§ (1) While this Section is in force unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, shall be at the weekly rates of fifteen shillings for men and twelve shillings for women, or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed, instead of at the rates provided by Section one of the Act of 1921, and paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as originally enacted, instead of as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1921.
§ (2) This Section shall come into operation on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and shall continue in force until the expiration of the deficiency period.
§ Mr. J. ROBERTSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "eighteen."
I know the argument that I may be met with in moving this Amendment. I shall be told that this is a question of finance, that a certain amount has been budgeted for on the payment of 15s. a week, and that if you alter that amount it will require more money. I do not think that is a difficulty that cannot begot over. If this House is of opinion that the amount paid should be 18s. instead of 15s., then I think the difficulty can be got over. I know, in connection with others matters, when it is a question of finance, there is no difficulty in getting a sufficient sum of money.
My second point is what it costs the State. As a matter of fact, insurance does not cost the State one single penny. As regards the difference between 15s. and 18s., the extra 3s. does not cost the State anything because the employer and the workman pay, and the State pays a contribution, but, in the long run, the workman pays, not only his own contribution, but also the employer's contribution as well as the contribution paid by the State. All that the State does—and this is never denied in any quarter in connection with unemployment insurance—is to set up the machinery to collect the money, and in this case all you are asked to do is to collect a sufficient sum to pay 18s. a week instead of 15s. a week.
From the point of view of the State we shall have the argument of economy. To most Members of this House the difference between 15s and 18s. a week may not mean very much, but there is all the difference in the world in thousands of eases, and an extra 3s. a week may mean 1903 in poor families that many a child will get its breakfast, when its father is unemployed, that otherwise would not get any breakfast. The question of economy was discussed a little earlier in connection with another part of this Bill, when the difference was pointed out between married men and single men, and there was a proposal made that the men with families should get more benefit than the men without families. There is another way in which you can economise. Supposing you do not take that way, you are doing it just as assuredly as if you put it into operation. Men are compelled through no fault of their own to be unemployed, and they are only getting 15s. per week, and no one suggests that they can maintain a family on that amount. The result is that they have to economise in another way. I regret to have to say it, but the purposes are exactly the same and reach the same end.
There is one way which has been suggested elsewhere. When a man is unemployed surd he is willing to work it is the duty of the State to make provision for him, and yet you refuse to set up the machinery. If a man has children and cannot keep them, why not put them out of existence? I know hon. Members will shudder at that proposal, but if you have the power and not the will, and only arrange to pay a sum that will introduce disease and ultimate death into the home of a humble worker, you are just as much responsible for killing that man's child as if you had taken its life in other ways. There is not a single individual in this House who dares to defend a paltry payment like this to an unemployed workman. The original sum was £l per week. Economy has been argued, but you cannot have economy as far as a working man is concerned if you do not keep him fit as an effective working machine. With regard to this Amendment all that you have to do is to use the machinery of the State so that the worker will receive 18s. a week instead of 15s. a week. Hon. Members opposite say that they sympathise with the unemployed. If that is so, let them show it in the proper place, and that is by going into the Lobby and voting for 18s. per week instead of 15s.
§ Mr. MYERS
I beg to second the Amendment.
