HL Deb 28 July 1949 vol 164 cc645-61

Clause 11, page 10, line 21, leave out (" May") and insert ("July").

The Commons disagreed to this and five other Amendments for the following Reason:

Because it is in the national interest that the securities of the iron and steel companies should be transferred as soon as practicable.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I beg to move formally, in order to reserve my liberty to make observations later, that this House do not insist on the first Amendment to Clause 11, relating to dates, to which the Commons have disagreed. This Amendment and the next five all affect the same issue.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—[Viscount Addison.]

3.57 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, with this group of Amendments we come to what Mr. Churchill, in a vivid phrase but in another connection, once called "the crunch." The purpose of these Amendments which this House inserted in the Bill has been to postpone the coming into operation of the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry until the British people have been given an opportunity of pronouncing on this particular scheme, and with them we come to the main difference between the Government and those of us who represent the Conservative and, I think, the Liberal Opposition in this House. The Government and their supporters in another place have made it clear that they cannot accept these Amendments. To us, on the other hand, they are vital, and we consider that we should stultify our whole existence as a Second Chamber if we gave way on them.

What, after all, are the reasons which the Government adduce in support of their contention that we should accept the view of another place with regard to these Amendments? Officially, there is one reason. It is that …it is in the national interest that the securities of the iron and steel companies should be transferred as soon as practicable. We do not for a moment accept that it is to the national interest, nor do we believe that that is the view of the majority of the British people; nor have the Government, throughout all these debates in both Houses, produced any facts to justify their contention. I do not want to carry this particular aspect further, for it has been fully debated on many occasions in this House. I would merely say again that no argument, economic or financial, has at ally time been produced to justify the taking of this step, at a moment in particular of grave national economic danger, whereas overwhelming arguments have been produced on the other side.

But—and this is what I want to deal with in particular this afternoon—behind this one specious official reason there are two others which, to my mind, are far more formidable, in view of the constitutional issues which they raise. The first—and this has been advanced both by the Government speakers in this House and, this week, in another place—is that the Government have already had a mandate for their scheme from tie British people, and that we are dent inching that they should obtain a double mandate. We entirely deny that. As I have already explained in the earlier stages of this Bill, it is extremely doubtful whether the Government had a clear majority of the people behind them on the issue of the nationalisation of iron and steel—on which, I would remind the Government, Liberals and Conservatives were and are at one—even at the General Election.

Moreover, even if they argue that they had such a broad mandate, it was not a mandate for this particular Bill, which seeks to nationalise not merely portions of the iron and steel industry but wide sections of the engineering industry as well. Indeed, as I pointed out on the Third Reading, the mandate for nationalisation generally at the General Election, if such a mandate existed, which I do not admit: —was a mandate to try an experiment. It was not a blank cheque. Now, the position is entirely different. The experiment of nationalisation has been tried in one great industry after another The results have certainly not come up to expectation and, in the view of many, have been disastrous. In such circumstances as those, surely it is not unconstitutional for the Second Chamber to give a chance to the people to have another look at this policy, in the light of experience, before yet another great industry, the most complicated and most vital of all, is put into the same straitjacket. I stand absolutely by every one of those words. To my mind, nothing that has been said since in another place has provided any reason for altering them in any respect.

Then there is the second argument, which was used by the Minister of Supply in another place and by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in our own debates—namely, that this House is an unelected body and that we have therefore no right, in any circumstances, to disagree with the House of Commons, even with the object of referring doubtful matters to the judgment of the people. That, of course, is only a very thinly veiled argument in favour of single-chamber Government. If, under no circumstances and for no reasons, however good, can this Second Chamber disagree with the First, why does a Second Chamber exist at all? I have always understood, and I think I have the support of most of the political thinkers of the past, that the main purpose for which the Second Chamber forms part of our Constitution is to provide the British people with a protection against hasty or ill-considered legislation as to which their views are doubtful or likely to be hostile. Our chief function, in fact, is to provide a double check in such cases as that, so as to ensure that the will of the people shall prevail.

Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the practice prevalent among householders, in these days of frequent burglaries, of providing their front doors with two locks, with different keys. That no doubt gives the householders—or they hope it does—increased protection. But if both the locks opened with the same key, the protection given would be nugatory. In this instance, the position of the British people is exactly the same. They have, in the British Constitution, provided themselves with a double protection to ensure that their will prevails. If the Government, as the Minister of Supply has said, find this double check intolerable, it can be only because the Government are unwilling to accept the judgment of the people. This is brought out in a paragraph in the Daily Herald on July 21. This paragraph states, quite briefly—I will quote the relevant portions: If the Bill went forward in its present form"— that is to say, with our Amendment— and if a Tory Government were returned to power"— in other words, if that were the will of the people— they, the Tories, could repeal it before it disturbed the private ownership of the industry. Therefore the Commons will restore the vital provisions of the Bill which the Lords have cut out. And, under the Parliament Bill, the Iron and Steel Bill can be passed, in spite of the Lords' opposition, so as to come into force on May 1, 1950, before the likely date of a General Election. What could be more frank, and what could be more cynical, than that?

No doubt the Government are perfectly right to be nervous of the reactions of the British people at the next General Election. There is steadily growing evidence that they are rapidly losing the support of the electorate. Since your Lordships last discussed this subject there has been a by-election in a working class district in the North of England—not, I understand, a marginal seat, but a seat normally considered a safe seat for Labour—and even there the Government majority fell by three-quarters. That disastrous setback—and I do not suppose it, gave any great satisfaction to members of the Labour Party —was undoubtedly in part due to the distrust and the dislike which the electorate feel for this Bill. In such circumstances I am astonished—and I think we are all astonished—that the Government should continue to force it through without any further appeal to the people whom they affect to represent. It shows an utter disregard for democratic principles—those principles which they are so very active in professing.

No doubt it is not possible for this House entirely to protect the interests of the people in this respect. The Government have not scrupled to alter the Constitution to ensure that this Bill passes into law, whatever the electorate may think. But we can do our best, and we must do our best, to see that the people are consulted; and we are quite content to abide by their verdict. What in fact is at issue here is not whether the Lords or the Commons shall prevail. It is whether the British people shall prevail; whether in a country with no written Constitution the electorate are to have any protection against violent or ill-considered action by the Executive. It is the whole proper working of the British Constitution that is involved. That being the case, my Lords, I submit that we have no option but to disagree with the other House and reinsert this Amendment in the Bill.

4.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, the other Amendments that your Lordships have been discussing this afternoon deal with particular provisions of the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Rennell, who has represented our views with so much assiduity and ability through all the stages of this Bill, has to-day expressed them on those matters. This Amendment does not deal with any particular provision, but with the propriety of the procedure that has been adopted for carrying the Bill into law. I find myself one of three survivors of the Government which introduced and passed the Parliament Act of 1911. The others are Mr. Churchill, I ant glad to remember, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. We are the only three still taking some part, of varying degrees of activity, in the politics of this later age. We are sometimes challenged to say how it is that we who were authors, alders and abettors of the Parliament Act of 1911, should now be upholding the Peers against the House of Commons. We are told that the course we are now taking is contrary to the whole purposes and intentions of the Parliament Act. That is not so. The procedure is that which was contemplated by the Parliament Act, 1911.

At that time—well do I remember those bitter and sometimes violent controversies—we were denounced with the utmost vigour by the members of the Conservative Party for being in favour of a single-Chamber Constitution. We were told that we were depriving the House of Lords of all rowers, and were creating a single-Chamber Government. The example was given that perhaps at some future time—possibly towards the end of a tired Parliament—the Government of the day might choose to introduce some measure which had never been clearly before the electorate, a measure of great and permanent importance which had no large body of public opinion behind it, and would be prepared to see it forced into law. Our answer to that was: "No, that is not our view. We are not in favour of a single-Chamber Parliament. In such a case as that we have in the Parliament Act reserved to the Second Chamber powers to intervene in precisely such a case, and to require that the Bill should be referred to the judgment of the people."

