HC Deb 03 June 1937 vol 324 cc1236-49

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Foot

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

This point was discussed at quite considerable length on the Committee stage, and I am not going to detain the House over it very long now, but in the view of my hon. Friends and myself this is one of the most controversial points in the Bill and raises, as we think, the most novel and difficult considerations. Briefly to summarise our objections to this Clause, they are these: In the first place, an annual sum of public money is to be paid away without any form of effective public control, because it is proposed here that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition shall be placed on the Consolidated Fund, and the only way in which Parliament would be able to touch that salary in future would be by some form of fresh legislation. Secondly, there is the objection, or so it appears to us, as to the persons by whom this money is going to be paid, or in whose gift it will be. I have read through with some care the arguments that have been advanced from both Front Benches in support of this proposal, and it seemed to me that, in supporting it, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), on the Second Reading in fact advanced what is the most cogent argument against it. This is what he said: We are prepared to accept the principle of some allowance being paid to the Leader of the Opposition to meet expenses necessarily incurred in the carrying out of his duties as Leader of the Opposition. That would not mean that he would be the slave of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or his successor. It would not impair his freedom in any way, because the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition does not reside on the Government side of the House. It resides here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like Mr. Speaker's.") Except that the Leader of the Opposition is not appointed by the whole House, as Mr. Speaker is appointed. But he is appointed by the Members who, for the time being, sit on this side of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; col. 660, Vol. 322.] That is a perfectly accurate statement of the position as it will exist if this proposal becomes law, and it seems to us to be a position which is open to all sorts of objections. To put it briefly, this is the first time that in any Statute we shall have recognised the existence of a party caucus. I am not drawing distinctions in this matter, and I hope hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House will realise it, between one party and another, because there are changes from time to time and different parties occupy the Front Bench above the Gangway on the Opposition side, but we have never before placed this considerable sum of money within the gift of a party organisation. I have read, not only the reasons given by the spokesman of the official Opposition, but also the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the Second Reading, said: If we had not payment of Members I could understand the question arising as to whether or not it was suitable that this amount should be paid to any member of the Opposition, but when we have payment of Members which is equally shared by Members of the House, except Ministers of the Crown who do not get salary as Members of Parliament and salary as Ministers, it cannot be a wrong principle that the Member of the Opposition who has the heaviest duties, who gives the most constant attendance and is absolutely essential to the working of the House, should receive a higher salary. That is the proposal which we make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; col. 650. Vol. 322.] That is all that was said in justification of this proposal in introducing the Bill. That is to say, there were three tests that were applied to differentiate the Leader of the official Opposition from other private Members in this House. They were, firstly, that he had to carry out heavier duties; secondly, that he had to put in more constant attendance; and, thirdly, that his presence and action were essential to the working of the House. But there are a great many hon. Members to whom those same considerations apply. It may be that they do not apply in the same degree, but they do apply. Take, for instance, hon. Members who perform an essential function in the working of our legislative system of which not very much is heard, hon. Members, I mean, who preside over private Bill Committees and who receive no sort of reward whatever for so doing. Take again those hon. Members who spend many hours presiding over Standing Committees upstairs. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) will appreciate this point. They also perform an invaluable function, if I may say so, and one without which it would be impossible for the work of this House to go on. So the test applies to them as well. Take also those who occupy important positions which require a standard of regular attendance, such as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

All these people fulfil precisely the three tests I have mentioned, in that they perform heavier duties than ordinary Members, are required to be in more constant attendance, and do work which is essential for the proper functioning of this House. If it is a sound proposal to give this special remuneration to the Member who happens to be Leader of the largest party in Opposition, there are equally good arguments for giving some higher remuneration than the average private Member receives to all those persons whom I have mentioned. It seems to us that it is very difficult to say from what part of the House the real opposition is going to come at any particular time. Sometimes the strongest opposition to a proposal comes from above the Gangway, sometimes we think, at any rate, it comes from us, sometimes it comes, as it has done on many occasions, from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or other hon. Members who sit on that side of the House, as happened only a few days ago. You never know in this House from what quarter the real effective opposition is going to blow up, and it seems to me to be an objection to this proposal that you should differentiate in this way.

We have at present an Opposition party which is much larger than any other Opposition party in this House. I am not speaking of the future of any particular party, but nobody supposes, I imagine, that that is always going to be the case, and, as has been pointed out before, there have been occasions in the past, and there will no doubt be occasions again, when you will get parties outside the ranks of the Government supporters which may be very nearly equal in numbers and influence to those supporters. For these reasons it seems to us that there are serious objections to which no proper reply has been made. Let me make it clear that we are not under-estimating in any way the value of the work that is done by hon. Members who sit in the Opposition. We were gratified on the last occasion when we heard the Home Secretary say that those who are in Opposition are discharging valuable public functions. I look forward to repeating the words he used on that occasion on a good many occasions in the next week or two.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith

I beg to second the Amendment.

