Skip to main content

Lower Thames Tunnel

Volume 236: debated on Monday 10 March 1930

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I am directed by the Minister of Transport to refer to your letter of the 31st January, on the subject of the Lower Thames Tunnel which formed the subject of discussion on the evening of the 4th inst., between Mr. Herbert Morrison and the following Members of Parliament:—Sir Vansittart Bowater, Bart., Major R. Glyn, Mr. E. C. Grenfell, Mr. J. H. Hayes, Mr. J. H. Oldfield. As the Minister then explained, he realises to the full the importance of the interests represented by the Port of London Authority. He was glad to learn that there was every desire on the part of the Authority to facilitate the passage of the Bill provided they could feel that the interests of the port and of shipping were adequately safeguarded, and, on his part, Mr. Morrison is anxious that this desirable project should be carried out with the utmost possible regard to their legitimate claims. The considerations urged on the Authority's behalf regarding the depth of the suggested tunnel will receive the most careful study, and the Minister has given instructions for this examination to be undertaken at once by his consulting engineers and by the technical staff of his Department, who will consult other Departments concerned. It is also hoped, as heretofore, to call into consultation the technical officers of your Authority in order that every advantage may be taken of their special knowledge of the Authority's needs and policy. The points at issue, involving difficult problems of navigation, naval architecture and other branches of civil engineering are so complex that your Authority will not at the present stage expect any statement of the Minister's views as to the specific dimensions quoted in your letter."

I venture to say that that was a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. It indicated full agreement as to the vital importance of the Port of London's position, and it promised, as far as the Minister is concerned—I could not answer for the Committee upstairs, for I do not rule them—but as far as the Minister is concerned, every respect would be paid to the views of the Port of London Authority; and I say that if the Port of London Authority proved that the construction of this tunnel will be disastrous to the welfare of the Port of London and its great industry, I would be the first to say that the tunnel must stop. Can any Minister be more reasonable? Can I do more? But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives wants me to go further. He may not be sure of what he meant, but I know what he said. He said that the Port of London Authority, in matters of the Port of London, must be paramount, and he indicated that they must not rely on any chance decision of a Committee of Parliament. That is not a very respectful way of referring to Committees of Parliament. They do not handle private Bills on chance issues. Their procedure is very elaborate. They hear evidence, and they will hear a lot of evidence on this question, evidence from the promoters as well as from the Port of London Authority. The Committee will hear the evidence, and it is only fair that the Bill should go before them, for the evidence to be thrashed out.

10.0 p.m.

It is not fair to kill a Bill of this kind before the evidence is heard. No matter of public policy is involved here, like there was in the London Traffic Bills, which had to be decided on broad matters of public policy. If ever there were a question of fact to be proved or disproved, it is in this particular Bill. It is no good Members of Parliament supposing that we can give an intelligent vote at this stage on what is or what is not the proper draught for ships, on what the docks of the Port of London can take, and on all the complicated technical questions which are involved in the discussion which we have had to-night. Let us have a sense of our limitations, and say that the people who have to argue this are the technicians and the lawyers upstairs, and that the people who have to decide are a proper Parliamentary Committee sitting in a judicial capacity, and ultimately reporting to this House on their conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to take up the position of saying, "Do not wait for the evidence, do not wait for the technicians, do not wait until somebody has seen the naval architects and the engineers and the experts on navigation and shipping. Do not wait for them, but take it from the Port of London Authority now, and do not give the Bill a chance of being examined upstairs." That is not fair on a Bill of this kind. It is fair on a Bill which deals with broad public policy. But no broad public policy is involved here, except so far as unemployment is involved. It is a question of technical fact which has to be proved or disproved. Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice possibly relied upon a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Port of London in 1902—I agree that is 28 years ago—that the Port's objective should be a channel of 30 feet. I agree that shipping has developed since that time. I am not concerned to show that the depth which is proposed in this Bill is proved, or can be assumed to be an adequate depth. I believe that we shall produce very strong evidence to that effect, but I am not going to be so bold as to say that I must be right, and that the depth in the Bill is necessarily right. The promoters of the Bill have to prove their case that it is right, and unless they prove it, they will not get it. On the other hand, unless the other people prove their case they will not get it. There may be a margin within which this Bill can be altered. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the tunnel going down to Australia if the Committee upstairs so order, but I am entitled to ask that the Committee should be satisfied upon the point.