It is pleasant to think, after looking hack on all those controversies, that the Conservative Party are now issuing a very able statement of their present views on these matters. After thirty-eight years of experience of the Parliament Act, 1911, they declare themselves in favour of reform of the House of Lords, and that such a reformed Chamber should have powers—and I now quote: not exceeding those conferred by the Act of 191 1. It is very soothing to our feelings that, after full experience, they have taken so very different a view from that which they adopted at that time. It seems to me that this Iron and Steel Bill illustrates precisely the case foreseen by the Parliament Act, 1911. It is a measure introduced towards the end of a tired Parliament; it is a measure which was never clearly before the electorate at a previous Election; it is one which is of great and permanent importance, and one which has behind it no great volume of popular support. Therefore, we agree that this House should insist upon this Amendment. We are not abandoning the principles that we held in an earlier day; we are advocating precisely the procedure which the Parliament Act enacted, and which it intended that Parliament should pursue in a contingency such as that which has arisen to-clay.

I can well understand after this long lapse of rime that some people, in the interests of democracy, might urge that the Parliament Act should be made more drastic, and that the delay provided therein should he shortened. No doubt many Liberals would hold that view. But that is not the matter that we are considering now. That is the matter which was brought up under the Parliament Bill which your Lordships rejected in the course of this Session. We are faced now with the question whether we should act upon the provisions provided by the Parliament Act, 1911. I observe that in another place the Minister of Supply, who was in charge of the Bill, said that they in the Commons were being told by your Lordships' House —that this Bill may not be carried into effect unless and until the electorate have pronounced on it twice; once at the last Election and once at the coming Election. In brief, that is what the House of Lords are suggesting in this Amendment. They are demanding a double mandate from the electorate before the Bill is put into operation. But we deny altogether that this Bill was prominently and consciously before the electorate in 1939.

Can anyone honestly say that it was brought before the electorate in a manner proportionate to its importance?—that the prominence given to it was proportionate to the immense and lasting importance of this great measure for sweeping away, as it will in effect, all private enterprise in this great industry? It was not brought prominently before the electorate, and we know why. At that time there was no agreement in the Labour Party as to what kind of Bill should be produced, and some members of the Labour Party were hoping that there would be no Bill produced in this Parliament. My Lords, at the next Election the people will be made clearly aware of what is proposed to be done with this important industry, and we on these Benches have no hesitation in supporting this Motion to insist on our Amendment. In doing so, we shall be doing no more than taking steps to fulfil the very function which the Parliament Act itself intended should be fulfilled by the Second Chamber.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I—

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Would the noble Leader allow me one moment? I do not claim to speak as a member of the Government of that day, but I was a Whip in those days, and I had the task of explaining to our followers what the Parliament Act intended to do. I cannot recognise, in the presentation of the case by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, any of the essence of the Liberal case of 1911. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in his proposal, put forward a period of six-months' delay, and on that proposal the noble Viscount himself spoke.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I have challenged the noble Viscount before to produce the quotation, and he has never done so. I have no recollection of having spoken as he suggests.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The original proposal was by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and that proposal of six months' delay received support from, among other speakers, the noble Viscount himself. I do not complain that a Liberal turns into a Conservative—it is often done these days—but what I do complain of is that they should attempt to represent the same Liberal Party who fought the Parliament Act in 1911.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

May I say, in reply to that, that there was no question of a period of six months at any stage during any of the debates on the Parliament Act, 1911?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am not speaking of the Parliament Act.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

But I am!

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Having a good memory of these events, I sent my noble friend out whilst this debate was proceeding to supply me with the necessary reference, which I now have in front of me. I will give it to your Lordships in a few moments. However, before I come to the remarkable metamorphosis of Liberal opinion represented by the noble Viscount I should like to say a word on the general case put before us by the noble Marquess opposite. This is a matter which is much greater than the Steel Bill: the Steel Bill is merely the particular focus of our discussion. The claim which the noble Marquess advanced—with great frankness, and I respect that—was that when this House was of opinion that a thing should be referred back, so that the people might express their opinion again, or confirm it, if you like, at a General Election, this House was acting within its proper limits in so determining the issue.

THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY

May I intervene one moment to say that I did not say "confirm it again"? I referred to cases where the view was uncertain or might he hostile. The view might never have been before the electorate at all. That is what is so important in the majority of cases.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It is the same thing in other words; it is this House which the noble Marquess claims—this unrepresentative House, because it is an unrepresentative House; do not let us forget that—is to determine whether or not the opinion of the people is clear—this House, not elected by a soul, not responsible to a single constituent. We deny absolutely that that is the right of this House, and that is the issue between us; and it is something much more important that the Steel Bill.

