HL Deb 11 July 1960 vol 225 cc30-46

4.3 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Conesford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Restriction of operation on highways, etc., of loudspeakers

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a loudspeaker in a street shall not be operated—

  1. (a) between the hours of nine in the evening and eight in the following morning, for any purpose;
  2. (b) at any other time, for the purpose of advertising any entertainment, trade or business;

(3) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker if the loudspeaker—

  1. (a) is fixed to a vehicle which is being used for the conveyance of a perishable commodity for human consumption; and
  2. (b) is operated solely for informing members of the public (otherwise than by means of words) that the commodity is on sale from the vehicle; and
  3. (c) is so operated as not to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity.

LORD MILVERTONmoved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Bill, reading the first lines of the Long Title, is described as: An Act to make new provisions in respect of the control of noise and vibration with a view to their abatement. But, as I see it, Clause 2 (3) has nothing to do with the abatement of noise: it is opening the door to a licensed increase of it. Long before the Noise Abatement Bill became a possibility, complaints had been received all over the land by local authorities about the use of chimes and gongs and other similar mechanical instruments by itinerant ice-cream vendors, and by other kinds of travelling salesmen. These chimes are used to indicate to the neighbourhood that the salesman is in the vicinity, and no doubt helps to advertise the goods he wishes to sell.

Some local authorities have obtained provisions in local Acts which are very similar to Clause 2 of the present Bill, but I understand that in most, if not all, there is no exemption in favour of travelling salesmen similar to that which is contained in this subsection (3). Examples are the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1949; the Wolverhampton Corporation Act, 1950; the Nottingham County Council Act, 1951; the Swindon Corporation Act, 1951; the Glamorgan County Council Act, 1952; the Preston Corporation Act, 1952, and the Winchester Corporation Act, 1952. Other local authorities have found it possible to control the use of these chimes by making by-laws for the good rule and government of the borough under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933. The decision of the provincial court in Raymond v. Cook, 1958, 3 All England Reports 407, shows that effective enforcement action can be taken under these by-laws, though in future it would clearly be better for matters of the control of noise to be dealt with under the Noise Abatement Bill.

Surely, therefore, it is regrettable that it has been found necessary to include in the Bill an exemption of this nature. I am informed that the chimes are audible for anything up to half or three-quarters of a mile, and that when more than one ice-cream salesman is operating, the noise tends to be almost continuous. As I have mentioned, many local authorities already possess powers to control this nuisance, and I suggest that it would be clearly a retrograde step for local authorities to find their existing powers weakened by a Bill which purports to be strengthening existing legislation.

Furthermore, it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that the Minister may secure the repeal of existing local Acts under Clause 3 of the present Bill, a matter to which the local authorities concerned would certainly take great exception. I have received many letters from boroughs all over the country who are extremely alarmed by this subsection, and who foresee that their powers of controlling noise are going to be undermined by it. Perhaps I may quote from one letter from the borough where I live, Maidenhead. The letter says: In Maidenhead much has been done, with the co-operation of the Principal companies selling ice cream in the area, to mitigate noise and nuisance from vans, but if the existing control contained in the by-laws for good rule and government were weakened, as is now proposed in the Noise Abatement Bill, my Council would certainly find it difficult to do so in future. There is the reason why I feel that this subsection has no place in a Bill the purport of which is stated in the long title, which I have already read. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Milverton.)


I desire to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite. My own district does not seem to be infested with these instruments of cruelty, but representations have been made to me by the Borough Council of Greenwich, who are seriously concerned at this exemption, which they think tends to defeat the purpose of the Bill.


I regret that in this instance, while recognising the strong case put forward by my noble friend Lord Milverton, and also that the Association of Municipal Corporations support the Amendment, I feel that the Amendment goes a little too far and leaves out consideration of what is in the clause about nuisance. As your Lordships are aware, the ice cream industry is carried on under strict supervision by statutory rules and orders given effect to by the local authorities in order to ensure that the product is both pure and wholesome. I think we must realise that the ice cream vendor is a necessary part of the industry and renders a useful service—and I am putting on one side for the moment any question of nuisance or anything of that kind. I would call attention to the fact that, while chimes are permitted in the Bill, if the chimes were operated so as to cause a nuisance to the public, it would be an actionable offence and the offender or offenders would be liable to prosecution. I venture to suggest that this is a reasonable and realistic approach to a way of life in the ice cream industry which has grown up over a number of years. Incidentally, if this Amendment were carried a number of men would probably be deprived of a livelihood—though on that point I would not be dogmatic.