What the Port of London Authority will have to prove to the Committee, I presume, is that instead of ships of 40 feet draught, to which we are beginning to be accustomed, ships of 60 feet draught, and even higher, are reasonably likely. They may be able to prove it, and they should be asked to prove it. They may have to prove that sufficient dredging of the channel at the entrance to the port can be done to allow these ships up to and past the tunnel. They will have to prove that the existing docks, and those which they have under consideration, or which they may have under consideration, will take the ships when they get past the tunnel; and they will have to consider whether the entrances to the docks will enable the ships to get in. They will have to argue that ships of such enormous length can clearly navigate in the River Thames and turn round above the tunnel, and they will have to prove that such ships are likely to be economic ships.

Certainly; if it is argued that these ships are coming along, the Committee are entitled to be satisfied that such ships on the whole will be economic ships—[Interruption.] However, that is a matter for the Committee, but if I were a member of the Committee, that is one of the things that I should want to know, and I do not know that I should be ruled out of order. Finally, I should want to know whether, if such huge ships existed, they would come to the Port of London, and whether it would be worth while the Port of London spending many millions of pounds in order to house the limited number of such ships that are likely to be brought to the port. All the answers to these questions may be perfectly conclusive, and the Port of London may be able to prove their case. It may be that the promoters cannot prove their case, and that the eminent technicians who are advising me, and are quite sure that they can prove their case, are standing on their heads and are wrong. All I say is, let the technicians on both sides be called upon to prove their case, and do not deny us the opportunity of arguing the case upstairs when the Bill is before a Committee of Parliament.

It has been said there is no unemployment about this matter. I am not going to argue that any Minister or the House of Commons has a right to do a silly thing in the supposed interests of merely providing work. I will never be a party, if I can help it—sometimes you are driven to it by political pressure—I will never willingly be a party to putting in hand work purely and exclusively for the purpose of providing work. I am not entitled to scatter public money about in that way, and I should want to know that the work is useful and will have a beneficial result to the communal welfare. Therefore I am not judging this entirely from the point of view of employment. But it is no good hon. Members criticising the Government this afternoon for not doing things quickly enough and then saying to-night, "Do not let this scheme get a chance to be heard. Throw it out on Second Reading on technical arguments that Members of Parliament cannot judge at this stage." That is what is being urged.

I am not going to blame the right hon. Member for St. Ives because he did not swallow "We can conquer unemployment." I give him ail due credit for that. I did not swallow it myself. If I were concerned with politics to-night I should throw up any hat with rejoicing for every Liberal Member who went into the Lobby against the Bill and say, "That is another nail in the coffin of the Liberal party." I am sorry the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is not here. I gathered that he was encouraging the right hon. Member for St. Ives. The hon. Member for Leith, at any rate, was involved in "We can conquer unemployment." What has "We can conquer unemployment" to say about this Bill? It deals with the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in 1927. I hope the Conservative Chief Whip will listen, as it may be useful to him some day.
"Certain parts of the work recommended by the Royal Commission are, however, ripe for commencement almost at once. In particular, this includes the scheme for the improvement of approaches from the East India Dock Road to the Victoria Dock linking with the East Ham and Barking By-pass, estimated to cost some £3,000,000; and the construction of a road tunnel under the Thames from Dartford to Purfleet, which is also estimated to cost £3,000,000. The rapid industrial development on both sides of the lower reaches of the Thames, the increasing importance of the docks at Tilbury, and the construction of arterial roads between London and Tilbury on the north and between Erith, Dartford, Gravesend and Strood on the south side of the river have emphasised the need for such a tunnel, which would obviate long detours for road traffic and relieve the congestion in the centre of London."
That was issued on the authority of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). If hon. Members of the Liberal party want to embarrass their leader, they should vote against the Bill. If they want to provide me and the Chief Whip of the Conservative party with ammunition against them at the next election, let them vote against the Bill. But if they want to get themselves out of a difficulty, they had better come with me and examine the proposal.

