Section twenty-six of the Act of 1911 shall be amended to the following extent and effect:
(1) Throughout the paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) the words "one hundred "shall be substituted for the word "fifty."— [Major M'Kenzie Wood.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Major M'KENZIE WOOD
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
The effect of this, if carried, will be to enlarge the maximum size of small holdings. At the present time no small holdings may exceed fifty acres in extent, or a rental of over £50—that is to say, a small holding may have an acreage of fifty and a rental of £500, and on the other hand it may have a rental of £50 and an acreage of any number. The proposal here is that this double limit should be extended in the case of the acreage to 100 acres, and in the case of the rental to £100. Everyone who represents an agricultural constituency in Scotland, particularly in the North, has been face to face with a demand for the extension of the size of small holdings. This demand seems to me due to the fact that under present circumstances it has been found that very often, unless these smallholders have subsidary occupations, the size of the small holdings is not sufficient to give them a decent living in return for honest 271 work. It is suggested that if the size of the holdings was increased as indicated in this Amendment that we would be able to establish a number of economic holdings which would give the tenants a proper living, and at the same time would take into the Bill a number of farms—particularly one-pair horse farms, which are as much entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1911 as these which have got it.
After all what is the principle which should determine the size of the smallholder and what the farm? What principle should determine when a small holding should become a farm? It seems to me that a holding is a holding which is worked by the holder himself, and it becomes a farm when the tenant becomes a sort of capitalist, and really only a director of labour. Everyone will admit, I think, that a holder can, by his own work, attend to much more than a holding of fifty acres. Another point is that the value of money has altered very considerably in the last year or two, and if £50 was the proper financial and rent limit some years ago it must of necessity be a hopelessly bad limit to-day. Arising out of that, another point is that on account of the change in the value of money very many holdings which are at present rented at slightly under £50 are bound to be raised, in course of time, beyond the £50 limit; therefore, they will automatically fall out of the operation of the Act of 1911. This is really not, as it might seem to some people, an attack upon the rights of the landlord, because it may, in some instances, relieve the landlord of the great obligation resting upon him at present, is likely to become heavier in the near future, and, at any rate, is much heavier to-day than some time ago; because these farms, which are just beyond the limit, have naturally their buildings kept up at the present time by the landlord. This is a very much heavier duty to-day than some years ago. If this extension of limit is carried it will relieve the landlord of that, and throw upon the tenant the necessity of keeping the buildings up to a proper state of repair.
It is very difficult at the present time to get landlords to do this, and it is very difficult for landlords to do it. We would be able much quicker to get improvements of that kind carried out if the duty were thrown upon the tenant. Most of the points, I think, of this matter have already been brought to the notice of the 272 Scottish Members. I am sorry this question should be discussed for the first time here without having previously been discussed in Committee upstairs, because English Members particularly are entitled to ask for some guidance from Scottish Members as a whole. As a result of what took place in Committee upstairs they have not that guidance. I believe if this and some other Amendments of a similar nature had been put to the Scottish Committee they would have been carried. I think they have much less chance of being carried here if the Government throw their weight into the scales against us. I hope they will not do that. I hope the Government will see that this is a case where some Amendment of the law is urgently necessary, and that they will be able to do something to meet really an urgent difficulty.
I beg to second the Motion.
As this matter was not discussed in Committee I am very glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought it forward to-day. Personally, I have always been in favour of extending the limit of the acreage and the rental since the original Act was passed. I have given expression to that view in this House, and in the constituencies. The number of fifty was chosen for really arbitrary reasons. In view of present conditions I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. The Mover referred to the general rise in prices and the possibility of rents being raised. In the event of rents being raised the holding now within the ambit of the Act of 1911 will automatically drop out. If this Clause be adopted that difficulty will be overcome, and those holding would still be within the operation of the Act. I hope the Government are going to give this matter their very earnest consideration and accept the Clause put on the Paper. It is within their cognisance that there is a very considerable number of small holdings in Scotland of the size referred to, and those concerned very earnestly desire that some such Clause as this should be put into the Act.