The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in moving the Amendment in the very reasonable way we have come to expect from him, mentioned that in Maidenhead there was co-operation between the industry and the local council. That is an important point. I would suggest that if, when this Bill becomes law, there were any increase in nuisance, there is always a way—in addition to the powers which the Bill will give to the local authorities to take action—of dealing with these people; and that is to report them to the federations. The federations are fairly well organised, and I feel sure that they will take every step to abate the nuisance. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that in another place this clause and the subsection which the noble Lord seeks to delete were accepted after full consideration. I hope that it will be accepted as a reasonable compromise; and I commend it to your Lordships.


I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Milverton, to the utmost of my ability. This noise, of which I have had personal experience, constitutes a real abuse. When I say "I have had personal experience", I am thinking of the time when my children were young enough to have to go to bed early and were constantly disturbed by the noises of these ice cream vendors. And this does not apply only to children. I am speaking now largely because of experience in the Royal Borough of Kensington, which is mainly a residential area, and, in particular, North Kensington, where there are a large number of shift workers—and this argument should appeal to noble Lords opposite—who have to get their sleep during the day. These ice cream vendors do make (if your Lordships will excuse the phrase) a most infernal noise, and do keep children awake. I freely admit that my children have now got beyond that stage, but I can say the same about my grandchildren who have got to the stage where they have to sleep. They should not be deprived of their sleep any more than the shift workers should be deprived of theirs; and they are being deprived of their sleep during the day. I earnestly hope that this Amendment will be accepted.


I, too, should like to support this Amendment. This matter, of course, is in no sense a Party matter, and I hope that noble Lords will feel free to take any line which they feel they ought to take. The matter was discussed in another place (your Lordships may have read about it, or may have been there, as I was), and it there sums to have been left in the air. My particular objection is one of principle. I do not see why one type of tradesman should be given an exception that others do not have. What is behind this? How is it that the ice cream people have managed to get inserted into a Bill in Parliament something to protect their own industry which is not given to any other industry? Why should not a man who is selling mouse-traps or old clothes advertise the fact with a bell? What about the detergent people? They make the most frightful noises in my ears on the television. Why should they not be excepted? Can we not expect them to come round and ask for a special clause to be put in the Bill? I object to this exception on a matter of pure principle: that I do not think one person should get what others do not have. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will test the opinion of the Committee by taking this Amendment to a Division.


I, too, should like to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and to say that I entirely agree with every word my noble friend Lord Rea, the Leader of the Liberal Party here, has had to say on this matter. I have had representations made to me by local authorities. The Council of Cardiff, for example, are very worried about this clause. Cardiff is a town with a great many shift workers, where people have to try to sleep by day, as well as by night. I cannot see why this particular clause has been inserted, and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will test the opinion of your Lordships. In that case, I shall be pleased to follow him into the Division Lobby.


I really have nothing to add except the name of a new witness. Others have spoken about a town and about Kensington and so on: I am speaking on behalf of the ancient borough of Maldon, in Essex. They write to me to say that the children cannot sleep at night for this noise, and the shiftworkers (because the people there work in shifts) cannot get their rest. They further say that the matter is quite adequately dealt with—they have never had a prosecution or any trouble—under the by-law. Therefore it seems to me that this subsection, which is an extraordinary thing in itself, should have no place in the Bill.


This is a non-Party measure and therefore one on which I am justified in saying a word. I have two questions to ask, one of which has already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Why should one business be preferred over another in regard to the making of noise? I hope my noble friend will answer that question. The other question is a simpler one. These ice cream vendors make a very deafening noise, and my second question is: Why should one infernal noise be preferred over another? I hope that that question, too, may be answered.

4.18 p.m.


