HC Deb 18 March 1937 vol 321 cc2383-97

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Petherick

I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert: but it shall be a good defence for the master to prove that in such contravention or failure he was acting under the orders of the owner of the ship. If the Committee will look at Subsection (4) of the Clause, they will see that it refers to the penalties to which the master and the owner of a ship are subjected if the ship infringes the provisions with regard to the carrying of observers under Clause 1. The Amendment which I am moving has the following object: It is possible that a master may, under the orders of the owner or the charterer, infringe the provisions of Clause r and consequently be guilty of a misdemeanour which may render him liable to a penalty of two years' imprisonment, or a fine under the existing Merchant Shipping Act. I think that might be rather hard, since it would be very awkward for the master if he were ordered by his owner to take a certain course of action which would render him liable to the penalty of the law. I hope my hon. and learned Friend who will reply will tell me whether or not, under the existing Merchant Shipping Act, a master acting in that way would be subject to penalties.

9.50 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor)

I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which would indeed introduce a novelty into our legal system. Under this Bill we are creating an offence, and it would be extremely novel to say that a person would have a good defence for having committed a crime if it were shown that he was acting under the orders of someone else. The question of whether or not the master would be prosecuted is one thing, but it is impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment which would permit the master to set up a good defence by saying that he had committed the offence under the orders of somebody else. My hon. Friend asked me a question about the Merchant Shipping Act. In that Act various matters are made misdemeanours, and it would certainly not be a defence for the master to say that he had committed the misdemeanours under the directions of the owners. The answer is that one must not commit the crimes even if one is told to do so by somebody else.

Mr. Petherick

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Clause 1 of this Bill is really the crux of the whole system which it is proposed to introduce. It institutes the framework of control. I would like to say a few words in reply to the explanations given last night by the President of the Board of Trade as to how the control will work in practice. What it means in practice will depend upon the measures to be evolved and the spirit in which those measures are worked. In that connection, His Majesty's Government have a very special responsibility. They are in many senses, because they are ruling this country, the leaders of Europe. Our position at Gibraltar and the overwhelming supremacy in European waters of the British Fleet, a supremacy which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a little while ago has never been greater than at the present time, give them special authority. It is in their power, we think, to set the tone of the whole system and by their example and inspiration to control the working of the whole system from the Non-Intervention Committee right down to the last observing officer.

I think the Committee understands the actual measures which the system of control involves. We are not quite as hopeful as the Government are that the system will prove efficacious in the present situation. We do not say that because we lack good will. We want this system to work. We wish with all our hearts that it would work. What there is of the system, if I may put it in that way, is ingenious, and in some of its parts, although there are exceptions, we think it right and likely to be effective; but there are very serious gaps to which we drew attention yesterday and as to which we did not get very much satisfaction. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade held out hopes of amendment, and I thank him for what he said in that regard; but on the specific points that we raised and the proposals that we made in Amendments for closing the gaps almost nothing was said from the Government benches.

In connection with Clause 1, I want very briefly to raise two of those points again, because unless something is done with regard to them we are afraid that in practice the whole control will he a farce. These proposals are made in a constructive spirit. The first is in connection with the publicity to be given to the reports of the observing officers. It was said last night that the Bill went a very long way to lay bare the facts as they may be ascertained. That is precisely what we want, but the facts will not be laid bare if they are dealt with by the normal methods of diplomacy, and kept within the secret debates of the Non-Intervention Committee. We urge upon the Government that the weapon of publicity is incomparably the best weapon in their armour for making this system work. I know the argument that is used, that when you get a report from a British diplomatic or consular agent abroad, you cannot publish it because if it reflects on the country to which he is accredited his position is impossible afterwards. That argument does not apply in this case, because the observing officers, even the British agents who are employed, are not agents of the British Government. They are agents of an international authority and as such we think that it is both simple as well as highly desirable that their reports should be published.

The second point, to which I think nearly every speech from this side of the House drew attention, is the transfer of flag by the sale of ships to either of the contending parties in Spain after the 8th March, when the scheme was supposed to come into effect. In our view, and I think it was proved in the discussion yesterday, if there were large scale transfers of ships to either parties this scheme will be made a farce. We had two answers from the Government but, unfortunately, they were not in close accord. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said that it was an important and material point and that he hoped some arrangement could be made to meet it. We were grateful for that assurance, but one and a-half hours later the President of the Board of Trade said that there was no reason why there should not be purchases and sales of ships, and that we could not prevent them. I think that covers the case which we had in mind. It covers the case by a blank rejection. There seems to be an obscurity and difference of opinion between the two Ministers. If I have misunderstood the position, I am very glad. I hope that we shall be assured that something will be done in the Non-Intervention Committee by means of an amendment of the existing scheme at the earliest possible date, to right this serious gap.