It is an insult to offer the sum which is provided for in this Bill as 1904 unemployment benefit. When we consider the cost of maintaining a pauper in a Poor Law institution or a convict in one of our prisons, and compare that with what we are offering to a law-abiding citizen who happens to be unemployed for the moment, the comparison is all against the provision made by this Bill. I will make a further comparison which I have made before. We have servants of the State performing military duties, and when there are no active military duties we keep our soldiers in the best of lodgings, with good clothing, free medical attendance, exercises and recreation to keep them efficient and up to the standard in case they may be required for active service. Just in the same way it is desirable that steps should be taken in the best interests of the country to keep the able-bodied workmen up to a standard of physical efficiency from the point of view of health in order that they should be ready and able to render service to the community when required. If the finances of this Bill are such that only 15s. a week can be paid, then it is up to the Minister to so adjust the finances of the Act as will enable this larger sum to be granted to the men who are out of employment.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
My hon. Friend told the House that the State paid nothing under this Act and only put the machinery in motion. I would remind the hon. Member that the State contribution under this Measure amounts to £7,750,000.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The taxpayers and the community. My hon. Friend said that the State contributed nothing. My reply is that it contributes £7,750,000. In Committee we went into this matter pretty fully, and I pointed out that this proposal to raise the amount of the benefit, together with the proposal to increase the benefit to the women, would cost an additional £9,000,000, assuming the contributions to be raised as fixed in the Bill. But I have heard that my hon. Friends intend to move to reduce the contributions proposed in the Bill by one penny in the case of men and women and a halfpenny in the case of boys and girls, and that would increase the cost in the year from £9,000,000 to £11,000,000 or £12,000,000. I have to look at this proposal from the point of view of its effect 1905 upon the finances of the scheme. I did not refer to the question of finance in the Debate as to the refusal of benefit to men unemployed in connection with trade disputes, but here I am bound to look at the whole financial structure of the Bill. Under the Measure I shall have borrowing powers to the extent of £20,000,000. Assuming there are 1,250,000 persons unemployed on an average week by week for a year ending in July, 1922, I shall run into debt under the scheme to a maximum of £16,000,000, and if the series of Amendments to which I am alluding were carried I should in that case run into debt to the tune of £25,000,000, or £5,000,000 beyond my borrowing powers.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
How long does the right hon. Gentleman say it will take him to run into debt to that extent, and on what basis of unemployment?
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
On the basis of 1,250,000 people being unemployed for a whole year up to July, 1922. This proposal and the next one, if carried, would involve me in £5,000,000 debt beyond my borrowing power of £20,000,000. Under the scheme I shall be committed to borrowing £16,000,00. The raising of the benefit to men and women will cost another £9,000,000, and if the proposal to reduce the contribution is carried I shall run into debt to the extent of £27,000,000. Much as I dislike the reduction of the benefit, I am bound to ask the House to reject this Amendment and the other proposals associated with it, because it would mean that in the very first year of the operation of the Act I should have to exceed my borrowing powers by a possible maximum of £5,000,000, and that would be fatal unless the contributions were increased. My hon. Friends, however, so far from agreeing to an increase in the contribution are proposing to reduce them, and will thereby make the position still worse. The State contribution is fixed by the Financial Resolution at 3¾d. in the case of men and 3¼d. in the case of women, and therefore the only thing would be to increase the contribution of the employer. Under the Bill the man pays 7d. and his employer 8d., and the 10d. for health insurance brings the amount up to 2s. 1d. If I were to increase the contribution of one or other or of both in order to give the increased benefit of 18s. and 15s., I should have to bring the totals up to 2s. 5d.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I really cannot ask the House to agree to raise the amount to 2s. 5d., and I am not sure that I would be in order in touching the contributions at all. Remembering what my borrowing powers are and the difficulties I should be placed in if this and the associated Amendments were carried, I have no option but to ask the House to reject this proposal.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
There is a very old and very true saving which runs, that those whom the gods wish be destroy they first make mad. When I read the Bill we are now discussing, with the proposal to reduce the benefit from £l to 15s. to the unemployed workman who is idle through no fault of his own, the most charitable explanation and excuse that suggested itself to my mind for the action of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a distinguished Member of it, was to be found in that old saying. The Vote just given, in which the Government majority was reduced to 40 in a House constituted as this is, shows that there are others who share my views and who are trying to get away from the asylum. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it pains and grieves him to reduce the benefit and to refuse this very modest Amendment. I know how sincere on this question the right hon. Gentleman always is, and I would ask him, therefore, why does he maintain his portfolio as Minister of Labour, if he does not agree with this reduction and if he realises what harm it will do to the working population, and especially to the children of working classes? Why is he not brave? Why does he not resign? Why does he not come over here? He must know that if he were to resign on a question of this sort he would become one of the most popular ex-Members of the Government. He tells us he cannot accept this proposal because it would cost so much money and run him into debt to such a great extent that he would have to borrow more money with State backing, which would injure State credit and cost the taxpayer something. He has told us that the adoption of this Amendment and of the succeeding one to increase the benefit for women, as well as of the proposal to reduce the contribution, would increase the burden to £27,000,000 before the end of July next 1907 year. That is the biggest possible sum he felt he could mention. This particular Amendment is going to cost £8,000,00.