§ Mr. MUNRO
I have listened with great care to the two speeches delivered, and I sincerely hope that after due reconsideration of the matter my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It really introduces a most sweeping change into the law as it stands to-day. It expounds a totally new principle, and it opens up a 273 vista of discussion not only on this, but on subsequent Amendments, which rather terrifies me when I think of the time at our disposal. Honestly, in my judgment, this new Clause so far from facilitating the land settlement which is the purpose of this Bill, would abridge its operation. The fact is there is not enough land to go round. Hon. Members are telling me of the number of applicants for new holdings. Without any doubt the acceptance of this Amendment would mean halving the divisibility of purchased land, and would diminish by half the number of smallholders that it would be possible to settle upon the land. Does the House really desire that? To place these men in a position to compete, and successfully, with existing economic small farms is a position in which I do not think we desire to put them. Those in favour of small holdings—I emphasise the word "holdings" as understood to-day—could not possibly be in favour of this Amendment of this Clause, which would not be in favour of small holdings, but rather in favour of larger holdings. The effect of the Clause would be this: that every man who since 1911 has been upon his farm of 50 or 100 acres would immediately and automatically, by reason of the acceptance of this Amendment, come under what is colloquially called the Pentland Scheme. Apart from that consideration altogether, I venture to place my opposition to this Amendment upon the consideration which I have mentioned already—that to accept it would be to divide in half the number of smallholders whom we hope to settle, and I am quite sure that neither of my hon. Friends would desire that.
§ Major WOOD
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, prepared to allow these to drop out of the Act?
§ Major WOOD
I said if the rent roll in some cases was brought up to over £50 it is very likely, in view of the price of money, that the holding will fall out of the Act. Are the Government prepared to see that?
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Hon. Gentlemen who put these Amendments on the Paper have really sometimes little realisation as to the extent which they may change the existing law. This, if carried, would mean, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland says, an extension of what is called the Pentland Tenure all over Scotland, and, in point of fact, the croftorisation of many farms in the southern part of Scotland, of every penny spent on the buildings by the landlord, who at present retains control—as he ought to do—where in cases of a smaller rent than £50 the original Act provides for a tenancy which is called a statutory small holding tenancy. That is all wiped out by this Amendment, which, instead of facilitating the settlement of ex-soldiers on small holdings, will go a long way towards keeping them off. For these reasons, I am glad the Secretary for Scotland does not propose to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. GARDINER
If I thought for a single moment that this Clause would increase the difficulty of the settlement of these men on small holdings I would not support it. We have had an inquiry into this question in Scotland by men whom the agriculturists can trust, and the result of that inquiry was a recommendation in favour of the enlargement of holdings. Although it is made possible by this proposal that a holding may be at a rent of £100, that does not follow that all the holdings are going to be of the same size. Some of them would be smaller, with special circumstances attached. You may have small holdings adjacent to a town with intensive cultivation, and there they may be doing very well, while in other cases it might prove impossible to conduct business on a satisfactory basis. If you can have holdings of a sufficient size there is nowhere in the whole world which would be such an ideal place to occupy, and we should get results which I am sure would justify the enlargement of holdings. I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland, who is absolutely sympathetic towards everything that is desirable in public agricultural interests in Scotland, does not see his way to accept this proposal which I put forward.
§ Major MCMICKING
In the past the tendency in Scotland has been that, owing to causes that we all know, the landlords find the money to equip the holdings and buildings, with the result that small farms have become absorbed by larger farms. 275 In the case of hill farms it is necessary that they should have some place to send their lambs in the winter, but there are many districts where, in recent years, large farms are held by one farmer, and the tendency has been, when small farms come into the market, owing to the difficulty of keeping up the equipment and the buildings, for them to be taken over by the large farmers. This Amendment would safeguard small farms. We want the small farm, the medium-sized farm, and the large farm. This Amendment would give security to those occupiers, who would become statutory small tenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I believe they would, and in the lowlands this would mean more statutory small tenants.
I have been speaking under a misapprehension. I was told yesterday that they would be crofters, and I cannot support this new Clause after that explanation. I do hope, however, that the Secretary for Scotland will give his assistance to the formation of small farms.