Next, I want to mention the spirit in which the Government approach this matter of control. No system, whatever it be, can be made to work unless the most powerful nations who are trying to work it are determined to give it a fair trial, and to that end are determined ruthlessly to discover and publish the truth, whatever it may be, and to insist that the nations which have signed the agreement shall really fulfil it and carry it out. I am bound to say, however, that when I consider the new system in the light of the speech made by the Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, yesterday, my mind is full of misgiving. I will give two examples from what he said. He said that, owing to the non-intervention agreement, only a trickle of arms had reached Spain since last July.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member seems to be making either a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech; certainly one very far outside the ambit of this Clause.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I will draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion if I am out of order. I was trying to argue that this system of control cannot be made to work unless the Government bring to bear a spirit quite different from that which they have shown in the past. Perhaps I had better argue that on the Third Reading. Therefore, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with an expression of the hope that the Government will give us a promise with regard to the two specific points I have raised, namely, the publicity of the reports of the observing officers and the transfer of ships to the parties in the civil war.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

I will say only a few words on this Clause. Like the preceding speaker, I recognise that this Clause contains the crux of the Bill. My colleagues on these benches, who represent the Independent Labour party, take the view which I expressed on the Second Reading and consequently, although this Clause does contain the crux of the Bill, we feel that the Bill will not carry out what is ostensibly its purpose, Therefore, we do not intend to try to amend the Clause. We have no faith in the policy of the Government or in the good faith of the Government in this matter.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Cocks

I should like to raise one or two questions on the bearing of certain parts of this Clause. The first is in regard to Sub-section (1, c), which lays it down that if the administrator at the prescribed place finds that he has not at his disposal a sufficient number of observers he may give the ship permission to sail without any observer on board. Will the ship in question have to go to the prescribed place first, or can the administrator signal by wireless to the ship to say that it need not go there? If the administrator has power to signal by wireless to prevent the ship going in, in those circumstances, will the administrator satisfy himself personally that the ship does not carry any cargo of munitions, arms or men before he gives permission for the ship to go on to a Spanish port?

I understand from the White Paper that the number of observers is to be 550, who are to be distributed among certain ports. There are seven principal ports and a number of other ports. On an average making full allowance for the minor ports, there should be 50 or 60 observers for each of the principal ports. Suppose it happened that at Palermo, for example, the administrator suddenly found that there were only five men at his disposal to act as observers. Suppose that fact became known to the Italian administrators? What is there to prevent the Italian Government sending from Brindisi five ships, without any arms or men on board, simply to take up the available observers, so that there would be none left? After having accomplished that, they could send a whole fleet of transports from Brindisi, saying: "There are no observers here" and, without permission of the administrator, go to the Spanish port with men and munitions on board.

I suggest, therefore, first, that all ships should go to the prescribed place, secondly, that the administrator should personally satisfy himself that the ship is not carrying illegal cargo and, thirdly, that the administrator should have power to say: "We have no observers here, therefore these ships must go to Marseilles or Gibraltar before going to Malaga. They must take up an observer at one of those two places before going to Malaga." Alternatively, he might be given power in a situation like that to recruit extra observers for the time being from the non-Italian population of Palermo. What exactly is the effect of Sub-section (5, a)? Does it mean that in certain cases the owner of a ship can have a special observer of his own by paying a certain sum of money and that, having got the observer on board the ship will be able to go to Spain without entering any of the prescribed ports.

10.6 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps

This is one of the main Clauses of the Bill. So far as I can see, it is merely a piece of paper camouflage in order again to try and persuade the Committee that non-intervention, which has been proved to be a farce, is going to be made a reality. Its efficacy obviously depends on the reciprocal measures enforced in other countries. Anyone who has had experience of what those other countries have been doing must realise that the likelihood of enforcing any such measures is practically negligible. There are, however, certain explanations as regards the operation of this Clause which I should like to get from the Minister. I understand that the number of observing officers to be placed on a vessel is two or more, except in the case of small vessels or vessels in ballast, on which the number may be one. Is only one of the two observing officers to be in charge or are they to have equal parts? Are they independently to exert all the powers laid down in the Clause? Can they each cross-examine the master and the passengers in turn and do they have to agree on a report, if a report is to be made, or have they to submit separate reports as to what has happened?