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I said these proposals would increase the cost from £16,000,000 up to £27,000,000 or £28,000,000.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Yes, and on Thursday this week we are going to be asked for just that sum for the Arabs in Mesopotamia.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am afraid there are many King Charles' heads, and I usually mention one in connection with expenditure in a greener land than Mesopotamia. Here we have a situation in which, owing to the many blunders of the Government, we have a great number of unemployed, and as a result the Unemployment Fund is already in debt. It is not the fault of the unemployed; it is the fault of the Government, and I say the country ought to pay, and this Amendment ought to be accepted. I expected a much better reception for the Amendment, especially after the Vote just given. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) spoke of what it costs to keep a pauper in the workhouse and a prisoner in gaol. We know perfectly well it costs more than twice the amount which the Government propose to allow an unemployed skilled workman with a family. On the Order Paper to-day there was a question which challenged the advisability of paying Post Office messenger lads under the age of 15 more than the amount it is proposed to allow to able-bodied skilled workmen, and yet the Government propose to resist this Amendment!
From a purely Machiavellian point of view hon. Members who sit around me ought to welcome the reply of the Minister of Labour, and if they are counting the days when they may be called upon to form a Government, if they think they could do better than the present Government, then they ought to be secretly glad that the Government are bringing forward this Bill. But I know as a matter of fact they prefer to consider the sufferings of the people who will have to live on the 15s. as of far greater importance than 1908 their own advancement in the political field. Quite apart from tactics of that sort, therefore, I intend to support them in their endeavour to get the benefit increased. We may hear from members of the Anti-Waste party that this is an extravagant proposal in view of the present condition of the country's finances. I submit that it is not extravagant. The greatest extravagance of which one can be guilty nowadays is to spend his capital. The capital of this country consists of the producer, of the men who do the work, and if you are going to spend your capital by reducing the subsistence level of the very great numbers of men and women out of employment to-day you are going to be guilty of one of the worst forms of extravagance. This extra money which is asked for could be found out of the income of the nation, by reducing extravagances in other directions, which I should not be in order in going into now, and which I shall not even mention, because I have tried to bring them to the notice of the House so often. As long as we can afford to spend these vast sums on unproductive and harmful expenditure, it is useless to attempt to go to the people of the country and tell them that the unemployment benefit has got to be cut down. You cannot explain what I regard as a breach of faith to the men who have been paying their contributions up to date on the understanding that, if they are out of employment, they will receive 20s. a week, and who, if they are thrown out of work on the 1st July, will receive the reduced amount. You cannot explain that while you are spending vast sums on these other harmful adventures. I spoke just now of certain hon. Gentlemen seeing the red light of the impending downfall of the Government, but I hope that in most cases it is something' more noble than simply a fear of being implicated in the disgrace of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that those hon. Gentlemen who supported us last time will support us again from humanitarian motives, and not from party motives or tactical motives at all. I appeal to them, and also to others, to base their vote more on the sufferings of their own fellow countrymen than upon the pleas as to economy and debt raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. WIGNALL
I regret that the Minister of Labour has not taken a more 1909 sympathetic view of our claim than that expressed in his speech. We all know that we cannot expect, under the existing abnormal conditions, that the unemployment insurance scheme should be a financial success, but, considering the exceptional circumstances that exist at the present moment—the great slump in trade, the great mass of unemployment, and the extraordinary conditions under which we are living to-day—the debt that would be contracted in maintaining even the benefit of 20s. a week is a debt that could honourably be contracted, because of the value we should get for it. It is one thing to spend money and get nothing in return, but even to create a debt which means some measure of human happiness and the prevention, probably, of riots and other troubles, is money well spent and a debt honestly incurred, which could be repaid later on. The Government would have to meet in some way the difficulty of this great mass of unemployment. People must have food and shelter, and the Government must face the responsibility. If this unemployment insurance scheme did not exist at all, we should probably have to find many more millions to give away without any return, but in borrowing to maintain an unemployment insurance scheme which at least keeps body and soul together, and enables families to maintain a very meagre existence until the slump has gone by and trade has revived, even if your £27,000,000 were £120,000,000 of debt it would be a debt well incurred and money well spent, and you would get more than good value for it. I know it is useless to say these things in the present circumstances, because the Ministry have made up their mind that they are not going to increase it, and the poorest will have to suffer still more. Although it is in their power to relieve that, suffering, they have evidently made up their minds that they are not going to increase it, and I feel that it is a waste of words to try and persuade them to do what we all consider to be just and right in providing for the necessities of those who cannot at the moment provide for themselves.
