HC Deb 18 March 1937 vol 321 cc2443-58

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after "Act," to insert: shall not come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the foreign powers at present represented on the International Committee on Non-Intervention have all taken action similar in substance and effect to the provisions of this Act, and subject to such certification. I am hopeful that the Government will accept this Amendment. In the course of the Second Reading debate the Parliamentary Secretary used these words: It is in the contemplation of His Majesty's Government that in the event of the Bill becoming law it will not be brought into force until the principal maritime countries trading with Spain have adopted similar legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1937; col. 2216, vol. 321.] That, I understand, is the intention of the Government, and that is the very short point in our proposal. I would only add that the fact clearly arises from our experience of this war in Spain that certain Powers are not to be trusted on their word only. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had to state, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), that the definite promise of one of the countries had not been carried out and that, after the agreement against sending volunteers to Spain, troops had been sent into Spain. We have objected all along to that unilateral action on the part of His Majesty's Government. We have accused the Government of having carried out unilateral action. The people of other countries have not come into line. What was in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, is contained in our Amendment, and we think that the Bill should be amended in accordance with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Cocks

I think few words are needed from me to support this Amendment. It strikes me as merely commonsense. I hope the Committee and the Government will accept it. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, there are Powers in this Agreement that we do not entirely trust. Unless the Governments of Germany and Italy pass legislation similar to this, the Bill will be more unfair, one-sided and useless than at the present time. We distrust the Italian Government, and all we can say in courtesy is that its leader seems to have a different conception of the word "honour" from that accepted in this country. As to the leader in Germany, he wrote in his book that lying was a necessary thing for a statesman. The third party we distrust is, of course, His Majesty's Government, who all through this scheme pretend to be impartial but who, under a cloak of hypocrisy, do everything they can to harm and injure the Government of Spain and to help the rebels. In fact, the attitude of the Foreign Secretary and, I am afraid I must say, of the Noble Lord who helps him, reminds me of lines written by Rudyard Kipling about quite another character: One hand upon my tress-shirt front to show my heart is clean; The other crooked behind my back to signal "Strike again. It is to prevent the Government striking again in this way that we move this Amendment.

1.42 a.m.

Dr. Burgin

I had hoped the Committee would have accepted the quite unqualified undertaking which I gave in the course of the Second Reading Debate on behalf of the Government—an undertaking which followed in terms one given in another place by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is not the intention of the Government that British ships should be subjected to the disabilities of this scheme in advance of the other principal maritime countries. It is the desire of the Government that this scheme should become effective, but that other maritime countries should come into line with this country before bringing this Bill into force, and the Government will use their best endeavours to secure that object, but they must reserve their freedom to bring the Bill into force when they are satisfied that such measures have been enacted by those countries as will secure the operation of the scheme to a sufficiently wide extent.

The undertaking given by the Government, which is categorical, is that the Bill shall not be brought into force until the principal maritime countries trading with Spain have adopted similar legislation. The Amendment which is now before the Committee goes very much wider, and suggests that legislation must first be passed by all the 27 countries; in other words, by the other 26 countries. There are a number of countries—Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Turkey—which cannot possibly be said to be principal maritime countries trading with Spain. If the object of the Committee is to see that this scheme to which the Government are now a party becomes practical and effective, it really is idle to suggest that its operation shall be deferred until the one last reluctant member has passed legislation. That really is not a practical suggestion.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will see that his words include the suggestion that all the other countries should take action similar in substance and effect. I do not know how it would be possible for us to express a judgment on the legislation of some other countries, but the substantial point I want to put to the Committee is that the Government have proposed that this Bill, when it has become an Act, should be deferred in its operation until the other principal maritime countries have come into line, but when that moment comes and it is felt that the scheme can be operated on a large scale to make it effective, they desire to have their hands free and be able then on an appointed day to bring the Act into operation.

1.43 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has been just a little bit too clever in his argument. He has observed that it is not easy or a function of this Government to judge the similarity of the legislation passed in other countries. The pledge he has given is that this legislation shall not come into operation until the other principal maritime Powers have "done likewise." What is "likewise?" Likewise is similar. Yet, he says, the Government is not in a position to judge of the similarity. Will he explain to the Committee what it is that the other principal maritime countries are expected to do, and will he explain whether a Measure of this sort, passed by another maritime country, with quite illusory penalties included in it, such as could not really have any material effect, would be considered to be "likewise" or similar? Will he also tell the Committee who are the principal maritime Powers upon whose legislation he has given a pledge to wait? Will he give us a list of the countries which must first pass legislation before this Bill will come into operation?