None of us here has any personal feelings with regard to the immediate effect of this Clause. If anybody is to get a salary under this proposal I would sooner see it given to the present Leader of the Opposition than to anyone else. I am sure he thoroughly deserves it. This is a matter of principle, and my objection to it is that it is unduly taking the two-party system as if it were something holy and established in our constitution by choosing out the leader of one party who happens to be the next strongest to that of the Government, and giving him a kind of official status. It is representing something which does not exist in our politics to-day. I think that our politics are changing, and that we may well come to a system of many parties and of parties more equally divided than they are to-day. I am not speaking only of this party. The party in front of me represented at the moment by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) are performing an essential and valuable service in the House, and their constant attendance here and the burden put on them are something which along these lines might very well be rewarded. I do not see why only one person should be rewarded. The deputy-leader of the Opposition might very well complain. Along these lines all the party in front of me consisting of whips, the leader and the deputy-leader, might find themselves provided by the State with a salary.

I suggest that this is not the right way to treat an opposition. I should be glad to feel that the Leader of the Opposition was always in a position of some independence and was not worried by sordid financial cares from day to day, but that can be provided for almost always by the efforts of his own supporters. If that is done he will be in a much more comfortable and independent position, and he will be beholden to nobody. I think that they will be proud and able to do it. I am not thinking for a moment that the independence of the present Leader of the Opposition will be sapped or undermined if he were in receipt of this salary, but I do think that it is an undesirable and unnecessary principle to introduce. It is based upon a wrong constitutional theory, and it ought to be rejected.

6.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General

As the hon. Member who moved this Amendment said, this matter was debated at considerable length on the Second Reading and Committee stages. I want to steer a somewhat delicate course between giving full and proper recognition to the fact that it has already been debated and paying sufficient courtesy to the arguments which have been re-advanced by the two hon. Members who have spoken. The Amendment raises one of those questions on which everyone must recognise arguments can be developed with apparent force in more than one direction. It can be said for example, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, that this proposal puts a sum of money into the gift of a party organisation. That sounds very dreadful, but could not one say very nearly the same thing about the office of Prime Minister? The man whom a party chooses to be its leader is, if the party gets a majority, the man who will be sent for by the King.

Mr. Foot

Surely he is paid as a Minister of the Crown, and not as a party leader.

The Attorney-General

That is the sort of debating point which the hon. Member was seeking to argue, but if one considers how our constitutional and party system works there is not a great deal of sting in that point. The hon. Member went on to point out that there were others, such as the Chairmen of Committees, whose services were essential to the proper functioning of this House. From one point of view, I do not think we need be afraid to say that we are all essential to the proper functioning of this House. Whether we are Ministers of the Crown, Chairmen of Committees, members of Committees or ordinary private Members, the proper working of the House depends in varying degree on the energy and time of all its Members.

It seems to me we have to approach this proposal bearing two facts in mind. The first is that the House has adopted the principle for a number of years that it is in the interests of the public that a payment should be made to Members of the House as such, that is to say, irrespective of whether they are filling a Ministerial position or not. That system has existed for some years and nobody suggests it should be altered. It involves one of the principles which is embodied in the proposal immediately under discussion. The second point is that, although you can argue how essential the functions of Chairmen of Standing Committees are, under our constitution as it has developed so far, the Leader of the Opposition is in a special position, and because of the peculiar position of responsibility which is thrown on him we are justified in the provision made in this Clause. There are many cases in which the Leader of the Opposition in the past has been an ex-Prime Minister. If a party which has held office is defeated and another Government is formed, the man who has been Prime Minister will normally, unless he retires on grounds of age or ill-health or because he goes to another place, be the Leader of the Opposition. In that case, of course, he will get his pension under this Bill and this provision will not arise.

Take the case where a Leader of the Opposition is not an ex-Prime Minister. I do not want to encourage any hopes, which I believe will be false, in hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in that case he is a potential Prime Minister, or a potential probable Prime Minister. That is to say, if there is an election and the party in opposition gets a majority, normally the Leader of the Opposition would be sent for by His Majesty, and on him the responsibility of forming an administration and carrying on the Government of the country as Prime Minister would fall. Therefore, the Leader of an Opposition, if our institutions continue to work as they have in the past, is a potential Prime Minister. He is chosen, as I understand it, as the man whom his party would desire to be Prime Minister should they get a majority. That does seem in these circumstances to give him a special position. Is it not, therefore, desirable that a party, when considering on whom their choice should fall, should know that he would be relieved from all anxiety of a financial kind? I am not suggesting that it would be likely that a man who has got to that position would say, "Unless special provision is made for me, I cannot lead the party." but there are cases in which the fact that this provision has been made might make it much easier for a man to be elected as a party leader.