The effectiveness of this Clause will depend on the sanction that lies behind its operation. The sanction might appear to be that which is in Sub-section (4); that is to say, if a ship to which this Bill applies contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions as regards taking up and putting down observers, the master of the ship will be guilty of a misdemeanour and the owner also guilty of a misdemeanour. That is only dealing with the failure to take up or put down observers. A far more important matter is failure to allow an observer when he gets on board to observe. That matter is dealt with in Sub-section (6) at the end. The only penalty for that is a fine which shall not exceed £100. If any one is sending a cargo of munitions or men to Spain, such a penalty is absolutely negligible compared with the value of the cargo and the importance of getting the men and munitions there. But a master can lock an observer in his cabin throughout a voyage and prevent his looking at any documents and the greatest fine that could be exacted in this country would be £100. One can assume that the person who ordered the ship to go to Spain would be willing to pay the £100.

Therefore, in this Bill the only sanction imposed is one so small and slight compared with the issues involved in the shipping of cargoes of munitions to Spain by such countries as Italy and Germany, that it makes the whole enforcement of the law under this Clause something which is not of the slightest value. When one comes to see what penalties other countries lay down, instead of £100 one may find 20 marks or 50 lira, and the penalties for the obstruction of the officers and preventing them from observing anything will even on paper appear to be completely farcical.

I should like to ask whether the carrying of these particular flags, mentioned in paragraph 7, is going to give a ship any protection in Spanish waters. Consider the possibility of a British ship going to Barcelona. Such a ship, as I understand it, under paragraph 7 would, when approaching waters adjacent to Spanish territory, have to display the prescribed signal. It would have to give itself away, and say it was such and such a ship. The navy guarding that part of the shore could easily identify it and, if necessary, stop it under the second Clause. Is there any object other than to make the ship easily identifiable to the naval Powers that are watching under Clause 2? Is there any other object in making the ships carry these prescribed signals? Will it give any protection to have an observer on board and carry prescribed signals? Will it help against General Franco's cruisers or against Italian cruisers sinking ships in that particular part of the sea?

10.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin)

The Com- mittee will understand that the scheme of observation and control which this Bill is designed to implement must necessarily be brought into operation by a series of stages. I would commend to the attention of the Committee paragraphs 44 to 48 of the White Paper all of which will be found on page 18. Such questions as the number of observers required, the ports at which they will be distributed and the method of moving round from time to time must, in order that the scheme should be practicable, be subject to experience gained in the early stages. The Committee will see from paragraph 49 that the total number of officers is 685. The figures are exclusive of chief administrators, administrators, deputy-administrators and their personal and administrative staffs.

I want the Committee to understand that we are passing a piece of legislation which is machinery, and that the machinery will only come into force subject to certain conditions which we will discuss when we come to the appropriate Clause. The Government appreciate the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on this Clause. They appreciate his observation that the Opposition desire that this scheme should work, and approve of those parts of it which are in their view likely to be effective. We have a common object in mind. We desire that this scheme should be effective. We consider it a considerable achievement that representatives of 27 nations assembled here in London should be able to cover so much ground and subscribe to so much detail as is contained in the White Paper. If experience shows that there are points which have not been taken into consideration, certainly it will be the object of the Government, as no doubt of the Governments of the other maritime Powers, to see that the necessary amendments are made in the scheme.

The hon. Member for Derby raised two substantial points. One is the question of publicity, and the other the question of the transfer of vessels registered under one national flag to another national flag. With regard to the first, the attitude of the Government is that as much publicity should be given to these reports as the nations themselves agree to give. We are prepared, as a Government, to go as far as the general consensus of opinion of the Non-Intervention Committee may permit one to go, with regard to publicity. We appreciate the value of the weapon of publicity but we cannot, for the moment, go further than the international agreement. It is not possible to take unilateral action under an international agreement. It may be said that in view of the case which has been made out, one nation ought to put forward the point in the Non-Intervention Committee. That is a matter of argument and opinion, but it is not possible in the passage of legislation through the House of Commons, to give undertakings to go further than the other parties to the agreement, are prepared to go. What I say to the Committee now is that we join with the Opposition in desiring that publicity should be given to these reports. We welcome the suggestion and will go as far as the other nations will permit, and that, I think, is an assurance which the Committee would desire to have.