1.47 a.m.

Dr. Burgin

I have no possible reason for not wishing to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Scheme of the White Paper is the agreement which other countries, twenty-six in number have entered into, as we have. What penalties they think fit to adopt is entirely a matter for their sovereign legislatures. What the Governments have undertaken to do is to pass such measures as are necessary to place the captains, masters and men of their mercantile marine under the obligation to carry out the undertaking which their Governments have entered into. As to what "likewise" means, I said in the Second Reading Debate: It is our intention to implement the promise we have given by signing the international scheme, but it is our intention, when the Bill is passed, that it shall only be brought into effective operation simultaneously with the adoption of like measures by the principal maritime countries which have business with Spain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1937; cols. 2114–5, Vol. 321.] I think that is quite clear. It means that those bigger countries which do very large maritime business with Spain are to pass legislation which makes it incumbent on their mercantile marine to carry out the obligations which their Governments have accepted on their behalf.

Sir S. Cripps

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question? He has given an undertaking to the House that this legislation will not become operative until certain other countries have done certain things. Will he tell us which those other countries are? He must know, if he has given that undertaking.

Dr. Burgin

I do not think it is expedient that I should give a list of countries having the power to block the scheme. I think that would be most unwise. It is quite easy for hon. Members to see for themselves what countries have lines running to Spain and the countries which have business with Spain. It would be most unwise to say from this Box that we are proposing to hold this legislation up until countries A, B, C. D, or E—naming them—had passed some sort of legislation. That might seem to be putting powers into the hands of other countries which I do not wish to give.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Our main preoccupation, as the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, is that those Powers which have been actively helping General Franco shall not go on doing so while we are bound by legislation by which they are not bound. They are Italy and Germany; there is no difficulty about saying that. If the hon. Gentleman will tell us that his declaration means that we shall not bring this into force until Italy and Germany do the same, we shall be content; at least, I shall.

Dr. Burgin

I can give that declaration unhesitatingly. It is, of course, a very different question. That those countries must be included is elementary, but that I should name from this Box a whole lot of countries as though they might be tempted to blackball this scheme, would be unwise.

Amendment negatived.

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

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Cocks

There are two points I would like to bring to the attention of the Government. The first is in paragraph (d)—the reference to the Canary Islands. We know that the Canary Islands are exempt from the operation of the Measure. The Canary Islands are at present held down by force by General Franco, and those leaders of the Democrats who have not been shot are, I believe, interned in various prison ships in the harbour. If the Canary Islands are exempted, it is possible that certain Powers such as Italy and Germany may send to the Canary Islands and land there large quantities of arms and a large number of armed men. At a subsequent date it may be possible to transfer those arms and those men to Spain without being affected in any way by the provisions of this Measure. The White Paper says the Canaries are to be included in the future. The International Committee intend to determine the way in which supervision shall be exercised in the Canary Islands at a date not later than 31st March. That is only a fortnight hence, and I would like to ask the Government whether they can guarantee by 31st March the International Committee will have any scheme of supervision for the Canary Islands. If the Government do not give this guarantee, we shall conclude that this is only another gap in the scheme that is intended to give Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini another opportunity to conquer Spain.

1.52 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade can give some further explanation in the matters of Sub-section 3 (b). Yesterday on the Second Reading he told us it was the intention of the Board of Trade to issue such certificate as is there stated to set up a limited liability company in this country which would take over the financial obligations of the international board. As I understand the scheme of finance, it is that the funds shall be provided to the extent of the estimate of £834,000 for 12 months in a fund known as the International Fund, to be contributed to by the Government. The International Fund will be administered by the board. I presume that if any British national who is either a seaman, or master, or owner has a claim against the International Board, that will be brought against the limited liability company in the courts in this country. I am anxious to know what assets this limited liability company will have in order to meet a claim, and how a similar arrangement is going to be made say in France and other countries. Are we to have an international cartel, or simply one national limited liability company?

