HC Deb 28 January 1929 vol 224 cc655-75

Amendments made: In page 65, line 3, leave out the word "fifteen," and insert instead thereof the word "nineteen. In line 21, after the word "day," insert the words "and each of the four following years."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to move, in page 65, to leave out from the word "Parliament," in line 31, to the end of the Subsection.

If hon. Members will turn to page 65 of the Bill, they will note that the deficiency in the revenue from rates resulting in any year to the London County Council by reason of the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph shall be met— (i) as to one moiety thereof by payments out of moneys provided by Parliament. In other words, the Treasury is to make good by a special grant the losses due to the provisions of this Clause. It would be out of order for me, as a private Member, to suggest, much more to move, that the half there referred to should be altered to the whole, but, if we were considering what was right and proper, it would be obvious that the Government should make good the whole of the loss. Paragraph (ii) says: (ii) as to the other moiety thereof, by debiting to each area as respects which a gain is disclosed an amount proportionate to the amount of that gain and by increasing the amount which would otherwise be contributed as aforesaid by the area by the amount so debited. In other words, those districts that sustain losses are going to be relieved of the responsibility for Poor Law and other services, and those which are going to gain under the Government formula, that is to say, those which are going to receive some slight increase, are to be asked to make good those losses out of their rates.

When you begin to study the natural result of the addition of rates, you find that the boroughs that are going to have an addition to their rates are all very rich boroughs with very high assessable values. The result is that, although there is an addition to their rates, yet, owing to the very considerable produce of a penny rate, the actual increase under a scheme of this kind will be comparatively small. I think I am right in saying that in the City of London and in the City of Westminster the effect of this Amendment would only amount to an increase of about 1d. in the £, but, although I have already pointed it out, it is worth repeating that actually in practice the boroughs that are to find the other half of this money, which ought to be found by the Treasury, are the very poorest boroughs, with the lowest assessable values, with the largest amount of unemployment and with difficult problems to solve. The total amount which is to be found by these very poor boroughs is £224,000. £32,000 is to be found by Bermondsey, £22,000 by Bethnal Green, £12,000 by Deptford, £15,000 by Greenwich, £79,000 by Poplar, £51,000 by Stepney, and a smaller amount of some £8,000 by the constituency which the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary represents with such distinction in this House. That money is to be collected from these very poor boroughs. They are to present £48,000 to the City of London. Does not that seem unreasonable and monstrous? The poor City of London is so poverty-stricken, so hard up, that it has to be relieved of the obligation of contributing to the equalisation fund, and then has to go round cap in hand to the poor boroughs in London and ask them to make good the losses entailed upon it by the Government's scheme. I think that that is quite outside any reason or any justification.

The City Corporation is rolling in wealth—almost stinking with it. Besides the ordinary sources of revenue it has others, not only in other parts of London, but also in other parts of the country. It has the City estates which are increasing in value and which bring in something like £250,000, and it has other private funds, like the Bridge House Estates, into which it can dip to help it over its difficulties. Its pockets are so full of cash that it can provide £28,000 for the Lord Mayor in order that he may go for joy-rides in beautiful coaches through the City of London and give magnificent banquets. If it were so very hard up, surely it would be better for the City Corporation to indulge in some economies and divert some of its funds from its estates to helping its rates, instead of having to go round with the aid of the Government to collect £48,000 from places like Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Poplar, Greenwich, Deptford and Woolwich. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will, for a moment, cease to be a Minister and become a London Member, and stand up for the not very or sperous district of Woolwich. Perhaps he "will put in a good word for Woolwich, with all its difficult problems, which to-day require quite as good services—quite as good sanitation and quite as well-lit streets—and needs to be looked after just as well as the City of London. I do say that, if the Government cannot see their way to find this money out of the Treasury—the source from which it ought to be found—it should be found out of the county and not out of the local rates. It should be spread all over London and distributed evenly, instead of these poor, over-rated districts being singled out.