§ Mr. HOGGE
I do not understand what is meant by the crofterisation of the farms in the South of Scotland. Surely they would retain the tenure under which they at present exist. I should like to know what the reply is to this point. The real point of the Amendment, which has not been met in the Debate, is the altered values both in money and the price of land, and, if the old restrictions are still allowed to obtain, obviously that would militate against my right hon. Friend's scheme just as much as the other, and he would not be able to purchase enough land. He says that there is only a limited amount of money to purchase land. At present values the amount of land would be very much smaller than was previously contemplated. It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend will not be able to settle the men we want to settle on the land in Scotland. I frankly confess that I am not impressed by that argument. I have watched the process of settling ex-soldiers on the land in Scotland. It is now fourteen months 276 since the Armistice, and a fortnight ago, in reply to a question, 1 got the name and address of one ex-Service man in Scotland who had actually been settled on the land under conditions. This afternoon the Lord Advocate climbed down from some of those conditions. If he will look at the original question, he will find the previous answer I got does not tally with the answer I got this afternoon. I know the Secretary for Scotland said he had another 100 names in his pocket, but I say without much fear of contradiction that not more than 100 ex-Service men have been settled on the land up to the present moment.
§ Mr. HOGGE
I am not opposing this measure—in fact, I am trying to make it a little better. I agree if the right hon. Gentleman gets compulsory powers, the rate of settlement of ex-soldiers will be very much expedited. We all know what happened under the old Act, and we know how many have been settled. I do not want hon. Members to imagine that in this matter miracles are going to happen in Scotland unless we reject this Amendment. It is perfect nonsense to say that it will make all this difference in the settlement of ex-Service men. The point has not been made about the depreciated value of money. There are scattered all about exceptionally advantageous cases in which it would be an advantage to have the elasticity provided by this proposal in the administration of the law. The hon. Baronet opposite always wants to protect the landlords in Scotland.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
No, I only want to do what is just and fair, and the hon. Gentleman has no right to say that.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONE
I think the elasticity provided by this proposal would be a most desirable thing. I am not afraid of the crofterisation of the lowlands of Scotland, because I think it would be a very good thing to have the advantage of the Crofters Act. I do not think the House should be terrified by the idea if the limitation of the rent from £50 to £100 is raised, and the acreage from fifty to a hundred acres, because there is much need for the acreage being increased. Many a man has been condemned to labour on a farm which has not adequately supported him and his family. Agriculturists have spoken to me often, and have said that it is almost impossible for a man to make a living out of a farm unless he can engage two horses. I do, therefore, think that good reasons have been urged for the new Clause, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend, who no doubt is labouring under certain has not been able to accept it.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I wish, very briefly, to quote one or two remarks in the official publications of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in this connection. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) intimated that some of us on this side of the House had put Amendments upon the Paper without perhaps appreciating where exactly they would lead us in land settlement in Scotland. It is quite true that some of us have the honour to represent eonstituencies from which green grass has long since disappeared, but I hope that we have still the power to read these official publications and to use them intelligently in a debate of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, in opposing this proposal, suggested that we should defeat the object that we have in view in this Bill, and that we should render it more difficult to achieve the settlement of ex-Service men and others on the land of Scotland. If I thought that would be the result of our proposal, I should certainly support the Government's attitude, but I strongly contend that the very reverse is indicated, not by anything that may be said from these benches, but in the official documents of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and in the Report of Mr. Conacher and Professor Scott, which has just been supplied to Scottish Members. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland, in its Report for 1918, said that the demand for small-holdings in Scotland continued 278 to be real and pressing, and immediately afterwards it pointed out that even under the greatly accelerated system it would take many years to exhaust either the demand or the land available. These are the definite statements by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on the particular question now under discussion. I am very much exercised with regard to the economic success of these holdings in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the tendency over the whole of Europe with reference to the use of land and to the establishment of men: on a limited number of acres. The Report of Mr. Conacher and Professor Scott points unmistakably to the fact that we are reaching a stage when these holdings must be larger than in the past if we are going to give a man a chance of a healthy and reasonable life at all. I venture to submit to the Government, therefore, that in. their own official reports they get the very strongest support for this Amendment. I desire to emphasise the point of elasticity which has been mentioned by other hon. Members. Nothing rigid is proposed in this Clause. We only say that we must go beyond the 50-acre limit, and we say that, not on the ground of our own political faith at all, but on the considered opinion of men who are undeniably experts in this matter.
§ Major W. MURRAY
An hon. Member has said that he has some difficulty in understanding what is meant by the crofterisation of Scotland. If the crofter tenure were applied, as it would be applied, under this Amendment to the rest of Scotland, it would simply mean the ruin of agriculture in that country, because it would prevent, in future, the application of the landlord's capital to the land over hundreds of thousands of acres.