Mr. Noel-Baker

May I emphasise the point about the Canaries. We do feel there is a very dangerous gap there, and we do feel it is the duty of the Non-Intervention Committee to close it. I have thought over the plan and I have discussed it with friends outside the House, and I see no difficulty in that plan. I think it will be easy to adopt and quick to execute.

1.55 a.m.

Dr. Burgin

With regard to the Canary Islands, I think the position was explained quite clearly during our deliberations yesterday. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) mentioned the possibility of munitions or men being landed in the Canary Islands and subsequently being transported by other ships from the Canary Islands to the mainland. He appreciates fully that a British ship will not be able to do that, and of course he appreciates that our Parliament cannot place obligations on foreign ships not to do it. Under the scheme, British vessels would not be able to ply from the Canary Islands to the Spanish mainland. That would be a vessel proceeding to waters adjacent to Spanish territories within the meaning of Clause 1 (1) of the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker

The danger in our minds is that General Franco has ships which would do for transportation from the Canaries to Spain, and that without observers they will take arms and men to Spain.

Dr. Burgin

I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is raising. The position is one that it is necessary to come to by steps. It is quite clear that although the Canary Islands are not Spanish territory within the meaning of the prohibition of the scheme as it at present stands, although the scheme by Clause 14 admits of an Amendment to deal with it, it is not lawful at present for a British vessel to carry munitions or volunteers from the Islands to the mainland.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Not even to the Canaries.

Dr. Burgin

I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands—

Mr. Noel-Baker

Under the legislation of last December.

Dr. Burgin

I agree it may be possible under the Carriage of Munitions Act to prevent munitions being taken from a British port by British ships to the Canaries. That may well be so. This Act deals with observation carried on at sea and the Canaries are not Spanish territory as a destination under this Act. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has raised the point that here there is something lacking in the international scheme and that here there is the possibility of an evasion, and he is calling attention to the matter now so that the Government representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee may use their best endeavours to procure the closing of that gap. I am quite sure that the delegates to the Committee will be aware of this Debate and the views expressed, and that it will be one of the matters raised when discussions are taking place with a view that steps should be taken with such rapidity and assiduity as are possible.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), he has repeated the question which he asked me during the Second reading, with regard to this limited liability company that it is intended to set up. My impression is that the assets which the English limited liability company will have will be sixteen per cent. of the £834,000 during the course of the twelve months, which it will be this Government's duty to subscribe. I am not yet fully informed about the matter. The whole arrangements are still in embryo and therefore I cannot give the House full information about the forming of the English limited liability company.

Mr. Cocks

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of Sub-section (5)? Does it mean a different appointed day for different ships? Does it mean that it applies to the ships of one country at one time and to other countries at a later period? There would be a danger of it applying to British ships at one period and Italian ships at another period.

Dr. Burgin

It is a fundamental principle that this Act will not come into force until similar mercantile countries have taken similar action and therefore a date cannot be specified for its coming into law in its provisions. It may be necessary to bring the scheme into operation at short notice, and exception may be necessary for ships which have left this country and are on their way to Spain. There is nothing sinister about it at all.

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

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

2.1 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I have taken no part in the discussion so far because the House has been admirably served by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, the learned Solicitor-General and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but there is a matter of importance to which I should like to recall the attention of the House. The House will remember that earlier in our discussions the Committee had before them this consideration: the susceptibilities of Spain, with special reference to the territorial waters during the prosecution of the activities we may anticipate under this Scheme. We have considered this subject afresh, and I should like to make a categorical statement which can be put on record. The Bill imposes penalties on Masters who do not stop when summoned by a warship operating under the international agreement in waters adjacent to Spain. It will depend on the attitude of Spain whether the warships of particular nations can exercise powers in Spanish territorial waters or not. If the Spanish Government question the right of the British Government to operate warships inside territorial waters I can give an unqualified assurance that His Majesty's Government would certainly undertake not to do so.

