is a short-sighted policy and it is not in the interests of the country that there should be denied to these people the opportunity of consulting together and of meeting the managements of the undertakings in order to point out to them what is happening, and even suggest what might be remedies for the difficulties. I am trying to find out why it is that the demand is being made at this time for a penalty for trespassing. Why is this condition asked for now when it is not asked for in any other case? In the interests of the country and of obtaining better working conditions for our people who are employed in these undertakings, I hope this Amendment will be accepted.

9.8 p.m.


I would like to add my view on this matter, and I do so because of an experience I had at the General Election in connection with an undertaking somewhat similar to those which are being considered in this Bill. In my constituency there is an Admiralty dump with a considerable amount of ground attached to it. On that ground there are the homes of the men who are employed at the dump, and it may be that you will have an aerodrome with ground around it on which the houses of the employés of the aerodrome may be built. To get to the Admiralty dump in question, one has to leave the main road and go along a road leading to the dump. On the private road, as well as within the precincts of the homes of the workers, meetings were addressed by representatives of the parties, but when I went there at the General Election the police were present to prevent me from getting on to the ground to which I am referring. I could not speak to those constituents of mine.


I am afraid that if this Amendment were accepted it would not help the hon. Member.


I want to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that there might very well be an aerodrome at which it is very difficult for those who are employed to get in touch with the organiser of the trade union other than at their work, and it is therefore essential if proper attention is to be given to the conditions under which the men have to work that the organiser should have access at any time in order to meet the representatives of the men and the management. Therefore, I want to add my word of support to those who have already spoken. During the War I had experience of trying to get on to forbidden territory in order to settle grievances, and I very often succeeded in getting on to it. I know that while I succeeded in getting there to settle a grievance in my particular way, others, who were bona fide representatives of trade unions, could not get there. They were not prepared to take the measures I took, and were legal and constitutional. I managed to get to Rosyth and to do my particular job among the men and sailors who worked there, but the trade union organisers could not get there. The same situation might arise in connection with these aerodromes.


You would be a trespasser.


I am certain I should get on to them, but the important thing for the Under-Secretary to understand is that the trade union official, who has the responsibility of looking after the interests of the men and very often stopping trouble before it goes too far, should have open access. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) knows that he and his colleagues often had to come to calm things down after the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself had been on the job. It may be essential at any moment that a trade union organiser should be able to go right on to the aerodrome to take up a particular grievance. If he is not able to do so, I am sure the grievance will be taken up. Let there be no mistake about that. Consequently, I suggest that in order to get the best results from the point of view of the men, the general organisation and the aerodromes, the representatives of the men should have access at any time to the management and to the employés in the aerodrome.


If there were an industrial dispute and if the men sent to the organiser or secretary of their trade union to tell him that trouble was brewing and he appeared there in response to their message, would he be trespassing?

9.15 p.m.


I can only speak again by leave of the House. Of course it would depend entirely on the circumstances. As the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) said it is most important that there should be good will in these matters, and one hopes that in every case there will be good will between those in control of the aerodromes and the trade union representatives. In that case no question of trespass would arise. One hopes that in such a case as the hon. Gentleman has in mind there would be no question of trespass. This Clause is only to deal with cases in which there is exclusion of certain people because the will of the owner of the aerodrome—the local authority or whoever it may be—is that these people should not come on the premises.

It has been pointed out that if Parliament passes this Clause it is taking a somewhat unusual step. Trespass is not a criminal offence but if we pass this Clause we are going to make it a criminal offence—for a very good reason, namely that people who trespass on aerodromes are putting in peril members of the public who are travelling on aeroplanes, just as it is made a criminal offence to trespass upon railways. In those circumstances people who are, in the true sense of the word, trespassers, must be kept off the premises by a provision of this kind, whether they happen to be trade unionists, or parsons who come there to look after the cure of the souls of the workers, or doctors or anybody else. All persons who go there against the will of the proprietor must be treated in the same way, whether they are trade union representatives or anybody else. For those reasons I am sorry that the Government cannot accept the Amendment which, as I have said, would be class legislation of the most invidious kind.


Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the assurance for which I asked? I gathered that a trade union official who went to an aerodrome for the purpose of getting into touch with members of his union would not be regarded as a trespasser. If that be the case, will the Minister give instructions that action is not to be taken against such a person as if he were a trespasser?


As I have explained, it depends on circumstances. Normally, of course, he would not be a trespasser, if there was ordinary good will between the aerodrome proprietors and the trade union. These are licensed aerodromes, and in most cases probably the proprietors will be local authorities, and one assumes that in most cases there will be good will and that no question of trespass will arise. But I would not care to make the general statement that in no circumstances would the entry of a trade union representative be trespass. I want to be frank with the House, and I give an instance. Suppose the aerodrome authority, be it a local authority or any other body, were involved in a trade dispute and desired to exclude trade union representatives from the premises and made plain their intention to do so. It would, in my opinion, be trespass in that case if a trade union representative, notwithstanding that exclusion, attempted to go upon the aerodrome.


Suppose a workman who felt that he was suffering under a grievance refused to do his work inside the aerodrome, would he be a trespasser?


I presume the hon. Member is referring to a sort of "stay-in strike." I understand that a distinguished colleague of mine at the Bar is at present examining that question and perhaps I had better not anticipate his decision.

9.20 p.m.