I have to answer a formidable barrage of questions. I hope to satisfy the Committee that some of them are based on a misapprehension of the effect of the Bill, both as it stands and as it will stand, if the later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Taylor, and myself is adopted. Let me say at once, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that as a result of the passage of this Bill into law, even without the subsequent Amendment which I hope will be adopted, nobody is going to be any worse off: no noise at present prohibited will be permitted. Let me repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate: that the subsection we are now discussing is the only matter on which there was an important difference of opinion in another place and on which it is clear there is some difference of opinion here. With a great deal of what has been said about this particular noise. I think I should find myself with the majority. Nevertheless, I wish to put before the Committee certain reasons for thinking that between the two views—first, that there should be total prohibition of these chimes and, secondly, that there should be limitation—the second view is that which we should be wise to adopt.

Let me put three main considerations before the Committee. As the Committee are aware, the general scheme of this Bill is to enact in an improved form, and for the benefit of the whole country, what is already in force in many districts under local Acts. The exemption which my noble friend Lord Milverton would delete is to be found in a number of local Acts, in clauses on the lines of Clause 2 of this Bill. It has, in fact, appeared in all such clauses since the year 1954. In that year a Brighton Corporation Bill came before Parliament. As a result of a Petition on Mast Bill, the matter was considered by the Committee before whom that Bill came, and musical chimes were played in Old Palace Yard so that the Committee should have the benefit of actual experience. The Committee, after hearing the evidence, decided that there were reasonable grounds for exempting them. The Home Office who advise these Committees on these matters concerning noise had previously always left the question to the Committee. Since that date, the Home Office have taken no departmental view, but have drawn attention to the decision on the Brighton Corporation Bill. Since that date, as I have said, this particular exception has been put in all such clauses. That then is the decision of Parliament in a number of Bills, and it is the general scheme of the present Bill to make universal in improved form what already exists in so many local Acts.

Now let me come from what Parliament has previously done to the point which I know is in the minds of all noble Lords who have spoken—that is, the merits of this particular exemption. Let me invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that rather different considerations apply in urban areas, where these chimes have in the past given rise to a great many complaints, and in rural areas where in many cases people find it quite useful to know when the travelling shop or the ice-cream seller is in the area. The fact that there is that difference in the views of the public in urban areas and rural areas does not mean, of course, that it is undesirable to control these noises. But it does mean that by-law control, area by area, is more appropriate than universal prohibition. Many noble Lords have imagined that satisfactory by-law control is going to be adversely affected by the passage of this Bill into law. That is not so. If noble Lords will look at Clause 4, they will see that the by-law making power is completely preserved. No by-law against noise will be adversely affected by the passage of this measure, nor will it be at all impossible, after this measure is passed, for a local authority to ask for and obtain a by-law with the approval of the confirming authority that goes further in its prohibition than this Bill.

There are such by-laws in force, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned. These by-laws are quite unaffected; and if the Bill, as I advocate it, becomes law, while there will be some universal limitation by the terms of the clause. there will be nothing adversely to affect an existing by-law, and nothing to prevent a by-law from being made in any area where a by-law does not at present exist.


My Lords, my point was merely this. This borough wrote to me and said that they had secured all their ends by means of a by-law. In that case, why make an Act?


I will come to that later, but that is a totally different point from that which was put to me by every other noble Lord. Every other noble Lord has said that this exemption is making things worse. I am pointing out to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that people who have a satisfactory by-law will still have that by-law, and it will be quite unaffected by the provision we are now discussing.


My Lords, did the noble Lord say that since 1954 none of these by-laws have in fact been allowed by the Parliamentary Committee? Did I understand him to say that?


No. I was not dealing with by-laws there at all; I was dealing with clauses in Bills.


The bylaws are passed as a result of the clauses in the Bill.


No. A by-law is passed under a totally different and much earlier Statute, which I mentioned on Second Reading. The main Statute is the Local Government Act, 1933. I set out all the provisions in my speech on Second Reading, and I did not wish to weary the Committee by repeating them. If I might resume, the by-law-making power is wholly unaffected. The existing by-laws stand, and new by-laws more stringent than the provisions we are now discussing can be made.