§ Captain O'GRADY
I wanted to explain what my hon. Friend tried to put just now with regard to the fact that most of these contributions are paid by the workpeople. I should say that, out of our population of 45,000,000, there are roughly about 30,000,000 under this Act— 1910 manual and clerical workers in the main— and they pay their taxes, and consequently the State is merely paying back. The State actually does not find the amount of money of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. Moreover, I think employers will agree that what they contribute to this scheme has to be earned by the brains of the employer and by the labour of his workpeople, and I suppose it is fair to say that the employer, like everyone else, seeks to push off his burden on to someone else's shoulders, so that it is fairly clear that at any rate the larger proportion of the 8d. falls upon the workman's wages somehow or other. Here we have a scheme under which the contributions are 1s. 7d. per week, and I venture to say that the workman, in one way or another, direct or indirect, pays at least two-thirds of that money. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to-find any trade union in which the contributions levied for unemployment pay are of that character. I belong to an old skilled union which, in normal times, gave 14s. a week out-of-work pay for 3d. a week. It is true that one only got eight weeks, and then ran on for a six-week's interval, when there was another eight weeks, and one got 16 weeks in the 12 months at the rate of 14s. a week for a contribution of 3d. a week. In the unskilled union with which I am connected we have 1,500,000 unskilled and semi-skilled workpeople. The contribution to the union is; only 6d. a week, and out of that they pay unemployment benefit and other benefits as well. It is clear from the Minister's own statement that a large proportion of this money—I should say 50 per cent.—instead of going in unemployment benefit to the workpeople, goes in administration. The Department is a positive terror to the trade unions from the vast amount of leaflets and instructions and regulations that it issues. I do not know what its printing bill will be for an Act of this character. Besides that, there is the multiplicity of officials. It is clearly the most costly Department in the State, and there is nothing but circumlocution. I know of unions in my own federation that are held up to the extent of something like £80,000, and have been reduced to a condition bordering on bankruptcy, because they are not able to get in proper time the money which they have paid out on behalf of the State. There is an expenditure upon which no 1911 business man could run his business without getting into the bankruptcy court. We plead, on the point that I have put, that for our 1s. 7d. per week we should get 18s.
§ Captain O'GRADY
I am including the State contribution. The workman is paying 7d., and he is only going to get 15s. a week. I think that that is outrageous. I wish you would hand the job over to us. The trade unions would take over the State benefit and pay 18s. a week for a contribution of 7d. from the members. I have tried to put the business side, and not the purely humanitarian side. I do not want to labour that. God knows, it is bad enough, and it has been stated from these Benches. But on the purely business, economic aspect of the proposition contained in my hon. Friend's Amendment I think the Government ought to concede the point and give us 18s. instead of 15s.