Mr. Noel-Baker

We appreciate that this is an international service working on the orders of an international committee and that Great Britain alone cannot require publicity to be given to the reports. What we would like to hear from the Government is that they intend at the very next meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee to propose automatic and immediate publicity for all observers' reports, that they will urge it with all their power, and will make it known publicly that they have done so in order that those who oppose it may take their responsibility.

Dr. Burgin

I understand what the hon. Member is asking. Whether precision of that kind is the best method of attaining the object which everybody has in view I beg leave to doubt, but it is the Government's desire that the value of publicity in regard to these reports should be secured to the maximum measure possible. As far as I know, that statement by a Government spokesman at this Box, carries with it implicitly the intention of raising this matter at the appropriate time in the Non-Intervention Committee. I do not think it is reasonable to ask that it should be done on a particular day at a particular hour, at a particular meeting. I do not think that is the way in which international agreement is procured. But that is merely a detail. Surely the Committee will be satisfied by the welcome which has been given by the Government spokesman to the very proper remarks made from the Opposition that value should be attached to the publicity of the contents of a report. I think on that matter we see eye to eye, that the weapon of publicity ought to be used.

With regard to the transfer of vessels from one flag to another, that difficulty is realised, and there is no inconsistency between the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on that point. Both spokesmen recognise that this is a possible loophole, and the way to deal with a loophole in the administration of a practical scheme is to consider with your experts what is the effective method of blocking that particular gap. It is not a simple matter to provide that the laws of a great many countries shall be so amended that there shall not be a freedom to change the national flag of a ship by a transfer from one register to another. That is not a simple matter. It cannot be done unilaterally or by the legislation of any one country. It can only be done by international agreement. The Committee is entitled to the assurance, which was given in the Second Reading Debate, that this point is known to His Majesty's Government. Steps are being taken to consider what is the effective and practical method of solving it, and I give the Committee an unhesitating assurance that that matter is receiving detailed consideration. I cannot go further than that. I cannot say that agreement will be secured from the 27 countries as to what is to be done. I can only express the hope that a solution will be found, and to that extent I welcome the discussion which has taken place this evening. I welcome the attention which has been called to the point because if a gap in a scheme of this kind, which is intended by 27 countries to be an effective scheme, is called to the attention of the Non-Intervention Committee, it is far more likely that a sensible solution will be found than if attention had not been called to it.

The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) raised a question of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause. I endeavoured on the Second Reading to explain the necessity for that paragraph being included in the Bill. It all flows from the experimental character of this scheme and from the necessity of being called upon to bring it into operation as soon as other maritime countries have seen their way to adopt it. It may well be that there will not, at the moment of its coming into operation, be precisely the number of observation officers we would wish at each of the prescribed ports. In these circumstances, the chief administrators may give instructions to administrators at any particular ports that they should notify shipping that the number of observation officers is not available. It is not in contemplation that the vessel itself should put into a port where observation officers are not to be found. The Board of Trade, guarding the interests of legitimate traders, the merchants, charterers, shipowners and seamen engaged in lawful voyages, carrying lawful cargoes, have a duty to see that we do not impose undue restrictions and obligations on those passing by sea in the lawful course of their business. So where an administrator sends by wireless, or other approved method, to a vessel—it may be before she sails—that there is no point in her calling at a particular port, because if she does there will not be observation officers there to embark upon her, he may exempt that vessel on that particular voyage from the obligation of calling at that port. That does not necessarily mean that the vessel is completely franked from complying with the whole of this Clause. It means that she is absolved from the particular obligation to call at that particular port. That is all it means, and that surely is a practical arrangement.

Sir S. Cripps

Surely what it says is that it shall exempt the ship from the provisions of that Sub-section while on a voyage on which she is thus engaged, and that means that she need not call anywhere.

Dr. Burgin

I do not think it is going to mean that in practice.

Sir S. Griggs

But that is what the Act will say.