I have already exempted the right hon. Gentleman. I have given him credit for not being responsible for that booklet. I am warning Liberal Members of the dreadful consequences of getting into the position of having grumbled at the Government this afternoon for not having done things quickly enough and then voting this evening against one of their own schemes. This is one of the schemes which could be completed within two years! We have had nine months, and we are at the Second Reading stage. I only mention that because I think it is fair that I should warn hon. Members of where they will be getting if they do not look out.

I come back to my central point, though the right hon. Member has moved since he spoke. Then there was no argument about it. The Port of London Authority having said it was so then, as a famous periodical used to say, "It is so." I cannot accept that. I have the highest regard for the views of the Port of London Authority. I will pay them every respect. Their representations must not only be considered by me, but will have to be considered by the Committee upstairs. All I ask of the House at this stage is to say: "We are impressed with the technical arguments both ways." I have very good technical arguments which I could bring to the House now, but I do not want to bore the House. Those arguments ought to be reserved for the Committee upstairs. All I ask the House to say is: "Here are very interesting technical arguments; we do not know enough of the technique of the matter; we will have the matter thrashed out in Committee upstairs. We will put the technicians into the box—the County Council technicians, the Minister's technicians, and the Port of London technicians." They will go, one after the other, into the box, and the lawyers will try to tear them in pieces. The technicians who prove their case will win their case, and the technicians who do not prove their case will lose it. The Minister, who says he is prepared to be judged on the evidence, and the promoters, who say they are prepared to be judged on the evidence, are reasonable people. The objectors, who say they are not willing to be judged, who want the matter to be decided now, who do not want the trial—those who take that line are taking a line which is indefensible. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKEE withheld hit assent and declined then to put that Question.

Representing a constituency which is specially involved in this issue, I wish to say a few words on the subject. I do not think that anybody, and least of all the Port of London Authority, can claim that this Bill has been sprung on them as an unexpected Measure, as there has been in existence for a good many years an influential Committee known as the Thames Tunnel Committee, and several interviews have taken place with the Port of London Authority. They must have known for many years that this Bill was being seriously considered. When we come to the recent improvements made in the Port of London we find they have put up a very fine landing stage at Tilbury, big enough to take the biggest vessels now afloat. They have also made very great improvements in docking facilities at Tilbury. Large new docks have been constructed. It seems pretty obvious that they consider that large ships will in the future probably land their passengers at Tilbury and dock in the neighbourhood of Tilbury. There is no doubt that the County of Kent, the County of Essex and the adjacent counties all desire this Bill and have been working towards it for many years. It involves, as the Minister of Transport said, a technical question, and it should be considered upstairs in Committee. Although I am going to support the Second Reading to-night, I have no hesitation in saying that if in Committee the Port of London Authority were to substantiate the grounds of objection they have put forward I should, at a later stage, vote against the Bill, and I have no doubt there is scarcely a Member who would not do the same thing.

The Debate we have had this evening has shown the extreme danger of the subject which we are discussing being considered merely as a Ministry of Transport question. Although I desire that this Bill should have a Second Reading, I think the Debate has shown that this is a question which concerns the Board of Trade, and we ought to have had a representative of the Board of Trade here to-night.

I have been here all the evening.