There was one point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Milverton which was, I confess, the only point which had troubled me about the possible effect of this Bill. As my noble friend has said, there are some local authorities—I think there are about six—which obtained total prohibition before the Brighton Corporation Act to which I referred. Their total prohibition will not be abrogated by the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, I did consider—and it is only fair that I should tell my noble friend Lord Milverton, because I drew his attention to Clause 3 of the Bill—whether there was any risk, after the passage of this Bill into law, that any of these local authorities which had obtained a total prohibition would have that total prohibition repealed as unnecessary by the Minister under Clause 3. Frankly, I regard that as the most remote possible risk, because I do not think that such a repeal is politically practicable. Clause 3 says: The Minister may, after consultation with any local authority appearing to him to be concerned, by order made by statutory instrument repeal any provision of any local Act which appears to him to be unnecessary having regard to the provisions of this Act. … Considering that this clause is only permissive, and that he has to consult the local authority, I thought there was not the remotest risk of a repeal of any of these clauses cited by my noble friend Lord Milverton under that clause. Nevertheless I did inquire, and I can give an assurance that the Minister would not take the view that local Act provisions prohibiting chimes altogether should be repealed as unnecessary under Clause 3, and I have no doubt that the Government spokesman will, if asked, confirm that undertaking. But in any event, as I say, it is, in my view, the remotest possible contingency.


Would the noble Lord forgive me? One of the Private Acts which has been referred to is concerned with the ancient City of Winchester, and that is why I ventured to take part in this discussion. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider putting down on Report stage an Amendment to Clause 3 which will provide for the assurance he has just given.


Needless to say, that request coming from the source that it does, I will undertake to give it the most careful consideration. I agree with my noble and learned friend that, if it were desirable to deal with that matter in this Bill, it is by amendment of Clause 3 that we should deal with it. I cannot give an undertaking that it will be done, for this reason (I want to be quite candid with my noble and learned friend): Clause 3 as it stands has so much precedent in other Statutes that I am not certain how far the legal authorities advising the Government will think it appropriate to vary the form in this particular Bill. Nevertheless, I shall certainly consider that. As I say, I think thede factorisk is non-existent.

I have dealt with what has been done in previous Statutes. I have dealt with the reason why, in my submission, it is more appropriate to deal with this matter by by-law control than by complete prohibition, which would be the effect of passing this Amendment. Now I would come, if I may, to what I regard as the most important point of all. That is what happened in another place on this particular Bill. Here noble Lords in all quarters will realise that this is not a matter for which I or any other noble Lord here has any sort of responsibility, but the facts are most relevant to our decision on this Amendment.

On May 27 of this year this matter was considered in another place on the Report stage, and it came before them on two Amendments, one by Sir Leslie Plummer, who desired the deletion of the subsection, exactly as the present Amendment proposes, the other by the promoter Mr. Rupert Speir, who wished for a further limitation of hours, though not precisely the same limitation of hours for which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I are going to plead in a later Amendment. There was considerable discussion on those two Amendments. As a result of that discussion both Amendments were withdrawn on Mr. Speir's undertaking to look further into the question and to seek to bridge the opposing views. He was going to seek a compromise reasonably satisfactory to all. That has been done, and that compromise is embodied in the Amendment which will later be moved, if the Committee adopt my advice and reject the present Amendment, or, bolter still, if my noble friend thinks fit not to press it.


If I may intervene, would the noble Lord explain what he means by "acceptable to all"? I gather that it was left in the other place, with a very thin House, very few Members present; and it was said "After all, the matter will be sorted out in their Lordships' House".


I am sorry. If I said, "Acceptable to all", it was, I agree, a careless phrase. It is quite obvious that we cannot get anything universally approved. But I thought the Committee followed me to this extent: it is quite clear that the next Amendment will be agreeable to those in the other House who took the view that is to-day put forward by my noble friend Lord Milverton. If the Amendment at present before the House is not pressed, or is negatived, and the subsequent Amend-meta of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor and myself, is accepted, there is, in my submission, no doubt whatever that another place will accept that later Amendment. I can give no assurance at all to the Committee that, if the present Amendment were adopted, that would be agreeable to the majority in another place.