Dr. Burgin

I think my view is right: that what will happen is that she will not be obliged to put into that prescribed port. I was asked about the duties of observation officers. I should imagine they will all have equal powers and have independent rights and that the position is as the hon. Member for Broxtowe fore- shadowed, but in point of fact their duties will be assigned to them by the chief administrator. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked whether there was any object in a vessel being obliged to display flags otherwise than to enable the naval vessels to determine the more easily that she had complied with the provisions of this legislation. I think the object is a little wider than that though it would show to all and sundry that she has complied. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in his interpretation of the Sub-section as to penalties. I do not in any way dissent from his reading of the Clause, but I do dissent from the suggestion that the penalty of £100 is so derisory that owners or masters of British vessels are going to stand convicted in a public court of a misdemeanour for offending against a law which is to implement—[Interruption.] Well, I do not know how the hon. and learned Member would describe it. We can call it a statutory offence if he prefers that; but I cannot believe that when the United Kingdom is a party to an international agreement implementing a policy of non-intervention the owners and masters of British vessels will lightly subject themselves to penalties recoverable in a police court for committing offences against the provisions of that law, and although the penalty is £100, the shame of condemnation would be as great as in the case of a higher penalty.

10.28 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

The hon. Gentleman has not got the point. This is a Bill which is intended to be similar to enactments introduced in other countries. This being the first of those enactments, other countries can measure their obligations under the international agreement by what we say in this Bill. Does any hon.

Member imagine, in the case of an Italian ship, that the terror of being fined the equivalent of £100 in a police court or whatever it is called in Rome, will deter the master of that ship from taking a load of munitions to Spain if Mussolini tells him that he ought to do it? It is perfectly farcical. Compared with the urgency of the matter and the value of the cargo, a fine of £100, or its equivalent in the currency of another country, would have no deterrent effect at all if the Government of that country favoured sending the ship with munitions to Spain.

As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), the Parliamentary Secretary said that paragraph (c) did not mean that the ship would be exempted from observation during that journey, but I would suggest that he made a mistake in so informing the Committee. The proviso says that if there is not a sufficient number of observing officers available for embarkation, the ship shall he exempt from the provisions of this Sub-section, while on the voyage on which she is engaged. This Sub-section is the only part of the Measure that makes it necessary for a ship to carry an observing officer, and a ship which is exempt from this Sub-section has no liability put upon it by any part of the Measure to take up an observing officer at any time. Therefore, once the ship was exempted, it would be impossible for the administrator to say: "You must call at another port instead." Once there is a failure at the port at which the ship calls to have an observing officer present, the ship becomes automatically franked for that voyage.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 32.

Donner, P. W. Leckie, J. A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Leech, Dr. J. W. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Duggan, H, J. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Ropnor, Colonel L.
Duncan, J. A. L. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Loftus, P. C. Rowlands, G.
Emery, J. F. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. MoCorquodale, M. S. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Salt, E. W.
Everard, W. L. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Samuel, M. R. A.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Seely, Sir H. M.
Furness, S. N. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ganzoni, Sir J. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Simmonds, O. E.
Grant-Ferris, R. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Somerset, T.
Granville, E. L. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Southby, Commander A. R J.
Gridlay, Sir A. B. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Spens, W. P.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Grimston, R. V. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Gritten, W. G. Howard Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Gunston, Capt. D. W. Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) Tate, Mavis C.
Guy, J. C. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Hannah, I. C. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Munro, P. Tinker, J. J.
Hartington, Marquess of Nail, Sir J. Turned, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Turton, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Wakefield, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Holmes, J. S. Palmer, G. E. H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Horsbrugh, Florence Patrick, C. M. Warrender, Sir V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Peake, O. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Hulbert, N. J. Penny, Sir G. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H. Petherick, M. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Hunter, T. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Plugge, Capt. L. F. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Keeling, E. H. Radford, E. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Ramsbotham, H. Wragg, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Rankin, Sir R. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Kimball, L. Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Rayner, Major R. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Latham, Sir P. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) and Captain Hope.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Dunn, E. (Rothar Valley) Oliver, G. H.
Batey, J. Gallachor, W. Ritson, J.
Brooke, W. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hardie, G. D. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Buchanan, G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Stephen, C.
Cassells, T. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cove, W. G. Kelly, W. T. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Daggar, G. Lunn, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Maclean, N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Maxton, J. Mr. Cocks and Mr. Bevan.
Dobbie, W. Milner, Major J.