This question has not developed under the Board of Trade, and it is evident that the Port of London Authority has been treated with very scant courtesy. I cannot understand how that situation has arisen. I have seen the plans. I am one of the backers of this Bill, and I certainly thought that a Bill introduced under the auspices of two great county councils and the Ministry of Transport would have satisfied the Port of London Authority with regard to the construction of this tunnel. It was only a very short time ago that I heard that this had not been done. It appears that the first time the Port of London Authority heard anything about the tunnel was on 18th November. A meeting took place on the 22nd November, at which it was stated that the tunnel was not of sufficient depth. We should remember that the Woolwich tunnel, only one mile higher up the river, that the King George Dock allows only 21 feet of water and that tunnel, in consequence, has stopped all development nearer the heart of London. We know that under this Bill the depth of the crown of the tunnel is to be 42 feet 9 inches, and that 12½ feet of soil is provided above the tunnel. The Port of London Authority point out that at many parts the tunnel may be even above the bed of the river. It may be that a ship comes in down by the bow owing to accident, and, if such a ship is wrecked on the top of this tunnel, one of the Clauses of the Bill provides that the county council are not liable. The Bill provides, also, for a 10-foot variation. Considering that there will be only 30 feet of water a 10 feet variation will give only 20 feet. Allowing for 6 feet to provide steerage way this would give only 15 feet for ships at low tide.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) pointed to the Royal Commission of 1902, but we are in the year 1930. In 1902, the Royal Commission recommended a depth of 30 feet, but, in view of the fact that a Royal Commission, unlike a Committee of the House of Commons, usually takes about a year over its deliberations, it seems very likely indeed that a Royal Commission sitting in the present year of grace would recommend that the crown of the tunnel should be at least 70 feet below low water springs. That would be a very likely proposal for them to make. I agree with the Minister of Transport that this is not the time to raise technical points, but I do wish to raise this point. We have got to 30 feet in the Thames. The Panama Canal has got to 41 feet. The Suez Canal is working to about 42 feet. In New York Harbour the depth is 41 feet—always getting deeper. Even then, when they come to deal with the biggest ships, they are prepared to go to Montauk Point, if necessary, to cater for even bigger ships than are produced to-day, and it may be that we shall have to go to a much greater depth. I believe that the House of Commons Committee will be animated by the desire to deal fairly by the Port of London, but the danger is that they may be governed too much by present-day conditions in the desire to grant what is being asked for in Kent and Essex. I would not allow any question in connection with roads in any way to hamper the development of the Port of London, which I believe, since the establishment of the Port of London Authority, has been the biggest contributor to employment in this country. Therefore, if the Port of London Authority do not get a fair deal, I think that a good many people in this country will have reason to thank Heaven for the House of Lords.

We have had from the Minister of Transport an appeal for fair play, but I could wish that he himself had been fair. He stated that, if he is correctly informed, the local authorities not only do not intend to consider the construction of a bridge, but will not go on with this scheme if the construction of a bridge is recommended by this House to-night. A new theory of legislation is being expounded, to the effect that what these local authorities say is law, and that all that this House has to do is to assent thereto and it is all right. There are three suggestions before the House to-night—a tunnel, the consideration of a bridge, and the consideration of the depths of the Thames because of the anticipated change in transport. We are told that these are technical matters. We are told that all that we have to do is to pass this Bill and send it to a Committee, when the depths of the Thames will get every consideration; and in the same breath we are told that the other suggestion will get no consideration at all. That is the Minister's idea of fair play.

It has been suggested that there is an alliance in this House to-night to kill this Bill. I know of no such alliance, but I resent the idea that, because I was not here in 1902 or 1921, I cannot make a suggestion in 1930; and yet that has been put forward to-night as a serious argument against the proposal that a bridge should be built. Frivolity on the part of the Minister does not get rid of the situation, and it is no argument when he suggests that this House is asked to use up steel even to the extent of wasting public money. He knows that that is nonsense. The suggestion that has been put before the House is that, if it is going to cost £4,000,000 to build a tunnel, you could have a six-way bridge in the open air for that money. But if the Minister and the local authorities are tied to a two-line traffic stream, I suggest that, if the Minister had exercised his brilliant imagination, he might have imagined that the building of a bridge for a two-line traffic scheme would cost much less than this tunnel. If that be so, we are wasting public money in building a tunnel, and the question of the proper expenditure of that public money ought to receive, not only the attention and consideration of this House, but the consideration of the promoters of this scheme. A statement made in 1902 was quoted that, if a bomb were dropped on this bridge, it would so block the Thames that traffic would be stopped. Lots of things have happened since 1902. There has been an entire revolution in the construction of ships for one thing—in size, carrying capacity and methods of propulsion. If we are going to reason on past experience, we surely must be compelled to come to the conclusion that that improvement will continue in the future.