§ Mr. SPENCER
It is true that very little can be said that is new with regard to this proposal after the arguments that have been used this afternoon and in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot meet the increase proposed, because he has not got the money. He says that to do so means that he will be paying a further £9,000,000, which will increase his liability from £16,500,000 to £25,000,000, and his borrowing powers are only £20,000,000. He has also taken up the position that, if it were possible for him to make this increase, it would put off the date of solvency from 1923 to 1924. I think the right hon. Gentleman is over-emphasising the immediate necessity for solvency. If he were disposed to take a more generous view, he could, in my opinion, without extracting anything further either from the State, the employer or the workman, pay the 18s. for which we are asking in this Amendment, but I admit that it would protract the period of insolvency. If the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct as regards the date of solvency it would not be indefinitely delayed, but would only be protracted for a certain period. He would automatically, although at a slower rate of progress, come to the period when the scheme would again be solvent. I think he will admit as much 1912 as that, but somehow he seems to be obsessed with the idea of getting his scheme solvent as early as possible. One of his reasons for that is that if he borrows this money he will have to pay a percentage upon it, and that, consequently, the longer the period for which he borrows it, the more he will have to pay by way of interest. I do not think that those two arguments are conclusive arguments which should prevent him from accepting this Amendment. If it meant indefinitely delaying the moment of solvency, there would be something in the argument, but I think he will have to admit that our suggestion does not contain the elements which would make for permanent insolvency. That being so, I think he should make some attempt to meet us, on the grounds that have been already stated.
As has been stated in Committee, this is no scheme of ours. The position we take up is: work or maintenance. In the remote days of savagery, men had a right to go and hunt for their food, and they certainly had a right to enter into competition with their fellow men in hunting that which would feed them. It has been left for more modern times to devise schemes of civilisation which prevent a man at any time from applying his energy and skill to win for himself and his family the necessities of life. If we cannot get work for a man—and it is work that we require—we say that it is the duty of the State to maintain that man. It is at least the duty of a State to devise some scheme which will permit men to apply their energies to provide the maximum of production for the well-being of the members of that State. If the Government does not believe in this principle, we have the right to fall back upon the argument of maintenance. Does anyone think for one moment that 15s. or 18s. is sufficient to maintain a family in anything like comfort? It has been argued, and argued truly from each side, that in some instances it takes 33s. a week to maintain a soldier. In the prisons a man can be a disreputable member of our society and we are prepared to pay 28s. to keep him, to which he has made no contribution whatever. But here, after making a contribution—a contribution not merely of money, but a contribution in other respects—the only thing the State can offer in the case of an emergency, when it can- 1913 not even find him any form of work, is this miserable pittance of 15s. a week. There is one contribution we have made jointly, employer and labour, during this War that entitles us to further consideration, and that is excess profits. Excess profits have come absolutely out of industry.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is going much too wide. We are on the Report stage at present, and we must confine ourselves particularly to the narrow points of each Amendment that arises.
§ Mr. SPENCER
I will not pursue that subject further. But there is one other point I wish to touch upon. If the House, through the agency of its Whips, to-night defeats this Amendment, it will only succeed in transferring this financial burden from the Imperial Exchequer to local rates. It is quite evident a man cannot take 15s. with two or three children and a wife, with rents as they are, with the cost of living as it is, and provide those things which will even sustain physical life and maintain physical existence. He will have to go to some other source to supplement the slender income which will come by reason of these benefits, and he will turn to the guardians, and ultimately part of the liability of maintenance will fall upon the rates. The rates cannot bear any more, and Parliament ought not to take a step to-night which will have that inevitable result. What they ought to be doing in regard to this is attempting to formulate some scheme as far as possible to give work to these men, and if they fail to provide work it should be a moral obligation to give them full subsistence.