Now let us come to the claim affecting this Bill put before the House by the noble Marquess, and enlarged upon by the noble Viscount, Viscount Samuel, that this Bill was not before the people at the General Election. Of course it was not; neither was the Transport Bill; neither was the Bank of England Bill; neither was the Indian Independence Bill; neither were lots of other Bills. Of course they were not. You do not put Bills in an Election manifesto, you put before the people a manifesto which gives you, or does not give, as the case may be, authority to proceed upon certain lines of policy. That is what you do, and that is what the Labour Party did at the last Election. There were no more details of this Bill in the manifesto than there were of the Transport Bill; there were just as many and there were just as few. The manifesto was intended to allow the Party to receive the authority of the people to adopt a line of policy; that is all. Of course it did not include the details of the Bill. The noble Viscount himself never in the whole course of his political career dreamed of drafting a Bill and putting it in an Election manifesto. Business is not done that way. If I may say so, that as an objection has no relation whatever to reality, and therefore I pass it by. The claim of the noble Marquess is that it is for this House to give another chance to the people; that it is this House which has to decide whether that chance should be given.

I come now to the metamorphosis which the Liberal Party have displayed, through the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, because I was very interested in those days, although I was not in the House of Commons in 1907.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

1911.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It was 1907. But I was old enough and lively enough to take an acute interest in their proceedings, and I still remember the famous Motion that was brought before the House by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I will read it to your Lordships because there is a very interesting sequel to this. His Motion was on June 24, 1907, and these are the words of it: That in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives it is necessary that the power of the other House"— that is, of course, this House— to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure"— note this— that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of The Commons shall prevail. That is much further than the Labour Party are proposing to go in the Parliament Bill which your Lordships rejected not long ago.

This Motion of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was that the view of the Commons should prevail on any Act within the lifetime of that Parliament. Under the Parliament Bill which we have introduced we are much more considerate of your Lordships' views than Sir Henry was in 1907, because we provide in the Bill (which is still alive, although at the present moment sleeping) that this House will in two Sessions—I will not go into the question about the time now; but it provides that a Bill introduced in the last Session of Parliament shall not necessarily become law if your Lordships object in that Session.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL.

Why not? We are an unrepresentative Chamber! What right have we to object !

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am not telling you what your rights are; I am telling you what is in the Bill. What is in the Bill is that in the case of this House differing from the House of Commons on any measure, it will be referred back to the Commons and there will be a second Session. In the last Session of a Parliament you cannot have a second Session, because there is not one. So the Bill that we have introduced, which provides that your Lordships should have this power, means in effect that a measure introduced in the last Session of a five-year Parliament cannot, if your Lordships object, be passed into law during the lifetime of that Parliament. That is what is in the Bill which we have submitted to the House.

Now I want to go back to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, because he went further than that—much further. He provided that it should become law within the lifetime of the Parliament.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That was never the proposal—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Allow me to go on. That is the Motion which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman submitted to the House of Commons on June 24, 1907. Now what was the noble Viscount's view of the matter? I have his speech here. He was then the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he made an eloquent and excellent speech in support of that Motion. It is Column 1003 of Hansard for June 24, 1907. The noble Viscount supported the Motion that the view of the Commons should prevail during the lifetime of that Parliament, notwithstanding anything your Lordships might do. How he reconciles his present speech with those declarations, I find it difficult to imagine.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Then perhaps I may assist the noble Viscount, if he will allow me. That was a sketch of our ideas. Four years later, when we decided what measures we should propose, we did not propose the terms of that Resolution. My change of view was that of Mr. Asquith, of Lord Grey, of all the members of his Cabinet and, I have no doubt, of my noble friend who was then Mr. Wedgwood Benn. We presented to Parliament a different scheme. By that scheme I stand, and that is the scheme which passed into law and under which this House is now proceeding at this moment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That is ingenious but not convincing, because in fact, as we all know, in the discussions on the Parliament Bill which became law, the proposal that there should be this second year—or really it went on to a third Session—was inserted in order to conciliate the Opposition, and was not part of the original proposals. The original proposal of the Liberal Party during all those years—and I myself, as an amateur, made many a speech in support of it—was to the effect that the view of the Commons should prevail but, as a concession which we make in British political life, the Parliament Bill was passed in that form., The Bill which we introduced to your Lordships' House last year, however, was to the effect that there should be a second reference, and only a second reference, to the House of Commons in the event of a difference.