So far as other countries are concerned, this would be a matter between them and the Spanish Government. If the Spanish Government objected and if the Spanish Government considered that a breach of the Covenant had been committed, it would always be open to them to bring the matter before the League, and it would receive objective consideration. I would, however, remind hon. Members that the international aspect of the troubles in Spain has already been considered by the Council. What did the Council do? It expressed warm approval of the work of the Non-Intervention Committee and urged it to continue its labours. I would remind the House that the Spanish Foreign Minister was sitting on the Council when this expression of view was made. This agreement is, therefore, in harmony with the spirit of the resolution of the Council. I hope that that will relieve the minds of some who were agitating about the rights of Spain.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

All of us on this side of the House will want to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the statement which he has made, which confirms the impression which I had from a fading memory on the rule of international law, that we had the power in this House to oblige masters of British vessels to allow them to be stopped by German or other vessels and to impose penalties if they did not do so, but that we had no power and no other Power had power, of legislation for Spanish territorial waters or to oblige ships to accept any action by foreign warships in these waters unless they desired to do so. We have been partly comforted, but not very far, by the discussion in Committee tonight.

On the question of publicity the Parliamentary Secretary did indeed give us some hope that the Government would press strongly with the Non-Intervention Committee for the fullest possible publicity of the reports of observing officers. I want to make a point which I was going to make on Clause 1. It is this: Whether any system of control will work or not depends on the spirit which those who are in charge of it bring to their task, and we are not satisfied that this scheme will work unless the leading Government in Europe—that is the Government of this country—brings to this work a ruthless determination to make this scheme work in the interests of the world at large. On that point we were not very much comforted by the speech which was made by the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. We have been very much disturbed by the way in which the Government dealt with non-intervention last winter. The Under-Secretary said last night that owing to the Non-Intervention Committee only a trickle of arms—I think those were his words—was reaching Spain. It seems to us that he was shutting his eyes to the patent fact. There is the witness of many journalists and of the men themselves who have been into battle, that General Franco's troops have received an immense modern armament, with which they are now martyrising the people of Spain, and we believe that if our Government had taken a much stronger line and led the Non-Intervention Committee in exposing the action of Hitler and Mussolini in giving the help they gave in flagrant violation of their own pledges on August 8th, the whole history must have been very different indeed.

Another passage of the noble Lord's speech filled me with some alarm. We are thinking of the effect of statements like these in the capitals of Berlin and Rome. He said that if the Spanish Government desired to stop the international invasion going on they could raise it in the Council of the League. We ask that the Government should, immediately, as a condition of putting this scheme into operation, raise the matter in the most vigorous possible manner in the Non-Intervention Committee, and demand that some scheme of evacuating troops from Spain should be effected, and if they fail, go to the League and proceed with the regular procedure of the League for dealing with aggression. I admit that going to the League may be called the Spaniards' job, but when the noble Lord said that we should give objective consideration to that—

Mr. Speaker

The speech of the noble Lord was made on Second Reading and I hardly think that this is a convenient matter for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I do not wish to abuse the generosity which we all greatly appreciated last night, and I will draw my remarks to an abrupt conclusion. I want to say only that we are very seriously disturbed about the spirit in which the Government are approaching this matter of control. Unless they are prepared to take a much bolder line than they have taken hitherto we do not believe that this scheme will work. Leadership from them is required, and leadership particularly in bringing about an evacuation of the foreign troops who are now in Spain and carrying out an aggressive invasion of Spanish soil. We think that that evacuation is an essential condition of any lasting scheme of control such as is now proposed. If such an evacuation is not brought about we are convinced that this control will be a temporary expedient, that public indignation will speed it away very soon, but that it will be dangerous while it lasts. Yesterday we voted against the Second reading. We did so because of the serious gaps in the scheme, because of the record of the Government in non-intervention and the spirit in which they approach this matter, and because they did not promise vigorous initiative to bring this foreign invasion to an end. We voted as a protest. I want now to say that our protest was made on Second reading. The Government mean to carry through this Bill and put the scheme into execution. The responsibility is theirs. The blame will be theirs if disastrous results follow because of the inadequacy of their action. Having made our protest, we mean, if the Third Reading is challenged, to abstain from voting.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Cocks