If the dropping of bombs is going to wreck a bridge, what will it do to a tunnel? It is just as easy to find this tunnel with a bomb—[HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] Exercise your imagination a little more. If you were fighting me and I had an aeroplane, I would find that tunnel. Since 1902, there has not only been a revolution in shipbuilding but in bridge building. When this scheme was originally considered, bridge building had not attained to the height it has done to-day. There is a British firm building a bridge across Sydney Harbour, which is a much more difficult engineering problem than building a bridge across the Thames. People in 1902, or 1924 even, could not take that change in bridge engineering into account, because it was not in existence. We come to you to-day with a suggestion—not a threat. If this House cares to disregard it, well and good. If it is voted down I am quite prepared on the next occasion to vote for the tunnel. I am as keen on having the two sides of the River connected up as any representatives of local constituencies, but I want it done in the best way when we are doing it. I do not to go burrowing like a mole under the ground. We are offering you a cheaper and better scheme, out in the open air, a scheme that could be more readily and cheaply expanded than your tunnel scheme possibly could be. Therefore, please do not talk nonsense about unholy alliances, and do not say that we want you to waste public money in buying steel, because I am interested in the lives of steel workers, and many thousands of them are out of work. I want you to use public money to the best advantage. I honestly believe a bridge would serve the interests of that area much better than a tunnel, and I intend to vote against the Bill.

I should like to inform London Members that a committee of the county council considered this proposal very closely, although of course it is well outside the London area, and, after taking advice, they came to the conclusion that it would very materially relieve traffic across the London bridges by diverting it lower down the river. A great deal of traffic comes through London quite unnecessarily, because of the absence of proper facilities for crossing the river lower down. Like the Minister, if I were satisfied that his was going to interfere with the Port of London, I should be the very last person to assist it. London depends for its very existence on its port. Anything that interferes with shipping will do untold damage. I agree entirely with the Minister, and the county council takes the same view, that this is a matter for engineers and technical experts. If one steamer is prevented from going up the river to the Port of London the Port of London has made its case, and, when the Bill comes back for Third Reading, I shall vote against it. I am going to ask first in the interests of London traffic and secondly because it will find work for the unemployed, that the Bill shall be allowed to go to a Private Bill Committee.

I intervene for a few minutes to call attention to what I regard, and have regarded for some time, as a bad practice which has recently been growing up in the House, that when we have Second Reading Debates on Private Bills, we have to listen to the Minister of Transport making what I may call a special pleading speech on behalf of the promoters. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made was one which might properly have fallen from tine lips of any Minister of the Crown, if he had, in the first instance, informed the House that he was speaking only and entirely in his personal capacity as a Member of Parliament, and not with any sense of responsibility for His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that I am not speaking in any way too bluntly in view of the speeches which have been made by his own supporters on the benches behind. Speeches have been made there for and against the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that he speaks for his supporters behind him, still less is he entitled to come to the House and on a Private Bill to state that he speaks for His Majesty's Government.

Having said that, I am bound to turn right round and support the general conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the House, because he made a special plea, and one which I have made on many occasions in this House when the Second Reading of Private Bills has been under discussion. I have said, and as long as I am a Member of this House I shall continue to say, that this House, many years ago, set up a special procedure for the consideration of Private Bills. It laid it down that these Bills should be controlled under their own special Standing Orders, and that all opponents should have a right and proper opportunity, by petition in answer to notice duly served, to be heard when the matter comes up for inquiry in Committee upstairs, where the matter could be properly heard and explored. I say, and I wish to impress the fact upon the younger Members of the House, that on a Private Bill we ought to be able to go into the Lobby to give a vote for a Second Reading, even though we may in our own personal interests be opposed to a particular Measure which comes before this House.

In this matter I have as much information before me as most hon. Members of this House. I have before me the general facts relating to the construction of the tunnel and the need for allowing sufficient clearance over the tunnel for navigation on the River Thames, and I have before me the general facts laid by other people as to the merits of a bridge which will provide greater facilities. I submit that I have a certain amount of experience entitling me to come to a judgment on this matter, but we are unable to determine these questions in a discussion and in a Debate in the House of Commons in which we have listened to what must, of necessity, be merely exparte statements. There is only one proper method of determining these issues on matters of great magnitude and detail, the promoters having complied with all the necessary requirements of Standing Orders specially laid down, and that is by submitting these matters to the proper tribunal where the matter may be heard with counsel for and against and with witnesses, and where the matter can be analysed and the true facts obtained for the proper guidance of the House. After that stage, in the event of an allegation being made that the Committee have acted in breach of the evidence placed before them, the House will have its remedy on the Third Reading stage. For these reasons, whatever my views may be as to the merits of the Bill, I propose to support the Second Reading.