It is no use the Minister riding away and saying that it is a very great advantage to the common folk that the poor have become a common responsibility over the whole of London. That is a very poor consolation to the municipalities of London who have a hard struggle to make ends meet and to find money to carry on their services out of their rates. Their rates will still be very high. The rates of Woolwich are certainly not going to be lowered under the Government's scheme to any very large extent; at any rate, I think it will be admitted that they will still be much too high. It is true that Bethnal Green will get some relief owing to the Poor Law becoming a common responsibility, but we shall still have a rate of over 15s. in the £, as opposed to 9s. 2d. in the City of London, and Poplar also will still have a similarly high rate in comparison. I suggest to the Minister that he should see if he cannot do this in a better way. If it is not possible to get money from the Treasury, arrangements should be made for the bearing of the responsibility for this deficiency by all the ratepayers of London, instead of by a few.

Mr. SCURR

The proposal before the Committee in this Clause really shows the fallacy of the whole scheme of the Government. If the scheme had been conceived with the idea of holding the balance of justice equitably between the various interests involved, and if it were a fair question of transferring certain burdens from the local authorities to the national Exchequer, the whole of London would have come out quite fairly and squarely, and there would have been no necessity to import this new scheme into the arrangement. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has referred to the fact that the poorer boroughs of London will suffer very badly by reason of the Government's proposals, but there are other boroughs which might not be described as poor, but yet would not be described as rich, and which also would suffer considerably if the Government's scheme, as originally put forward, were carried through. I cite, for example, Hackney, with an increase of £26,600, Islington, £49,400 and Lambeth, £57,200. Those three boroughs cannot be included amongst either the poorest or the richest. So inaccurate has been the Government's method, that the result of its proposals would be that, approximately, there would be an increase thrown on certain boroughs of £468,000 and a decrease on others of £584,800. We have to meet that increase in the boroughs that are suffering.

If there is going to be a fair arrangement the boroughs should not have their rate increased, but the amount ought to come from the Treasury and not, as half of it will, from the poorest boroughs. For example, if we take the actual figures, we find that in the City of Westminster it is only a matter of a growth of £54,200, but this great wealthy City of Westminster is going to receive a Treasury grant of £27,100 which is to be spread over the other boroughs in order to make up the sum. When we remember that a penny rate in Westminster brings in £39,000, it is really an absurdity to suggest that in any circumstances an arrangement of this kind is necessary. I find that the City of London will come cap in hand to the Treasury, and will receive £24,000. How easy it is for the House of Commons to find £234,000 from the Treasury in order to benefit the richer boroughs of London and we have heard earlier to-day that £150,000 voted for the miners has not even been handed over to the fund to which it belongs. It shows all the way through how the present Government are much more concerned in looking after the vested interests of their friends than the interests of the common people. Right the way through whichever borough you look at you find this absurd new idea entered into, the equalisation fund taken away and a new method brought in whereby between the Treasury and the county council rate, the poorer boroughs have to subscribe in order that the rich boroughs may escape any increase in their rate. It is a scandalous method of dealing with the question. No one can really see what is going to be the effect of the scheme when the seven years are over, particularly as the result of the de-rating proposals, and if the matter had to be dealt with now, the only way is by a complete and full Treasury grant, letting the rich boroughs bear their own responsibility.

Mr. GILLETT

I think the mistake of the Government in regard to their proposals for London is that they have compared London with a county. Legally, of course, London is the London County Council and, therefore, in Clause 76 they devised the idea of supplementary Exchequer grants for the counties. When they came to London they went on the assumption that London, legally a county, is a county in fact. As a matter of fact, when we think of a county we do not think of a body like the London County Council. In a county like Yorkshire, Lancashire or Bedford- shire you have a number of towns and districts. Under this Measure some of these districts are being divided up, perhaps one being taken and joined to another. As I understand the main idea of the Clause, the proposal for adjustment was made because of alterations, which may possibly be beneficial, and which are bringing together part of a county which had been divided to other parts which were easier to manage for administrative purposes. When you come to deal with London you are not dealing with anything like a county. Nothing of this kind happens in Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool, because they are cities. There are no proposals in the Bill dealing with the great cities on the lines now being laid down for London. From the time London was cut up into boroughs to the present the poorer parts of the City have continued to suffer. The Government have not grasped this fact. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) points out that his constituents are being asked to pay a large sum of money to the City of London. The City of London has always got off exceedingly well compared with other cities, because actually it is not a city but only a part of a great city. If the City Corporation in bygone years had had as much vision and foresight as Birmingham or Liverpool, they would never have agreed to these borough councils. They would have expanded, as Birmingham has expanded, and we should have had a very great city. The misfortune has been that the City of London has been guided by men with very small views in the past. It did not expand when it ought to have expanded, and London has suffered in its government in consequence.