That was done deliberately, in order to secure that the will of the House of Commons up to and including the fourth year of a Parliament should be carried into law during the lifetime of that Parliament. That is our view and we stand by it. That is the issue which is now before your Lordships. This complaint might just as well have been made about the Bank of England Bill, the Transport Bill and many other Bills. Why was it not? It was, no doubt, because the mandate was perhaps fresher in the mind, as the noble Marquess would say. It was, no doubt, a very diplomatic and skilful act of the noble Marquess. I cannot imagine any subject to which there was more violent opposition than the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and I myself took part in the controversy for many years. But that Bill was passed by this House—and quite rightly so—and all the prophecies of woe which were uttered in connection with that legislation have been proved to be nonsense.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Surely the noble Viscount has so manipulated the Constitution under the Parliament Bill that the Iron and Steel Bill will either stand or fall, not under the old Act of 1911, but under his Parliament Bill.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

As I said, we object to this unrepresentative House being able to sterilise two years out of live of the representative Chamber. That is the issue between us.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Oh, yes it is, and make no mistake about it. It is true that the Steel Bill happens to be the particular occasion for dispute, but the dispute is much greater than the Steel Bill. We shall never give way upon it—let that be quite clearly understood.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You do not want the people to decide.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

If the noble Marquess says that, why did he not say so with regard to half a dozen other Bills?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Because we were not sterilising Parliament—we passed the Bills.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

We dispute the right of this House to decide when the people should be consulted. Noble Lords may laugh, but we dispute the right of this House to undo the work of the House elected by the people for two years out of the five.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

For one year, you agree.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

For the last year. We have considered the point, and the interruption of the noble Viscount only shows what reasonable people we are. We do not PO as far as he did in his more violent days of 1907. That is the issue before your Lordships, and do not let us disguise it. It is true that the occasion is provided by the Steel Bill, but we stand upon the rights of the representative Chamber, and therefore we refuse to assent.

4.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, this is an occasion, apparently, when the ancient offer their recollections of what happened a long time ago, and I have listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has been good enough to say on this historical subject. I do not want to argue the matter with any heat, but really there is not the smallest doubt as to the relative importance of the two dates, 1907 and 1911, to which we are now invited to go back. It is perfectly true that, in the year 1907, after a long period when Liberals felt that their legislation had been continuously rejected by this House, the Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, proposed a Resolution which formulated—I think for the first time—a particular plan for reducing the Lords' power of absolute veto. In those days, and in earlier days, it was not altogether uncommon to move Resolutions. Mr. Gladstone did it again and again with regard to some of his most important Bills. They were Resolutions to gather opinion and then, at a later stage, in the light of all the discussions which had taken place, the Bill itself was formulated. That was done about the Irish Church Bill and many others.

But I, too, have a fairly clear recollection of this period, for I have a slight advantage over the noble Viscount in that I was in the Government when this thing happened; indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, aid I were among the Ministers whose names were on the back of the Bill. So I flatter myself that I still recall fairly accurately what happened. The noble Viscount was inaccurate when he said that no Government ever put a Bill, as a Bill, before the electorate. That is exactly what Mr. Asquith did in the second Election of 1910; and the actual language of the Parliament Act was before the people of this country at the time the Election of December, 1910, took place. That is the measure of the importance of the decision, and I do not apologise in the least. I believe that I voted for the Campbell-Bannerman Resolution. I know was intimately concerned in the framing and exposition of the ultimate Bill; and that Bill, of course, was the decision of Parliament at the time. Everybody is entitled to say now that it ought to be amended, and on a proper occasion we can discuss that opinion; but it is really quite idle to pretend that the governing factor in the event is the terms of a Resolution passed by the House of Commons on the Motion of the Prime Minister in the year 1907.

The issue is quite accurately stated when we remember that we are not discussing the Parliament Net except for the purpose that it was plainly recognised by both the supporters and the opponents of that Act that the extent to which a decision given at a General Election could be regarded as completely valid and final tended to diminish. That is the fact. Everybody knows that when the members of the House of Commons are freshly returned, the majority may fairly be regarded as representing the views of those who have returned them. But when five years—it used to be seven years —have elapsed, something more happens. People have had five years' (or seven years') further experience and have had the opportunity of seeing some of the results which have followed their action. Experience shows that another General Election often reveals a very considerable change of opinion. That change has not occurred between night and morning; it has come gradually.