§ Major MURRAY
I should like to be contradicted in facts. This Amendment asks for farms up to 100 acres under the crofter tenure.
§ Major MURRAY
There is no doubt that the crofter tenure absolutely bars the landlord's capital from getting to the land. 279 There is no doubt, therefore, that on agricultural grounds it would be a sin to impose it.
§ Dr. MURRAY
I rise to give a modified support to this Clause. I agree with it in principle, and I see no reason why it should not be carried. I believe it would be of some use in many parts of Scotland where there is plenty of land to be distributed among aspiring smallholders, and in that sense I do not see why the Secretary for Scotland should not adopt it; but, as a matter of fact, I should like to see a good deal more elasticity with regard to the size of the holding. Of course, the Clause gives discretion to the Board of Agriculture, and there are certain parts of Scotland where they would never be so mad as to apply this limit, such as certain crating areas in the Highlands, and especially in the Western Isles and on the West Coast of Scotland, where, in many parts, there is not sufficient arable land to be divided. I have never looked upon my own Constituency, however, as the whole of Scotland, although I attach a great deal of importance to it, and from what I have learned from other Members, I believe that the provision would be useful. There is one part of my Constituency which is protected by Section 27 of the Act of 1911, where the Island of Lewis, so far as it lies within the county of Ross and Cromarty—it all lies within the county of Ross and Cromarty—is especially excluded from this portion of the Act simply because it is an island and the land is limited. If this Clause were intended to be absolutely compulsory, I would not support it, but I have sufficient faith in the good sense of the Board of Agriculture—they have very often shown good sense in our parts—to believe that they would not apply it in those parts where it was not suitable, and where there was not sufficient land. Seeing that protection is afforded by Section 27 of the Act of 1911, and also by the common sense of the Board of Agriculture in those cases where the Amendment is not suitable, I am inclined to support the general principle of this Clause.
§ Mr. H. HOPE
The primary object of this Bill is to settle ex-Service men upon the land. We know that with the very high cost of stocking at the present time it is going to take a very large amount of capital indeed to stock even a 50-acrefarm. If we are going to provide machinery for those holdings even up to 280 100 acres, are we not going to make the position such that a man will require far more capital than he is likely to have The Secretary for Scotland has told us that, of course, there would not be sufficient land to go round if we increased this up to 100 acres. I entirely agree with him. If we make the holdings 100 acres instead of 50 acres, we cannot make as many, and the Secretary for Scotland is therefore doing a wise thing in moving cautiously. If an ex-Service man can provide as much capital as he wants for 50 acres he is doing very well indeed. Afterwards, perhaps, he may be able to move on to a larger holding. The first practical step in settling men on the land is to make the holdings of such a. size that they can really equip them well, instead of making them of such a size that they would be overloaded by not having sufficient capital to manage them.
It is with very great reluctance that I intervene in this Debate, and the only consolation that I have is that so many Scotsmen have already spoken on the subject that there cannot be very many left to attack me afterwards. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a great deal of altered money values. Although the values of money may go up and down, the amount of land in Scotland on which it is worth settling people is very limited indeed. I dare say the hon. Gentleman, if he talked long enough, might be able to extend the whole area of Scotland, but I very much doubt if he would do it in our lifetime. I, therefore, think that the Secretary for Scotland is absolutely right in pointing out that the main object of this Bill is to settle the largest possible number of people on the land. You will have to come later to a Grant, and that will be looked at very closely from the point of view of a great many people other than Scottish Members. It is advisable. in considering this Clause, to realise quite clearly what we want to arrive at, which is to get the largest number of settlers, and for that reason, if for no other, I would like to urge the House definitely to stick to the old figure of fifty, which is generally accepted as applying to small holdings in other places as well as Scotland. if you alter it in one place. you will probably be bound, sooner or later. to alter it in another. For that reason, if for no other, I personally shall stand by the Government.