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has given us a speech in which he has argued that we ought not to have spent the last 3½ hours in a Second Reading Debate, and that there should never be a Second Reading Debate or a Second Reading decision upon any Private Bill.

That was not my argument. There are many things that emerge in a Second Reading Debate and many points are raised for the purpose of asking for the consent of the House, which would undoubtedly be a guidance to the Committee upstairs.

If the hon. Member had made another speech and had put that point, it would have been interesting, but he made no such point in his earlier speech. He said that the House would have their opportunity if they thought that the Committee upstairs had wholly misjudged the expert evidence placed before them, and that they could reject the Bill on the Third Reading. If the hon. Member's speech led us to any conclusion at all, it was directed against the Second Reading stage on these private Bills. The Minister of Transport was far more reasonable. Although I did not agree with his conclusions', I must give him credit for the way in which he put his views before the House. He said that on a matter of broad public policy he agreed that the House could reject the Bill upon Second Reading. I should like to show that this is a matter of broad public policy and not a matter of technical detail, however important that may be. The broad public policy, as I see it, is whether the Minister of Transport and the Government should lay preponderating weight upon the development of road transport or upon the maintenance and improvement of our port facilities'.

It is because I believe that there is no part of the Government's policy in

Division No. 217.]


[10.40 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)Beflairs, Commander CarlyonBrown, Ernest (Leith)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)Bellamy, AlbertBrown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Albery, lrvinq JamesBennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)Buchanan, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hllltbro')Bennett, William (Battersea, South)Burgess, F. G.
Alpaas, J. H.Benson, G.Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Ammon, Charles GeorgeSentham, Dr. EthelBuxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Angell, NormanBondfield, Rt. Hon. MargaretCarter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Apott, JohnBowen, J. W.Charleton, H. C.
Attlee, Clement RichardBowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.Chater, Daniel
Ayles, WalterBriscoe, Richard GeorgeCluse, W. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)Broad, Francis AlfredCocks, Frederick Seymour
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)Brockway, A. FennerDallas, George
Barnes, Alfred JohnBrothers, M.Dalton, Hugh
Batey, JosephBrown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

regard to unemployment and the expenditure of public money dealing with that question, in which the Government are so weak and are so lacking in any sign of policy, as the improvement of our ports, that I feel grave doubts about this Bill, especially when I find that one of the greatest of our port authorities, the Port of London Authority, was never consulted—the Minister of Transport did not say that they had been consulted— and that in the subsequent negotiations that have taken place they have never had any assurance from the Minister of Transport that the future development of the Port of London would not be interfered with by this Bill. The Minister of Transport complained that the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) objected to this grave matter being left to the chance decision of the Committee upstairs. Every speech that has been made in support of the Bill shows that it is to be left to chance. It is to be left to the chance of the counsel arguing the case on one side or the other being the most dexterous in his cross-examination of the technical witnesses. Where such a great question as the development of the Port of London is concerned, the Port authority had a perfect right to have an assurance that the entry of ships to the new docks and to the prospective docks will not be impeded by this tunnel, and they had a perfect right to have that assurance given before the Second Reading of the Bill. They have not had that assurance and, therefore. I think the House in the exceptional circumstances of the case would be perfectly justified in refusing to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 111.