I confess that I take a much stronger line of antagonism to this Bill and the Government than the hon. Member who has just sat down. I was very sorry to hear his concluding remarks. After all, the Opposition challenged the Second Reading of the Bill and since then the Bill has not been altered by one comma. It is exactly the same Bill as we voted against on the Second Reading, and I see no logical reason why we should not proceed to a division on the Third Reading as well. But I do regard this Measure, although I am not acquainted with all the legislation which has been passed by this House, as one of the most mischievous, almost the most despicable and useless pieces of legislation that have ever been brought before this House. It seems to me to be part of a general scheme that has been going on in the last few months to destroy the Spanish Government, and over the bodies of the Spanish people to erect a Fascist state in Spain. Under this Bill the British Navy is to be closely associated with the navies of Germany and Italy, which have been avowedly assisting the rebels and fighting the Spanish people. Under this Bill it is possible that the Spanish Government will be deprived of the arms it needs with which to defend itself, whilst on the other hand, under the great gaps in the Bill, large supplies of arms and munitions can be poured into the rebel side, either on one coast under the useless empty guns of the British Navy, or on the other side of Spain they can actually be poured in under the loaded and shotted guns of the German and Italian navies.

I confess, when I realise that to erect Fascism in Spain would be to increase the menace to this country—for a Fascist Spain would be a great menace to our Empire and our communications and to the well-being of our country—the attitude of the Government in this country is almost inexplicable. I can think of only one explanation, that the Government or the Foreign Office are so sympathetic to Facism themselves that they prefer weakening, or risking, the British Empire rather than see the growth of democratic forces in another part of Europe. During the Abyssinian dispute—

Mr. Speaker

This has very little to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cocks

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but if it is in order might I say that I formed the opinion, after conversations with people at the Foreign Office and listening to speeches, that although the Foreign Office at the time was very sorry the Abyssinians did not make a better

Division No. 121.] AYES. [2.17a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Castlereagh, Viscount Fyfe, D. P. M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Gridley, Sir A. B.
Albery, Sir Irving Channon, H. Grimston, R. V.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Hannah, I. C.
Apsley, Lord Courtauld, Major J. S. Harris. Sir P. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Cranborne, Viscount Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. dale of Thanet) Cross, R. H. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Blair, Sir R. Cruddas, Col. B. Holmes, J. S.
Bossom, A. C. Culverwell, C. T. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Boulton, W. W. De Chair, S. S Horsbrugh, Florence
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Doland, G. F. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Duggan, H. J. Lamb, Sir J. p.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W) Duncan, J. A. L. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Bull, B. B. Emery, J. F. Leckie, J. A.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Lennox-Boyd, A, T. L.
Butler, R. A. Everard, W. L. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Fremantle, Sir F. E. McCorquodale, M. S.
Cartland, J. R. H. Furness, S. N. Macdonald, G. (Ince)

fight and give the Foreign Office more bargaining power, yet they would not do a single thing which would have the effect of weakening Mussolini's system in Italy. It seems that this is still persisting.

Mr. Speaker

Order, Order!

Mr. Cocks

I would only say that under this Bill they are sacrificing the ancient civilisation of Spain and a noble and gallant people who are rightly struggling to be free. Last night I stated my objections to this Bill. I have no intention, even if you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, of repeating those arguments. I just want to say that if there is anybody in this House who has a sense of chivalry or a feeling of fair play, who loves liberty and cherishes democracy, I ask him to vote against this Bill on the Third reading. The Spanish people are fighting for liberty and freedom against the forces of Fascism and death. Liberty and freedom are precious flowers. It is our duty to see that they are not trampled down where they are growing in the soil of Spain. I have just remembered a couple of lines written by one who was not a poet but a novelist, but was a poet when he wrote these words—John Galsworthy. He ended a poem on the subject of the partition of Persia in which, speaking of freedom and liberty, and addressing this country he said: Oh native land, let not these only flowers Of God, be desert strewn and withered now. If anybody will help me, I will divide the House.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 16.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Radford, E. A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Tate, Mavis C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Ramsbotham, H. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
McKie, J. H. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Tinker, J. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Tufnall, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Warrendar, Sir V.
Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest) Ropner, Colonel L. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Rowlands, G. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Runciman, Rt. Hon. W. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Samuel, M. R. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Palmer, G. E. H. Seely, Sir H. M. Wragg, H.
Patrick, C. M. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Peake, O. Somerset, T.
Penny, Sir G. Southby, Commander A. R. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Petherick, M. Spens. W. P. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward
Procter, Major H. A. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) and Major Sir George Davies.
Bevan, A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Westwood, J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kelly, W. T. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Potts, J. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Dobbie, W. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Gallacher, W. Stephen, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr Cocks and Mr. Buchanan.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.