§ Mr. ADAMSON
Members who have spoken of the Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself seem to be of the opinion that what we are proposing to do is to provide lot a minimum of 100 acres of land. That is not the object at all. The object is simply to provide for greater elasticity and for raising the variations in. the sizes of the holdings from, say, 3 or 5 acres up to 100 acres, instead of up to 50 acres as provided for in the Bill introduced by the Secretary for Scotland. The success of all holdings depends very much on climate, soil and locality. There are some very small holdings in Scotland which have been worked very successfully by the holders, and I have in my possession at the moment a balance-sheet for fifteen years of one whose holding never exceeded during that time 3¼ acres. The amount of produce he was able to raise on his holding has risen from £49 in the first year to £637 in the fifteenth year. In that instance, of course, the soil was very favourable and the locality was even more favourable. There are parts of the country where intensive culture is possible, and there are other parts where it would be very difficult to apply it. Where the holder is entirely confined to growing ordinary agricultural crops it is very difficult for him to earn a living on a small holding, and I think the Secretary for Scotland would be well advised to accept this Amendment which provides for greater elasticity. The applications for holdings must come before the Board which, in view of all the circumstances, will decide upon their size, and I do not think there is any danger to the success of this Bill contained in this Amendment. hope, therefore, that even yet the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.
§ Mr. MUNRO
May I make an appeal to the Horse to come to a conclusion on this important matter as soon as possible? I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that this proposal is not for a minimum but for a maximum. But I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate that if we once put a maximum into the Bill pressure will be
§ brought to bear on the Board from various quarters for holdings approximating to that maximum, and therefore the pressure in this case will be for holdings of 100 acres instead of 50. That pressure will probably have to be acceded to, and it follows that if you increase the maximum you will inevitably diminish the number of men you can settle on the land; to that extent therefore if you give effect to the Clause at all you will decrease the number of ex-Service men whom you will be able to settle on the land. I am not surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles expressed willingness to support this proposal so long as it is not applied to his own constituency. I think that probably the hon. Member for Caithness may take up the same attitude. Knowing the number of holders waiting to be accommodated he will appreciate that if this extension is agreed to it will be impossible to give the necessary land to a large number of holders. [The HON. MEMBER dissented.] Well, my hon. Friend is custodian of his own interests, but I certainly would have thought that in a constituency of the kind he represents, where there are large numbers of persons waiting to be settled on the land, he would have desired to give the fullest opportunity for such settlement. We have another forcible argument against this Amendment. If its object were to deal with holdings to be created in the future, there might he: more to be said in its favour, but the effect of this Amendment will be to bring into the Bill automatically, existing small holdings between 50 and 100 acres in Scotland to-day and that would be a very large order indeed. I would very respectfully ask the House to pause before giving effect to an Amendment whose consequences would be so sweeping, and, in my humble judgment, so detrimental to the settlement of the large number of men we have in contemplation to provide for.
§ Question put, "That the Clause he read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 249.285
|Division No. 141.]||AYES.||[5.56 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. lion Francis Dyke||Carter, W. (Mansfield)||Galbraith, Samuel|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gardiner, J. (Perth)|
|Barnes, Majer H. (Newcastle, E.)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)||Glanville, Harold James|
|Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)||Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton.)|
|Bell, James (Ormskirk)||Daiziel, Rt. Han. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)||Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)|
|Benn, Captain W, (Leith)||Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)||Grundy. T. W.|
|Brace, Rt. Hon. William||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York).|
|Brameden, Sir T.||Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)||Hall, P. (Yorks, Normanton)|
|Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)||Edwards, Majer J. (Aboraven)||Hallas, E.|
|Cairns, John||Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)||Hancock, John George|
|Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon, A. C. (Aberdeen)||Swan, J. E. C.|
|Hartshorn, V.||Newbould, A. E.||Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Hinds, John||Rae. H. Norman||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hirst, G. H.||Rattan, Peter Wilson||Thorne, W. (Plaistow)|
|Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)||Tootill, Robert|
|Hegge, J. M.||Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)||Wallace, J.|
|Irving, Dan||Richardson, R. (Houghton)||Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)|
|Johnstone, J.||Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rodger, A. K.||Wignall, James|
|Jones, J. (Silvertown)||Rose, Frank H.||Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Rowlands, James||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald|
|Lawson. John||Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Lunn, William||Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)||Young, William (Perth and Kinross)|
|Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)||Short, A. (Wednesbury)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sitch, C. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Major|
|Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)||Smith, W, (Wellingborough)||McKenzie Wood and Mr. W. Graham.|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral||Dockrell, Sir M.||Knight, Captain E, A.|
|Addison, Fit. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Doyle, N. Grattan||Knights, Captain H.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Duncannan, Viscount||Law, A. J. (Rochdale)|