Denman, Hon. R. D.Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.Remer, John R.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.Kinley, J.Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Dukes, C.Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Duncan, CharlesLang, GordonRoberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Ede, James ChuterLansbury, Rt. Hon. GeorgeRomeril, H. G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Lathan, G.Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)Law, Albert (Bolton)Rnggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Elmley, ViscountLaw, A. (Rosendale)Salter, Dr. Alfred
England, Colonel A.Lawrence, SusanSamuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Fermoy, LordLawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)Sanders, W. S.
Foot, IsaacLawson, John JamesSandham, E.
Forgan, Dr. RobertLawther, W. (Barnard Castle)Sawyer, G. F.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Leach, W.Scott, James
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)Scurr, John
Gibbins, JosephLee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)Sexton, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)Lees, J.Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Gill, T. H.Lewis, T. (Southampton)Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Gillett, George M.Logan, David GilbertShield, George William
Glassey, A. E.Longbottom, A. W.Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Gossling, A. G.Longden, F.Shillaker, J. F.
Gould, F.Lowth, ThomasShort, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gower, Sir RobertLunn, WilliamSmith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Granville, E.MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gray, MilnerMacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).McElwee, A.Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)McEntee, V. L.Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)McShane, John JamesSmithers, Waldron
Grundy, Thomas w.Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)Snell, Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.Malone, C. L'Estrange (Nthampton)Sorensen, R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.Mander, Geoffrey le M.Stamford, Thomas W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Mansfield, W.Stephen, Campbell
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)March, S.Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)Margesson, Captain H. D.Strauss, G. R.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)Markham, S. F.Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)Marley, J.Sullivan, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)Mathers, GeorgeTaylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Harbord, A.Matters, L. W.Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Harris, Percy A.Meller, R. J.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. VernonMelville, Sir JamesThurtle, Ernest
Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMerriman, Sir F. BoydTillett, Ben
Haycock, A. W.Messer, FredTinker, John Joseph
Hayday, ArthurMiddleton, G.Todd, Capt. A. J.
Hayes, John HenryMillar, J. D.Tout, W. J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)Milner, J.Townend, A. E.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)Montague, FrederickTrevtlyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)Morley, RalphTurner, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)Vaughan, D. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)Viant, S. P.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)Morrison, Robert C, (Tottenham, N.)Wallace, H. W.
Hoffman, P. C.Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)Watkins, F. C.
Hollins, A.Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smetkwick)Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hopkin, DanielMuff, G.Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hore-Belisha, LeslieMuggeridge, H. T.Wellock, Wilfred
Horrabin, J. F.Nathan, Major H. L.Welsh, James (Paisley)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)Noel Baker, P. J.West, P. R.
Hunter, Dr. JosephOldfield, J. R.Whiteley, Wilfrld (Birm., Ladywood)
Isaacs, GeorgeOliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Johnston, ThomasOliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)Owen, H. F. (Hereford)Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Paling, WilfridWilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)Palmer, E. T.Winterton, G. E.(Leicaster, Loughb'gh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)Wise, E. F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.Perry, S. F.Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.Peters, Dr. Sidney JohnYoung, R. S. (Islington, North)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Kelly, W. T.Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Kennedy, ThomasRaynes, W. R.Mr. Mills and Colonel Howard-Bury.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.Bromley, J.Daggar, George
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)Davies, Dr. Vernon
Aske, Sir RobertBurgin, Dr. E. L.Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Astor, ViscountessBurton, Colonel H. W.Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.Caine, Derwent Hall-Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)Cameron, A. G.Dawson, Sir Phillp
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)Cape, ThomasDuckworth, G. A. V.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)Cautley, Sir Henry S.Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John DearmanCayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)Edmunds, J. E.
Birkett, W. NormanClarke, J. S.Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartColman, N. C. D.Ferguson, Sir John
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.Colville, Major D. J.Fielden, E. B.
Boyce, H. L.Croom-Johnson, R. P.Ford, Sir P. J.

Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.McKinlay, A.Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonMacLaren, AndrewShepperson, Sir Ernest Whlttoms
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)Marshall, FredSherwood, G. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)Shinwell, E.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)Morgan, Dr. H. B.Simms, Major-General J.
Greene, W. P. CrawfordMort, D. L.Simmons, C. J.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)Muirhead, A. J.Sinkinson, George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. JohnMurnin, HughSmith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.Naylor, T. E.Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir HerbertSutton, J. E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph HenryPalin, John HenryTinne, J. A.
Hardie, George D.Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hartington, Marquess ofPotts, John S.Warker, J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)Price, M. P.Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Herriotts, J.Quibell, D. J. K.Warrender, Sir Victor
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John WallerRamsay, T. B. WilsonWells, Sydney R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)Raivson, Sir CooperWilkinson, Ellen C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)Reid, David D. (County Down)Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georgs
Leighton, Major B. E. P.Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)Womersley, W. J.
Lindley, Fred W.Ritson, J.Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Little, Dr. E. GrahamRodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Llewellln, Major J. J.Rowson, Guy


Lloyd, C. EllisRunciman, Rt. Hon. WalterMajor-General Sir Newton Moore
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.Salmon, Major I.and Mr. T. Griffiths.
Lymington, ViscountSamuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.