That is the reason, the perfectly good, logical and constitutional reason, why we who were responsible for framing the Bill in 1910 which was passed in 1911, provided that there should be a recognition of the difference between the validity of authority at the beginning and at the end of a Parliamentary period. That is why we provided that if, indeed, the General Election repeated the authority of the previous Election, the power to carry a measure on the will of the Commons under the Parliament Act, in spite of this House, would 'he provided by a decision taken in the second Parliament, after the Election had taken place. As a mere matter of history, I would assure your Lordships that there is no doubt that that was the proposition which was accepted after two Elections in the year 1910—one in January and one in December. That was the proposition then

accepted by the people of this country: that it was right to curb the absolute veto of the Lords. To suggest that there is no essential difference between finally passing legislation at the end of the period, as compared with the beginning, is ridiculous nonsense; and, if I may say so very respectfully, I believe that the argument raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is irresistible. We are insisting on this Amendment because it is expedient that at the end of this present Parliament the people should he consulted before this tremendous measure is brought into effect.

4.35 p.m.

LORD ROCHESTER

My Lords, I want only to say in one sentence that I was in Parliament in 1907 and took part in both the Divisions on June 26 of that year, after listening to a three-days' debate on this identical issue. I submit that the issue is the same this afternoon as it was in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Resolution before the Commons on that occasion. Therefore, I should consider myself inconsistent if I did other than support the Government in a Division in this House this afternoon.

On Question, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment:

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 103.

CONTENTS
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Crook, L. Marley, L.
Darwen, L. Morrison, L.
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Douglas of Kirtleside, L. Nathan, L.
Faringdon, L. Pakenham, L.
Huntingdon, E. Foley, L. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Quibell, L.
St. Davids, V. Henderson, L. Rochester, L.
Stansgate, V. Holden, L. Shepherd, L.
Kershaw, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Adams, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Williams, L.
Chorley, L. [Teller.] Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L. Winster, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Camden, M. Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Allenby, V.
Cholmondeley, M. Howe, E. Bledisloe, V.
Reading, M. Iddesleigh, E. Bruce of Melbourne, V.
Salisbury, M. Lindsay, E. Buckmaster, V.
Willingdon, M. [Teller.] Munster, E. Camrose, V.
Perth, E. Cecil of Chelwood, V.
Albemarle, E. Portsmouth, E. Chaplin, V.
Birkenhead, E. Radnor, E. FitzAlan of Derwent, V.
Brooke and Warwick, E. St. Aldwyn, E. Hailsham, V.
Carlisle, E. Selborne, E. Harcourt, V.
De La Warr, E. Stanhope, E. Long, V.
Dudley, E. Ypres, E. Margesson, V.
Maugham, V. Carrington, L. Mancroft, L,
Mersey, V. Cherwell, L. Meston, L.
Monsell, V. Clydesmuir, L. Milverton, L.
Ridley, V. De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Monkswell, L.
Samuel, V. Denman, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Simon, V. Dorchester, L. Moyne, L.
Swinton, V. Dowding, L. Polwarth, L.
Trenchard, V. Fairfax of Cameron Rea, L.
Gage. L.(V. Gage.) Remnant, L.
Aberconway, L. Gifford, L. Rennell, L.
Ailwyn, L. Grenfell, L. Rockley, L.
Airedale, L. Harlech, L. Rotherwick, L.
Altrincham, L. Hawke, L. Sempill, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Hindlip, L. Somers, L.
Ashton of Hyde, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Stanmore, L.
Audley, L. Hylton, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Jessel, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Kenilworth, L. Swaythling, L.
Belper, L. Layton, L. Templemore, L.
Boyle, L.(E. Cork and Orrery.) Llewellin, L. Teynham, L.
Brand, L. Lloyd, L. Wardington, L.
Braye, L. Luke, L. Wolverton, L.
Brocket, L. Lyle of Westbourne, L. Wright, L.
Broughshane, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and the said Amendment insisted on accordingly.