If this matter came before the Committee in May, I should not take this point. But the Committee will realise that at this date in the Session—and, of course, we have not yet had the Report stage and Third Reading—if the Bill had not only to return to another place but, on possible rejection of the present Amendment should it be adopted by this House, had to come back to this House, then cannot conceal from the Committee the fact that this Bill would be very likely to be lost. I ask noble Lords, whatever their view on the merits of this particular Amendment—and I do not deny for one moment that I have myself some sympathy with the idea that there is a lot to be said for stopping some of these things altogether—to believe that the general balance of argument which commended itself to another place, and which I hope will commend itself to this House, should lead us to seek the maximum consent we can if this Bill is to pass into law.

I ask noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, to consider whether it is worth while to place in jeopardy all the gains of this Bill, not only Clause 1 but even the gains in this matter of control of the ice cream seller. In this particular matter nobody is going to be worse off as a result of the Bill, but the whole of the country will have, even under the Bill as it stands, a great many hours in which the chimes cannot be used and by the Amendment to be moved later they will have a great many more hours still. My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds asked why I think a particular trade should be exempted. Well, we have been mainly talking about ice cream, but it is not limited to that trade. The words are. conveyance of a perishable commodity for human consumption". Any trade that falls within those words will have the benefit of this. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, asked me about particular noises. There I think he has more experience than I have, because I cannot say that I am familiar with them. But I ask him to notice the words of subsection (3) (c) stating the limitation that the loudspeaker must be so operated as not to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity. For all those reasons, because the scheme of the Bill is to embody provisions already made by Parliament under private Acts in the case of various local authorities, and this exemption has been granted in many cases, because the matter can be more suitably dealt with by by-laws, and can continue to be so dealt with after this Bill is passed into law; and finally, because of what took place in the House of Commons, and the fact that we should be endangering the Bill altogether if this Amendment were carried, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment, and in any event that the Committee will not accept it.

4.40 p.m.


The noble Lord who has just spoken would have made his case very much better if he had left out the third argument—namely, that we should not exercise our judgment in this House, which we are charged to do, because of something that happened in another place or because of the timetable. I am really shocked. This is something about which I have complained over and over again: that we get a Bill here so late that we have to take it and swallow it as it stands or run the risk of its not being passed into law. For myself, I refuse to be blackmailed into accepting a position of that kind. I do not think it is even true. I think the other place can compromise just as we can. If they want the Bill they can accept our Amendment, and the shoe fits just as much there as it does here. Moreover, this Bill need not go through by July. There would still be time if it were passed after we come back from our holidays.

I listened most carefully to the legalistic legal explanation of the noble Lord, and for the life of me I cannot understand what is the point of having this clause in the Bill at all. It will still be open to local authorities to make by-laws if they want to. But it should not be an open invitation to people. The noble Lord says that it does not necessarily refer to ice cream merchants; but I should like to ask any child of six to read these words and to guess to whom they refer. Any child with an "I.Q." of at least 70 would get the right result. The position would be that if this clause were not in the Bill at all, local authorities could still make by-laws to regulate noise and to set out the times of the day when noise if you must have it, would be permitted and when it would not be permitted. This distinction between an urban district and a rural district is highly artificial. It is just as much a nuisance to people living in the country who like to have a little rest on a Sunday afternoon as it is to people living in towns. This distinction is entirely fallacious. I hope that the noble Lord will "stick to his guns" and show the independence of this House, so that we can stand up to this ice-cream menace.

4.44 p.m.


I think that this is the most extraordinary debate that I have ever listened to. First of all, almost none of the noble Lords who have been attacking this Bill were here on Second Reading, and noble Lords do not know what the story is. They do not, or at least they may not, know, or they have not shown any evidence of knowing, that the Government have set up a Committee to investigate noise —and a very good thing, too! One of the least objectionable noises which the Government are investigating, and which this Bill is dealing with, are these ice-cream bells. There are millions and millions of people under the age of fifteen who are in favour of ice-cream bells. My children are in favour of ice-cream bells, and so, I should think, are the majority of children all over Britain. I personally am in favour of street criers. I think it is a great tragedy that they have gone. I think we are behaving like a lot of old fogies in trying to get rid of ice-cream bells.