|Ainsworth, Captain C.||Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)||Law, Rt, Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Alien, Colonel William James||Eyres-Monsell, Commander||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)|
|Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.||Falcon, Caplain M.||Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Lindsay, William Arthur|
|Alkey, A. R.||Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Bagley, Captain E. A.||FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)|
|'Baidwin, Stanley||Foreman, H.||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Forrest, W.||Lonsdale, James R.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Foxcroft, Captain C.||Lorden, John William|
|Barnston, Major H.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)|
|Barrand, A. R.||Ganzoni, Captain F. C.||M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Gardner, E. (Barks, Windsor)||M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)|
|Beckett, Han. Gervase||Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)||M'Lean, Lt.-Col, C. W. W. (Brigg)|
|Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham||Macmaster, Donald|
|Bann, Corn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)||Gilbert, James Daniel||McMicking, Major Gilbert|
|Betterton, H. B.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Birchall, Major J. D.||Glyn, Major R.||McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Goff, Sir R. Park||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-||Grant, James Augustus||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Greame, Major P. Lloyd||Maddocks, Henry|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Green, J. F. (Leicester)||Mallalieu, Frederick William|
|Brassey, H. L. C.||Greer, Harry||Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)|
|Breese, Major C. E.||Gregory, Holman||Martin, A. E.|
|Briggs, Harold||Creig, Colonel James William||Mason, Robert|
|Britton, G. B.||Gretton, Colonel John||Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.|
|Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)||Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)||Middlebrook, Sir William|
|Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.||Hailwood, A.||Miidmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hall, Lt.-Cot. Sir Fred (Dulwich)||Molson, Major John Elsdale|
|Burden, Colonel Rowland||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)||Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)||Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.|
|Butcher, Sir J. G.||Hanna, G. B.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Campbell, J. G. D.||Hanson, Sir Charles||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.|
|Campion, Colonel W. R.||Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)||Morrison, H. (Salisbury)|
|Carr, W. T.||Haslam, Lewis||Mosley, Oswald|
|Casey, T. W.||Hennessy, Major G.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Han. J.A. (Birm., W.)||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.||Murchison, C. K.|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)||Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)|
|Cheyne, Sir William Watson||Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.||Murray, William (Dumfries)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Hood, Joseph||Nelson, R. F. W. R.|
|Clyde, James Avon||Hope, Harry (Stirling)||Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hope, John Deans (Berwick)||Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward|
|Colvin. Brig.-General R. B.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)|
|Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)||Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)||Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)|
|Courthope, Major George Loyd||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.||Hunter. Gen, Sir A. (Lancaster)||Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Cot, Sir J.|
|Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.||Oman, C. W. C.|
|Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry||Hurd, P. A.||O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Hurst, Major G. B.||Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)||Illingworth, Fit. Hon. Albert H.||Parker, James|
|Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)||Inskip, T. W. H.||Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)|
|Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)||Jesson, C.||Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Davies, T. (Cirencester)||Jodrell, N. P.||Pearce, Sir William|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Dean, Com. P. T.||Kallaway, Frederick George||Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)|
|Dennis, J. W.||Kerr-Smiley, Major P.||Perring, William George|
|Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)||Kidd, James||Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray||Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John||Ward, Dudley (Southampton)|
|Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Wardle, George J.|
|Pratt, John William||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Prescott, Major W. H.||Smith, Sir Allan||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Pulley, Charles Thornton||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Weston, Colonel John W.|
|Purchase, H. G.||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville||Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.|
|Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Rankin, Capt. James S.||Stanton, Charles Butt||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Rees, Sir J. D.||Starkey, Capt. John Ralph||Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Rield, D. D.||Steel, Major S. Strang||Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.||Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)|
|Renwick, G.||Stewart, Gershom||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)||Sugden, Lieut. W. H.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)||Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Talbot, G. A. (Hornet Hempstead)||Woolcock, W. J. U.|
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Rogers, Sir Hallewell||Townjey, Maximilian G.||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.||Tryon, Major George Clement||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)||Walters, Sir John Tudor||Younger, Sir George|
|Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord E.|
|Seager, Sir William||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)||Talbot and Captain F. Guest.|