When you ask Bethnal Green to make this payment you go on the supposition that Bethnal Green and the City of London have not a very close connection. As a matter of fact the City, until recent times, to a large extent escaped the responsibilities of the Poor Law. I agree that this Measure removes one of the injustices from which London has suffered, but it does not by any means remove a large number of injustices. The City is able to go on with its work because hundreds of thousands of people living in these different boroughs whose necessities are ministered to by places like Bethnal Green, Finsbury, Islington and St. Pancras, and whose tragedies of life, such as ill-health, are to a large extent falling upon the locality in which they live, go to work in the City, which gets a vast amount of man power and gets the advantage of it. Therefore, I think the Government will find it exceedingly difficult to defend these provisions when they look at them from the standpoint I am suggesting. I can quite understand that the Minister, with the idea of Birmingham in his mind, possibly has not realised it, but the Parliamentary Secretary is very much to blame, because he is a London member. He knows perfectly well, as an old member of the County Council, the extraordinary subdivisions of London. He knows that the City of London is only possible because of all these other boroughs that are round it. He knows that the work of the City of London is going on because of the provision made by these other boroughs for people who are working there. He might have pointed out to the Government that London is really a city and not a county. He has failed to do so, and it is a great misfortune for London. It is on that account that no defence can be made to these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have muddled up London with a county simply because it is the name that has been given to it. If the late Mr. Ritchie had only called it some other name than "county" the Government might have been saved from this mistake, but Mr. Ritchie, when the London County Council was brought into existence, thought it might exist for a few years and then some new scheme of London Govemmont might come in. Unfortunately no Government have been prepared to tackle it, and therefore we still muddle up the idea of London, which is a city, with a county. It is, to my mind, impossible to consider its problems in the same way that you do those of rural counties, and the Government should leave out provisions of this kind, which are obviously such a hardship upon the poorer boroughs.

Sir K. WOOD

We are now passing to another part of the Bill which deals with the application of the Measure to London. We have just disposed of the general Exchequer grant to London, and I notice that the whole of the Socialist and Liberal parties voted against the grant being given to London. We now come to the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grants. A powerful Opposition, numerically supported as we see it before us, has expressed its indignation against these proposals, headed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). We are applying the same principle of supplementary Exchequer grants to London as we are doing to the other counties. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) has made a new Socialist discovery, that apparently, London is not a county. In applying the principle of supplementary grants to the boroughs of London, as we do to other districts, I suggest that we are doing the proper, right and fair thing. The principle is that for a transitory period before the scheme finally comes into operation we should have an arrangement which would ease the burden as far as those who lose are concerned, and that during that period those who gain shall come to the assistance of those who do not. It is bearing one another's burdens. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green says, "Look at the Lord Mayor! Look at the banquets he gives! Look at the wealth of the City!" Then he placards Bethnal Green at Election time and says, "Vote for Harris and put the Socialists out." Such are modern politics. I should have suggested that inasmuch as Bethnal Green is receiving considerable assistance under the Bill, it is not unreasonable— and I believe Bethnal Green itself would not object—that it should give some slight assistance to localities which will lose. No one has come forward, either from the London County Council or from the metropolitan boroughs, complaining of this and saying it is not the proper thing to do. This part of the scheme is generally considered as a reasonable and just method of dealing with a temporary period and, as such, I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY

Speaking for myself, I rather enjoy the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman "ticks off" his opponents and evades the real issue. I have never known him get down to the arguments of his opponents. I understand that to be one of the gifts of a good lawyer, and I congratulate him on possessing it, though, perhaps, not in as great a degree as his colleague the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman has chaffed the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), and, in some degree on the last Amendment he chaffed me on the ground that we are behaving grudgingly in not falling over ourselves to show our gratitude for what the Government are doing for us in this Bill. The Bill is like the curate's egg. It is good in parts; but some parts of it are bad, and if I could use the appropriate expression I would say that those parts were "so-and-so" bad. This part is particularly bad. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about "bearing one another's burdens," but I have never known that Lazarus was called upon to bear the burden of Dives; and that is what is happening in this case. The right hon. Gentleman talks as though we wanted to load on to the poor, overburdened and almost starving ratepayers of Westminster something almost too heavy for them to bear. I would remind him that the poorer parts of London bore the whole of this burden for many years past, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House never bothered their heads much about it then.

When the borough councillors of Poplar were in prison over this very issue, Parliament left them there and did not trouble very much about it. A tempopary Measure was introduced and the promise was made at the time that it would be followed by a permanent Measure. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would claim that the Government are now implementing that promise. My complaint is that they are partially doing so. For at least five years the poorer boroughs are to give back part of the advantage which they gain, not from de-rating but from the unification of Poor Law administration. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to contradict that argument and it is perfectly simple. At long last, after years of Socialist agitation, and years of crying out for redress by the poorer boroughs, the Government have said that they will make the Poor Law service a centralised service paid for out of a central fund. When education was transferred to the County Council, or when the Education Acts were first imposed, nobody dreamt of splitting up the cost between one district and another according to rateable value. But that is happening in connec- tion with this proposal. It is, in short a proposal to revert partially to the old bad system which the Government claim credit for repealing in this very Bill.

It is true that when the Poor Law is administered centrally, and all the responsibility is in the hands of the county council, the poorer boroughs will gain. Poplar will gain 8s. in the £, but according to this proposal, they will pay back for five years four of those shillings. We think that is quite inequitable both from the financial and the administrative points of view. In previous discussions, both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have said, again and again, that if there is central money there ought to be central responsibility and that we have no right to spend other people's money without allowing the other people to have control. Now that principle is being reversed. The Government are going to take part of our money and spend it through a central authority, instead of allowing us to spend it ourselves. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary talks as though we were doing a grave injustice to people who could not bear the burden we were putting upon them. Why, the burden is infinitesimal to Westminster, or the City of London, or Holborn, or St. George's, or Kensington. But it is considerable to Poplar.

I repeat that, as a result of the derating Clauses of this Bill, when we come to carry out new work to provide social amenities for our people, the cost to the ratepayers who are left in our borough will be considerable. It is to be remembered how every increase or decrease of rates, as now levied, affects the people. If we got complete relief in places like Poplar, Bethnal Green, Stepney, South-wark, Rotherhithe, and so on, the people who would benefit most would be those living in one or two rooms, or in houses for which they have to pay up to 18s. and £l per week. The rents of the council houses in industrial parts of London are almost too high for even the best paid workers. That is partly due to the rates. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief tell us that we ought to be grateful, because we are getting this 4s., and that we ought to be very glad indeed that the other 4s. is going to assist our poorer brethren—as they are pictured to us—in Westminster and other places.

There is a further fact which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet. Westminster will only lose £250,000 out of its £9,000,000 of rateable value under the de-rating scheme. That is because it is not an industrial borough. If Westminster wants to carry out a big constructive work it will have the major part of its rates to draw upon after this scheme has been passed. But Poplar is in no such position. I can smile with other hon. Members at the Parliamentary Secretary making fun of myself and of others in connection with this matter. But in the district from which I come not a single slum area has been dealt with except by the local authority. The London County Council, controlled by friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite— controlled by Tories for the last 25 years —has left every slum standing in Poplar. The poor people there have been struggling with that problem for 25 or 30 years. If we attempt to deal with it out of our own rates after this Bill has been passed, then, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows better than his supporters, our financial ability to do so will have been reduced by 25 per cent.