When he is actually chosen as Leader of the Opposition and comes to this House, he has very special calls made on his time. I speak in the presence of one right hon. Gentleman who has lead an Opposition, and I say that not only has he to be in constant attendance at Debates—and we cannot but admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled that part of his functions—but there is a good deal of work in studying Bills and questions which are likely to arise which he has to do. No one else has to do that to anything like the same extent. He is constantly from day to day having to settle the main lines which his party is to take on different questions; he has to keep himself informed on all questions, not only on the Bills that come before the House but on foreign affairs as well. He cannot delegate even to his Front Bench colleagues decisions as to what line his party is to take on important matters as they arise. Looked at from a commonsense point of view—although you can say, if the Leader of the Opposition, why not X, Y, Z? —it is incontrovertible that a Leader of an Opposition is in a very special position as regards the demands on his time, a position unlike that of any other Member of the House outside those who hold the most responsible positions in the Government itself.

I am not attempting to repeat the reasons put forward by Sir Stanley Baldwin in Committee, but simply considerations which differentiate the Leader of the Opposition from other Members. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith) looked forward to a future—I do not know whether he looked forward to it or not—but predicted a future in which we would have no main Opposition party. I do not know who would get up on Thursday afternoon to ask the question about Business. He thought that we would conduct our proceedings on a different basis. I am not saying that that will not happen, or that it would not be a good thing if it did happen; all that I am saying is that it has not happened. We save a good deal of valuable energy by not trying to deal with exceptional and difficult cases before they do arise, and may never arise. If the general development of our Constitution changes and we have one central national Government going on from decade to decade and from century to century, then it may well be that we shall have to reconsider this provision in the Bill.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams

I was a strong supporter of this Clause until I heard the speech which has just been delivered. As it has had that effect on me, I had better say one or two words in defence of the principle, because this happened to be an occasion in the former stages of the Bill when the Government had anything like a decent majority and the only time on which they got appreciably over 100. It is not only that we are giving someone a new title, but that we are going to pay him for that new title. It is not unfair to see how Leaders of Oppositions look on these matters, and how they vote on such matters. We have several Oppositions in this House. One important one is represented by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He voted against this Clause. We all know that he has disappointments in life; he had one the other day. He is leader of his Opposition, and everything else in that Opposition. He is the Opposition to the Opposition. Then we have the most intellectual and forceful Opposition in this House, that represented by the four Members from Glasgow. They voted against the Clause. Then we have the leader of the least interesting Opposition, although the second largest, that section of the Liberal party who do not quite know where they are. Their leader voted against the Clause.

Mr. R. C. Morrison

Could the hon. Member tell us how the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bére) voted?

Mr. Williams

I am afraid that I cannot. My point in getting up to support the Clause is that we in this House have recognised the value of criticism for generations, the value of criticism as one of the supreme essentials of a democratic assembly. And we are laying it down in principle to-day, by giving payment to the Leader of the Opposition, that freedom of speech is a thing which we value so highly that not only the Government but the whole House will vote to maintain an Opposition in this country. We have said this officially to the whole world, and when you look across the sea to Europe and realise how completely the Oppositions are all eliminated in certain countries it is worth while having laid it down clearly in this House that we take a particular and special view of the Opposition. Although the money is a small sum, it is in the interests of the country and the House that we pass this Clause establishing the official position of Leader of the Opposition. The official position does not matter so much; it is the acknowledgment that he is there. I hope that this Clause will stand part of the Bill; it is of real value as laying down the principle of freedom of speech.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville

The speech of the Attorney-General in defence of this Clause seems to have had a peculiar effect at least on two Members. It almost converted my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) into an opponent; it certainly has confirmed me in my opposition to the Clause. One can understand why the Liberal Opposition should oppose the Clause, because envisaged in it is the assumption that there will be only two parties in this House. It assumes the continued existence of a two-party system. That seems to be the false premise on which the Attorney-General built his argument. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) pointed out with great force, it is quite possible to have more than two potential Prime Ministers, as the Leader of the Opposition has been described by the Attorney-General, and to have two Oppositions very nearly equal numerically. What is to be done in that case? You may have a fourth party which has an influence in the House out of all proportion to its size. When the India Bill was going through the real Opposition came from this side, and the total number of the opponents was something like 80. To pass a Cause which is founded on an assumption which may be perfectly false is not good legislation. It is difficult to understand the position of the Opposition in this matter. Their view with regard to Ministers' salaries is that they should be pooled but that there should be no increase. They were pooled to a certain extent, and now the Opposition have accepted an addition of £2,000 a year. They have accepted the principle of increasing the pool. This Clause is founded on a fallacy, and although I accept the decision which was arrived at in Committee I could not possibly support the Clause.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams

In spite of the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), I hope that the Government will adhere to the Clause. As I do not happen to be a Member of the Opposition I need not answer those arguments, which he addressed to the Opposition. A good Leader of the Opposition is one of the main guarantors of the freedom of this House. Every hon. Member, whatever part of the House he sits in, largely depends on the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition for his ability to have his own voice heard on various matters. I happen to remember the manner in which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) chose to describe the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) at the beginning of the last Parliament. He described him as sitting among the ruins of Socialism after failing to lead the country to that dim Utopia consisting of one vast communal soup kitchen surrounded by innumerable municipal bathing pools. Those of us who, in the last Parliament, were new to politics, could not help admiring the inspired manner in which the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley led his small band of followers.

There was one point raised by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), which has not been answered. He suggested that by accepting the salary the Leader of the Opposition and any future Leader of the Opposition would be beholden to the Government. How can that be? How can he be beholden to anybody except those who put him there? They are the ones who elect him, not the Government. A stranger listening to this Debate might imagine from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend that the Leader of the Opposition was going to be paid by the Government and not by the State. If I may refer to Lord Snowden, this seemed to me to be the mistake contained in a famous letter which he wrote against this proposal to the "Times." If the proposal is objected to on the false ground that the Government will pay the Leader of the Opposition there should be objection also to payment of any private Member on the Opposition side. For these reason I hope that the Government will adhere firmly to the Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 26.

Division No. 204.] AYES. [7.15 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Entwistle, Sir C. F. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.) Errington, E. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Adamson, W. M. Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Albery, Sir Irving Findlay, Sir E. Milner, Major J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H lsbr.) Frankel, D. Montague, F.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morgan, R. H.
Ammon, C. G. Furness, S. N. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Aske, Sir R. W. Fyfe, D. P. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Assheton, R. Gardner, B. W. Muff, G.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Gibbins, J. Munro, P.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Gibson, R. (Greenock) Naylor, T. E.
Banfield, J. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Baxter, A. Beverley Goodman, Col. A. W. Oliver, G. H.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Belt, Sir A. L. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Bellenger, F. J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Gridley, Sir A. B. Palmer, G. E. H.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Parker, J.
Blaker, Sir R. Grimston, R. V. Parkinson, J. A.
Boulton, W. W. Groves, T. E. Peters, Dr. S. J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Guinness, T. L. E. B. Petherick, M.
Boyce, H. Leslie Gunston, Capt. D. W. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Guy, J. C. M. Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Hannah, I. C. Potts, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Harbord, A. Price, M. P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Pritt, D. N.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Procter, Major H. A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Bull, B. B. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rawson, Sir Cooper
Burke, W. A. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Rayner, Major R. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Higgs, W. F. Reid. W. Allan (Derby)
Cape, T. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Cartland, J. R. H. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Cary, R. A. Heare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Ridley, G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Holmes, J. S. Ritson, J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Channon, H. Hopkin, D. Ropner, Colonel L.
Charleton, H. C. Hunter, T. Rowlands, G.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Russell, Sir Alexander
Clarry, Sir Reginald James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Cluse, W. S. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Salmon, Sir I.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sanders, W. S.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Keeling, E. H. Savery, Sir Servington
Cove, W. G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)
Cox, H. B. T. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Shinwell, E.
Cranborne, Viscount Kirby, B. V. Short, A.
Crooke, J. S. Lawson, J. J. Silkin, L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lee, F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lees-Jones, J. Simpson, F. B.
Crossley, A. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Dalton, H. Leslie, J. R. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Levy, T. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Lewis, O. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Little, Sir E. Graham- Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Day, H. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
De Chair, S. S. Lloyd, G. W. Storey, S.
Denville, Alfred Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)
Dobbie, W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)
Doland, G. F. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sutcliffe, H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Thomas, J. P. L.
Duggan, H. J. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Thurtle, E.
Dunglass, Lord MacNeill, Weir, L. Tinker, J. J.
Eastwood, J. F. Maitland, A. Titchfield, Marquess of
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Turton, R. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Marshall, F. Viant, S. P.
Emery, J. F. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Wakefield, W. W.
Walkden, A. G. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Walker-Smith, Sir J. Williams, C. (Torquay) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan Williams, D. (Swansea, E.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C. Williams, T. (Don Valley) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Watkins, F. C. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
West wood, J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Whiteley, W. Withers, Sir J. J. Mr. Cross and Captain Dugdale.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G, J. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Buchanan, G. McGhee, H. G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Ellis, Sir G. McGovern, J. Stephen, C.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) MacLaren, A. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Everard, W. L. Maxton, J. White, H. Graham
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Windser-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Remer, J. R.
Harris, Sir P. A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Holdsworth, H. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Mr. Foot and Sir Hugh Seely.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F, Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)