But there is a legitimate grouse about these bells—namely, the need for rest of the shift worker. The shift worker has a reasonable cause for grumbling if he is woken up by these bells in the morn- ing To deal with this, and if the Committee do not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, an Amendment will be moved quite shortly to limit the sound which ice-cream bells make during the morning. Indeed, it will cut out the ringing of ice-cream bells during the morning, which is the time when most shift workers are sleeping. I think that that is a most reasonable sort of Amendment, and I suggest that it would provide a reasonable compromise. I am sure that the next Amendment will be acceptable both to another place and to the local authorities, because I, too, have had letters from local authorities saying that they would like to support the Amendments both of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton and myself—regardless of the fact that they are mutually contradictory. I do not think that they have really studied the matter carefully. I think your Lordships will find that the subsequent Amendment really makes this into quite a useful Bill because we can get rid of all sorts of unpleasant noises, and it meets in a compromise manner the needs of a reasonable trade reasonably carried out, and the needs of the shift worker as well.


I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will stick to his Amendment. Having listened most carefully to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I feel that if the subsequent Amendment is accepted it will not deal with two points which have been raised this afternoon, first of all with the sleep of the shift workers. These people sleep at all times of the day, and not necessarily between early morning and midmorning. Night nurses and such people have to sleep when they can get it. That Amendment does not meet that point. Neither does it meet the point, in spite of what the noble Lord said, that this is a one industry Bill. Special laws are being made for the ice-cream industry, and there is really no reason for them. The noble Lord said that it referred to other foodstuffs. I hope very much that this will not cause a precedent and that we shall have itinerant meat vans or barrow boys going round with a horn such as some motorists have—horribles things making a noise like a bull. There is no end to what can be done now in this respect.

The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to London cries. I remember very well as a boy the London cries. But the noble Lord has to remember that they were not amplified. It is the amplification that now makes them so objectionable. I do not quarrel with amplification; if it were not for amplification I personally should not be able to hear the pearls of wisdom that drop from your Lordships' lips. But we do not want to have cries in the London streets, amplified in their present form. I greatly hope that the noble Lord will stick to his Amendment, because I am sure that the subsequent Amendment does not meet the case.


I want to intervene for but a few moments, to say that I support this Amendment. I do not at this stage want to go into the details of all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. They need most careful examination, and I should like time to consider them and to think them over. I trust that the views of local authorities will receive full consideration from those in charge of this Bill.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.


I must confess myself quite impenitent and unconvinced by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who said that nobody would be worse off by this clause to which he is so attached. Let me leave, that aside for the moment. Who will be better off? Why should somebody be selected to be better off? That is what it comes to. I could not possibly agree with him that nobody will be worse off. As for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who said that local authorities viewed his Amendment with the same enthusiasm as they viewed mine, that is merely on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. But I am suggesting that the thing to offer is the whole loaf, and not to stint people of what they really want. The principle has been well defined. I believe that underneath all the superficiality with which one can deal with this subject there is a principle at stake, and I propose to stand by it.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 32.

Addington, L. Dowding, L. Morrison, L.
Ailwyn, L. Dudley, E. Newall, L.
Airedale, L. Grenfell, L. Ogmore, L.
Amulree, L. [Teller.] Haddington, E. Rea, L.
Attlee, E. Hampton, L. Silkin, L.
Auckland, L. Horsbrugh, B. Simonds, V.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Lambert, V. Sinha, L.
Boston, L. MacAndrew, L. Somers, L.
Chorley, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Soulbury, V.
Colville of Culross, V. Merrivale, L. Stansgate, V.
Crook, L. Meston, L. Terrington, L.
Derwent, L. Milverton, L. [Teller.] Torrington, V.
Woolton, E.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Ebbisham, L. Onslow, E.
Amwell, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Bathurst, E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, E.
Bird wood, L. Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.) St. Oswald, L.
Bossom, L. Henderson, L. Salisbury, M.
Burden, L. Home, E. (L. President.) Spens, L.
Chesham, L. Iddesleigh, E. Taylor, L. [Teller.]
Conesford, L. [Teller.] Lansdowne, M. Waldegrave, E.
Dalton, L. Latham, L. Williams, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Lawson, L. Winster, L.
Dundee, E. Lucan, E.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Forward to