At present we are badly supplied with clinics, and with maternity and child-welfare centres because of our poverty. The right hon. Gentleman knows that with our rateable value and with the money at our disposal we do the best we can. By "we" I mean the council. I take no credit for it, but I know that my friends down there are doing the best they can, and the Government are going to cripple their efforts by this Bill. Even if we admit everything which the right hon. Gentleman says about the money, and about the advantages we are going to get through the equalisation of the poor rate, he must be aware that all our new expenditure will have to be levied on a rateable value which has been cut down by 25 per cent. This year alone we are losing because of the de-rating machinery. People in this House who are accustomed to deal in millions do not seem to realise that the taking away of £60,000 worth of rateable value under that scheme means a terrible burden to small shopkeepers and poor workmen. Instead of being grateful, those of us who for years have been fighting for the equalisation of the Poor Law administration in London and the equalisation of the costs, have a right to protest, in connection with a proposal of this kind, against part of the advantage being taken away from us for at least five years, and then one-fifteenth for each of 15 further years. We have a right to protest against the proposal that for 19 years we are to bear with this sort of partial equalisation.

We are entitled to say that this proposal, coupled with the fact that under the de-rating scheme every penny that we want to spend on slum clearances, on extending maternity and child welfare schemes, on the provision of baths and wash-houses, on new roads, on improving the conditions in our districts—and Heaven knows they want improving!— must be levied on a rateable value which the right hon. Gentleman by this Bill is reducing by 25 per cent. on certain properties in the borough. We ought not to be reproached because we object to this proposal, and we ought not to be told to accept this proposition, BO that we may bear the burdens of Westminster and so that we may bear the burdens of the City of London. It is contemptible to discuss the matter in that spirit. I have nothing but contempt for those who have proposed that the Treasury should not find this money. If the Treasury wished to placate the opponents of the Bill, they ought to have footed the bill and ought not to have put the cost of the bill on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.

Miss LAWRENCE

The feeling of unreality which has crept over the proceedings on this Bill is a strange thing. What has happened is that in London the parties concerned, the contributing boroughs, the receiving boroughs, the London County Council and the Ministry of Health, have fought each other to a standstill, and the whole matter is being left over for a future Parliament to decide. We remember that earlier in the year the London County Council felt alarmed and said that the scheme would cost them about £1,000,000 a year. They went to the Minister and received an assurance, which other districts have received, that everything would be right, that the guarantee would be increased and that nobody would lose more than 1s. per head of the population, which is, roughly speaking, a penny rate in the County of London. The contributing boroughs, the receiving boroughs and the boroughs which have benefited under the Poor Law arrangement, also had long and stormy battles with each other and with the Minister, and the matter for the next three or four years has become a stalemate. The County of London contributing boroughs and paying boroughs, and the rest of them, are to be withheld for a short period of years from the full operation of the scheme. A new Clause has been put down providing that there shall he an elaborate inquiry, before the end of the second grant period, into the working of the block grant, and the Schedule, and the rest of it. That means that the parties have fought themselves to a deadlock, and that the whole matter is reserved for the consideration of a future Parliament.

When first I read the Bill and considered this financial proposition in the light of a permanent settlement, I was full of the most lively emotions. I was ready to argue and to stump the country against the formula, against the block grant and so on, and I was ready to speak against it in the House for hours at a time; but now I feel that what this Parliament does is a matter of very little importance, that the pa-ties have come to a sort of truce for two or three years and that the matter will then be referred to a future Parliament. In addressing this Parliament I am addressing not the final court of appeal, but merely a court of first instance. I do rot say that from any mere political point of view.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Member is getting a little away from the subject of the Amendment. So far, hon. Members have kept somewhere near it.