§ Mr. A. SHORT
The right hon. Gentleman opposed this Amendment on the ground of cost, and to stagger the House and frighten hon. Members he estimated that if every Amendment that referred to contributions or benefits, either by the workmen, the employers, or the State, were carried it would increase his liability to somewhere in the neighbourhood of £11,000,000 to £12,000,000. If I recollect aright, he estimated that this particular Amendment would lead to an additional cost of some £7,000,000. He also estimated that for 1921–1922 there would be unemployment in this country to the extent of 1,250,000. Assuming that that is correct—and I certainly doubt whether 12 months hence we shall have 1,250,000 people unemployed—we are invited by 1914 this Bill to reduce the benefits to 15s. per week. That means that 1,250,000 of the population of our country are to be called upon to live on 15s. a week. It is not many months ago since the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill to increase the benefit to 20s. a week. Large numbers-of contributors have paid on the understanding that they would receive 20s., but the Minister now comes forward with this Bill to reduce the benefit to 15s. He is afraid of the cost. Does he mean to sit there and say his Government is unable to provide the money for this very laudable purpose? Are we to understand that it is not the function and the duty of the State to provide an even greater contribution than it is now paying to meet the liabilities of those unfortunate citizens who are thrown out of work through no fault of their own? The Government for far less laudable purposes can find money. It can spend it at the rate of £1,000,000 a week on a Defence Corps, which is needless, hopeless, which we do not require, which nobody wanted. When it is a question of something in the Far East you can find millions for that purpose.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I would again remind hon. Members that we are on the Report stage. The only purpose of the Report stage is to pick up Amendments that come from Committee.
§ Mr. SHORT
I quite accept your ruling. However, we are faced with a reduction in the benefit, an increase in the contribution, and I believe also an increase of 1915 200 per cent in the waiting period Having regard to the fact that we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 people unemployed, and over 1,000,000 people working short time, I venture to suggest that this is not the moment to reduce the standard of living
§ of those unfortunate people. So far as we are concerned we shall be compelled to take the Amendment to a Division, and I hope we shall gather the requisite support of hon. Members.
§ Question put: "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Bill.'
§ The House divided: Ayes, 141: Noes, 77.1917
|Division No. 199.]||AYES.||[8.12 p.m.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Morris, Richard|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Morrison, Hugh|
|Atkey, A. R.||Gee, Captain Robert||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Gilbert, James Daniel||Nall, Major Joseph|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Neal, Arthur|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gould, James C.||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Parker, James|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Greig, Colonel Sir James William||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Pratt, John William|
|Bigland, Alfred||Henderson, Major V, L. (Tradeston)||Reid, D. D.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Renwick, Sir George|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Brown, T. W. (Down, North)||Hills, Major John Waller||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Hinds, John||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)||Shortt,- Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)||Hopkins. John W. W.||Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)||Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hurd, Percy A.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Sugden, W. H.|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Taylor, J.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Denniss. Edmund R. B. (Oldham)||Lloyd, George Butler||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor|
|Dockrell, Sir Maurice||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon Hull)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Wild, Sir Ernest Edward|
|Edgar, Clifford B.||Macleod, J. Mackintosh||Williams, C. (Tavistock)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||McMicking, Major Gilbert||Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islinoton, W.)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Wise, Frederick|
|Evans, Ernest||Macqulsten, F. A.||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Middlebrook, Sir William||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Farquharson, Major A. C.||Mitchell, William Lane||Worsfold, T. Cato|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J||Young, E. H. (Norwich)|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Morden, Col. W. Grant|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Glanville, Harold James||Johnstone, Joseph|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Goff, Sir R. Park||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Grundy, T. W.||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Cairns, John||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lawson, John James|
|Cape, Thomas||Hallas, Eldred||Lunn, William|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Halls, Walter||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Casey, T. W.||Hayday, Arthur||Mallalieu Frederick William|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hayward, Evan||Mills, John Edmund|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Morgan, Major D. Watts|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Hirst, G. H.||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Myers, Thomas|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hogge, James Myles||Newbould, Alfred Ernest|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||Irving, Dan||O'Grady, James|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Jephcott, A. R.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Jesson, C.||Pearce, Sir William|
|Gillis, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Spoor, B. C.||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Robertson, John||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Royce, William Stapleton||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Sexton, James||Tootill, Robert|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Waterson, A. E.||Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. T.|
|Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)||Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.||Griffiths.|
|Spencer, George A.||Wignall, James|