What the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said is not quite a candid statement of the position. He has said that a person would not be a trespasser on an aerodrome unless he went there notwithstanding an exclusion. That is not the fact. He would be a trespasser unless he had permission to go on to the aerodrome, which is a very different state of affairs. Any person going on the aerodrome without permission or invitation from the controlling authority would, of course, be a trespasser. An inspector of the Air Ministry must go there by virtue of the authority given to him under the powers of the Secretary of State, otherwise he would be a trespasser. In case of an accident, a doctor, unless invited to go upon the aerodrome by the management, would be a trespasser. If the hon. and learned Gentleman went there for a view of the aerodrome after the accident, unless he had been invited by the management he would also be a trespasser and any trade union official, unless he could show that he had been invited either expressly or impliedly to attend, would be a trespasser and liable to exclusion. If this Clause is passed in its present form it would be necessary for such an organiser to get, either a general permission to go on the aerodrome at all times to interview members of his union or else an express permission to go there at particular times.

The question raised is whether, in view of the desirability of the swift and satisfactory settlement of grievances, it is not desirable that a trade union organiser should have the right when on trade union business but not on other occasions, to go upon an aerodrome without having to get, on each occasion, express permission which might very well be refused. If we are making it a criminal offence for the first time for people to go upon aerodromes, it is desirable that we should exclude from that provision special persons such as trade union organisers. There may be other classes of persons in the same category. For instance a postman, if he is not to be a trespasser under this Clause, would have to get permission on each occasion to go there or else possibly a general permission from the Postmaster-General. A taxicab driver would have to get permission to go there with a passenger or else he would be a trespasser. All people who have not express invitations or licences to go on an aerodrome will be trespassers and you will have not class legislation permitting certain people to go on an aerodrome, but class action stopping certain people from going there. The other people who are technically trespassers will not be interfered with but the trade union organiser, if his presence is not accept-

able to the management, will be excluded. It will be very handy to be able to rake up this Clause in order to get him off the premises, in much the same way as other provisions have been raked up out of the laws of the past in order to stop people making speeches which were inconvenient to the Government of the time—as in the case of Tom Mann and others. The danger of this type of legislation is that it may be used hereafter selectively. If this provision is enforced in every case in which there is a technical trespass, well and good, because it will be repealed in a year because of its absurdity. But if it is to be used selectively, in order to give a power over trade union officials which otherwise would not exist, then it is the worst type of class legislation.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 181.

Division No. 253.] AYES. [9.26 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Adamson, W. M. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Holland, A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hopkin, D. Rowson, G.
Banfield, J. W. Jagger, J. Salter, Dr. A.
Barnes, A. J. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Sexton, T. M.
Barr, J. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Short, A.
Batey, J. John, W. Silkin, L.
Bellenger, F. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, F. B.
Benson, G. Kelly, W. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bevan, A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Brooke, W. Kirby, B. V. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Burke, W. A. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Charleton, H. C. Lathan, G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng)
Cluse, W. S. Lawson, J. J. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cocks, F. S. Lee, F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Thorne, W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie. J. R. Thurtle, E.
Daggar, G. Logan. D. G. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) McEntee, V. La T. Viant, S. P.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGhee, H. G. Walker, J.
Day, H. McGovern, J. Watkins, F. C.
Dobbie, W. Marklew, E. Watson, W. McL.
Ede, J. C. Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W. Montague, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gardner, B. W. Naylor, T. E. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Oliver, G. H. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Potts, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Price, M. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hardle, G. D. Pritt, D. N. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm n) Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Apsley, Lord Bernays, R. H. Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Aske, Sir R. W. Blindell, Sir J. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Assheton, R. Bossom, A. C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Boulton, W. W. Bull, B. B.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ramsbotham, H.
Carver, Major W. H. Hills. Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Ramsden, Sir E.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Holmes, J. S. Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Horsbrugh, Florence Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Rayner, Major R. H.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Jackson, Sir H. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Craddock, Sir R. H. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ropner, Colonel L.
Crooke, J. S. Keeling, E. H. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cross, R. H. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Crossley, A. C. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Salmon, Sir I.
Crowder, J. F. E. Kimball, L. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Culverwell, C. T. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Leech, Dr. J. W. Savery, Servington
Dawson, Sir P. Lees-Jones, J. Seely, Sir H. M.
De Chair, S. S. Little, Sir E. Graham- Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Simmonds, O. E.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Loftus, P. C. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Drewe, C. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Duncan, J. A. L. Mac Donald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Smithers, Sir W.
Dunglass, Lord Maclay, Hon. J. P. Somervell, Sir D B. (Crewe)
Dunne, P. R. R. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Spens, W. P.
Eckersley, P. T. Maitland, A. Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mander, G. le M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Everard, W. L. Markham, S. F. Tate, Mavis C.
Findlay, Sir E. Maxwell, s. A. Touche, G. C.
Fleming, E. L. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Foot, D. M. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Furness, S. N. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Wakefield, W. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Warrender, Sir V.
Goodman, Col. A. W. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Wedderburn. H. J. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Munro, P. White, H. Graham
Grimston, R. V. Nail, Sir J. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake) Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gunston, Capt. D. W. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Guy, J. C. M. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Hanbury, Sir C. Peat, C. U. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hannah, I. C. Penny, Sir G. Wragg, H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Perkins. W. R. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Petherick, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Commander Southby and Captain
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Pilkington, R. Hope.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 11, line 13, leave out "appears," and insert "appear."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]