Miss LAWRENCE

My point is, that neither the Amendment nor the Clause become of very much practical importance in view of the arrangement come to in the County of London, and the promise of reconsideration by Parliament. All that I desired to say was rather in answer to a remark of the Parliamentary Secretary that there were not very many hon. Members present. I do not wonder that there are not many hon. Members present. In addressing this Committee, I do feel a certain sense of reality. I find myself much more talking to the Parliament that will come after the Parliament that sits here to-day. There is no covert sneer in what I say. I do not mean that in six months from now my face will be turned the other way when I address the Chair. I do not say that, although I shall miss many faces that have grown endeared to me here by familiarity. If this Parliament were at the beginning of its term, or if the new Parliament were composed of precisely the same Members as this Par-

liament, the work would have to be done again; it is, therefore, almost a waste of Parliamentary time to discuss the details of this scheme, which will never be put into operation, because we know that the structure of the Bill is to be revised by a subsequent Parliament.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 100.

Division No. 128.] AYES. [6.50 p.m.
Albery, Irving James Dean, Arthur Wellesley Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Knox, Sir Alfred
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Drewe, C. Lamb, J. Q.
Apsley, Lord Eden, Captain Anthony Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Ellis, R. G. Loder, J. de V.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Long, Major Eric
Astor, Viscountess Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Looker, Herbert William
Atkinson, C. Everard, W. Lindsay Lougher, Lewis
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Balniel, Lord Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Lumley, L. R.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Foster, Sir Harry S. Lynn, Sir R. J.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Frece, Sir Walter de MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Galbraith, J. F. W. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Ganzoni, Sir John MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Gates, Percy Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Bennett, A. J. Gauit, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton Macintyre, Ian
Betterton, Henry B. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John McLean, Major A.
Bevan, S. J. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Macmillan, Captain H.
Boothhy, R. J. G. Gower, Sir Bobert Macquisten, F. A.
Brass, Captain W. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) MacRobert, Alexander M.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Grant, Sir J. A. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Briscoe, Richard George Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Brittain, Sir Harry Greene, W. P. Crawford Meller, R. J.
Brocklebank, C E R. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Gunston, Captain D. W. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hacking, Douglas H. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hamilton, Sir George Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Buckingham, Sir H. Hanbury, C. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nelson, Sir Frank
Burman, J, B. Harrison, G. J. C. Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hartington, Marquess of Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Cassels, J. D. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Nuttall, Ellis
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Oakley, T.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Haslam, Henry C. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Penny, Frederick George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Christle, J. A. Hills, Major John Waller Pilcher, C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Clarry, Reginald George Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy Preston, William
Clayton, G. C. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Price, Major C. W. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Remer, J. R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Hopkins, J. W. W. Rentoul, G. S.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Rhys, Hon C. A. U.
Conway, Sir W Martin Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rice, Sir Frederick
Cope, Major Sir William Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hurd, Percy A. Ropner, Major L.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hurst, Gerald B. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Iveagh, Countess of Rye, F. G.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Salmon, Major I.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sanderman, N. Stewart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon Sir William Sandon, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Savery, S. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Kindersley, Major Guy M. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Dawson, Sir Philip King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell- Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Skelton, A. N. Wallace, Captain D. E. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Smithers, Waldron Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Withers, John James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Wolmer, Viscount
Southby, Commander A. R. J. Water house, Captain Charles Womersley, W. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Watts, Sir Thomas Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wells, S. R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scrymgeour, E.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Scurr, John
Ammon, Charles George John, William (Rhondda, West) Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Baker, Walter Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bellamy, A. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen) Stamford, T. W.
Briant, Frank Kelly, W. T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Broad, F. A. Kennedy, T. Strauss, E. A.
Bromley, J. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Sullivan, J.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Taylor, R. A.
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cove, W. G. Livingstone, A. M. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lowth, T. Thurtie, Ernest
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Tinker, john Joseph
Dennison, R. Mackinder, W. Tomlinson, R. P.
Duncan, C. MacLaren, Andrew Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Montague, Frederick Watts-Morgan, Lt.- Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Morris, R. H. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Forrest, W. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wellock, Wilfred
Gillett, George M. Mosley, Sir Oswald Wiggins, William Martin
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Murnin, H. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Naylor, T. E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Oliver, George Harold Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, T. W. Palin, John Henry Windsor, Walter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Paling, W. Wright, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hardie, George D. Ponsonby, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S. Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Percy Harris.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Purcell, A. A.
Hirst, G. H. Ritson, J.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 105.

Division No. 129.] AYES. [7.0 p.m.
Albery, Irving James Brittain, Sir Harry Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Alexander, Sir Win, (Glasgow, Cent'l) Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S, Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Apsley, Lord Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Cope, Major Sir William
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.( Berks, Newb'y) Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Buckingham, Sir H. Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Astor, Viscountess Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Atkinson, C. Burman, J. B. Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Butler, Sir Geoffrey Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Balniel, Lord Cassels, J. D. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Cautley, Sir Henry S. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Davies, Dr. Vernon
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Dawson, Sir Philip
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Drewe, C.
Bennett, A. J. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Eden, Captain Anthony
Betterton, Henry B. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bevan, S. J. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Ellis, R. G.
Boothby, R. J. G. Christle, J. A. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Brass, Captain W. Churchman, sir Arthur C. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Brassey, Sir Leonard Clarry, Reginald George Everard, W. Lindsay
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Clayton, G. C. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Briscoe, Richard George Cobb, Sir Cyril Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Knox, Sir Alfred Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Frece, Sir Walter de Lamb, J. Q. Rye, F. G.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Little, Dr. E. Graham Salmon, Major I.
Ganzoni Sir John Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Sandeman, N. Stewart
Gates, Percy Loder, J. de V. Sandon, Lord
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Long, Major Eric Savery, S. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir John Looker, Herbert William Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lougher, Lewis Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gower, Sir Robert Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Shepperson, E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Lumley, L. R. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Grant, Sir J. A Lynn, Sir R. J. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ, Belfst)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Skelton, A. N.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Smithers, Waldron
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Macintyre, Ian Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Gunston, Captain O. W. McLean, Major A. Southhy, Commander A. R. J.
Hacking, Douglas H. Macmillan, Captain H. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.) Macquisten, F. A. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hamilton, Sir George MacRobert, Alexander M. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hammersley, S. S. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Storry-Deans, R.
Hanbury, C. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Harrison, G. J, C. Marqesson, Captain D. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hartington, Marquess of Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Meller, R. J. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Meyer, Sir Frank Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Haslam, Henry C. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hills, Major John Waller Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Nelson, Sir Frank Watts, Sir Thomas
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy Neville, Sir Reginald J. Wells, S. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Nuttall, Ellis Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Oakley, T. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hopkins, J. W. W. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Penny, Frederick George Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hurst, Gerald B. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Withers, John James
Iveagh, Countess of Pilcher, G. Wolmer, Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Pownall, Sir Assheton Womersley, W. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Preston, William Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Price, Major C. W. M. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Rentoul, G S. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Rhys, Hon. C. A, U. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Kindersley, Major G. M. Rice, Sir Frederick
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Ropner, Major L. Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.
NOES.
Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morris, R. H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hamilton, Sir R, (Orkney & Shetland) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Ammon, Charles Georqe Hardle, George D. Mosley, Sir Oswald
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Harris, Percy A. Murnin, H.
Baker, Walter Hayday, Arthur Naylor, T. E.
Barnes, A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Oliver, George Harold
Bellamy, A. Hirst, G. H, Palin, John Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Briant, Frank Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Ponsonby, Arthur
Bromley, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Potts, John S.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Purcell, A. A.
Compton, Joseph Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown) Rlison, J.
Connolly, M. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter
Cove, W. G. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen) Scurr, John
Crawford, H. E. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, James
Dennison, R. Kennedy, T. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Duncan, C. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Dunnico, H. Lansbury, George Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Lawrence, Susan Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Forrest, W. Lee, F. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gillett, George M. Livingstone, A. M. Stamford, T. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) Lowth, T. Stewart, J. (St, Rollox)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lunn, William Strauss, E, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mackinder, W. Sullivan, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley MacLaren, Andrew Sutton, J. E.
Groves, T. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Taylor, R. A.
Grundy, T. W. March, S. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H, (Derby)
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton) Montague, Frederick Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Thurtie, Ernest Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Windsor, Walter
Tinker, John Joseph Wellock, Wilfred Wright, W.
Tomlinson, R. P. Wiggins, William Martin Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Townend, A. E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wallhead, Richard C. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.