§ Where possession of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house, to which the principal Act applies, is obtained by any person under Part I of this Act, and the said dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months from the obtaining of possession, or occupation is subsequently given up by the person so obtaining possession, or by the person on whose behalf possession is obtained, the principal Act shall thereupon apply to the said dwelling-house or that part of the dwelling-house of which possession has been obtained.—[Mr. Mosley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MOSLEYI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In my view, the acceptance of this Clause would go far towards meeting one of the worst evils of this Measure. It deals with a point of considerable substance, which was raised on the Second Reading and was considerably debated in Committee, although no proposal in this precise form has yet been considered. It was argued on the Second Reading of the Bill that a great new incentive is now provided to landlords to obtain possession of their houses. As the House is well aware, under the second Clause of this Bill, any house that comes into the possession of the landlord in future or any house that is now in his possession, is automatically decontrolled, with the result that the landlord can let it at any price he likes, and, of course, can secure a greatly enhanced price if he decides to sell it. That fact obviously gives a far greater incentive to landlords to obtain possession of their houses than ever existed in the past. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Sidney Webb) on the Second Reading that some eight new methods are given to landlords under Part I of obtaining possession of their houses. One or two of these methods were modified in Committee, but there still remain many new ways in which a landlord can obtain possession of his house which were not 955 open to him previously. We have therefore a far greater incentive to the landlord to obtain possession and far greater facilities for him to obtain possession. Consequently, I venture to move this Clause, which provides some protection to the tenant without destroying in any way the main feature and intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.
All this Clause says is, that if within three months of the obtaining of the order the house has not been occupied by the person by whom or on whose behalf the order has been obtained, then the house shall automatically relapse under the provisions of the principal Act. Further, if the person who obtains possession or on whose behalf possession is obtained subsequently vacates the house, then also the house comes again under the provisions of the principal Act. It is evident that this Clause does not vitally affect the right hon. Gentleman's measure of decontrol on which his heart is so set. Even if this Clause were carried into law, he would still secure immediate decontrol of all the houses of which possession had been obtained prior to the passing of the Act and of all empty houses. Further, decontrol would be secured in the case of any house of which the landlord had obtained possession subsequent to the passing of this Act, provided he did not do it by any means specified in Part I. Therefore, even if he accepted this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would still have secured a very substantial measure of decontrol.
My Clause, however, would prevent or deter the landlord from exerting himself to the utmost and straining the law in mobilising a whole host of phantom tenants under these new provisions to obtain decontrol of his property. It is quite evident that under the law as it exists this will be done on a very great scale in the future. It is very easy for the landlord to secure possession on many grounds. He can, without providing any alternative accommodation, secure possession for himself and his children provided that he was the owner prior to June, 1922. Therefore, in nearly every case—in nearly 99 per cent. of the cases—if the landlord proves that he wants it for himself or his children he can secure possession without providing any alternative accommodation. He can secure possession also in the other cases which are 956 specified in the Act, and if he became landlord after June, 1922, he can secure possession for himself and his children provided that the Court thinks that greater hardship would be inflicted by refusing possession than by granting it. In these cases also he has not to provide any alternative accommodation. Therefore, it is evident that by very many ways the landlord can obtain possession, and he has a very great incentive to do it.
This point was urged in Committee in some detail and in various forms, and the right hon. Gentleman did try to meet the case by introducing a new penalty Clause, which I anticipate he will urge as a consideration on the other side when he comes to reply. I ventured to point out—and subsequent examination confirms me in the opinion—that the penalty Clause provides no deterrent whatsoever. To begin with, the penalties provided are very slight indeed. They merely say that the landlord shall pay compensation to the tenant and that the house shall relapse under the principal Act. No substantial penalties are provided, and it can be argued successfully that it is quite impossible to prove in a Court of law that which it is necessary to prove if the penalty Clause is to become effective. The unfortunate tenant who is dispossessed has to take the initiative. He has to prove that at the time possession of the house was obtained by an order of the Court the landlord had not the intention of using the house for one of the purposes which he specified and by which he obtained the order. That is an impossible thing to prove. A landlord might get possession of a house on behalf of one of his children. The child might come along afterwards and say that he did not like the house and could get a better one elsewhere. The house, however, is decontrolled, and the landlord can let it at any price he likes and get an enhanced price for it if he sells it. How can a dispossessed tenant go into a Court of law and successfully prove that at the time the order was obtained the landlord had not the intention of using the house for the purpose which he specified? Of course, it is impossible to prove anything of the sort.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee that he desired to secure as great a measure of decontrol as he could, provided that no hardship was inflicted upon the tenant. It is evident that as 957 the law stands hardship must be inflicted upon the tenant of a very grave order. Indirect hardship will be inflicted—I will not deal with it at any length, because it does not specifically concern this Clause—by limiting the accommodation available throughout the country at reasonable rents. The fact that empty houses are decontrolled, and that all the houses automatically becoming vacant are decontrolled will inflict hardship upon the general body of tenants, because the market of houses available at reasonable rents will be pro tanto restricted. Indirect hardship will be inflicted in that way, but direct hardship must be inflicted by the law as it stands, because the landlord is provided with a premium or a great incentive to get rid of his tenant, and nobody can argue that as the Bill stands more people will not be dispossessed of their houses than would be the case if it were not carried into law. Obviously, if the landlord has a great incentive he will in every case take advantage of his power to get rid of the tenant, whereas if he had no incentive he would not take advantage of his power to get rid of his tenant. Therefore, it is no good the right hon. Gentleman urging upon the House that no direct hardship is inflicted upon the tenant by the law as it stands, and that this Clause will not remedy the hardships which are inflicted.
I venture to say that this Clause substitutes for the rather anodyne penalty Clause of the right hon. Gentleman a practical test of fact. It says that if the house be used for the purpose specified when the Order was obtained then, all right, it is decontrolled, but if, on the other hand, it be not so used and it is subsequently found that it either stands empty for a period of three months or is subsequently vacated by the person for whom possession had been obtained, then it comes back under the original Act. That applies the practical test of what subsequently happens after the obtaining of the Order, and it will provide a far greater deterrent to mala-fide action on the part of the landlord than any penalty Clause. The right hon. Gentleman cannot further argue that private enterprise will meet with any very great shock from a deterrent being provided against mala-fide action on the part of the landlord. He still has his empty houses and his new houses and houses which become ordi- 958 narily vacant decontrolled. All these great incentives are held out to private enterprise, and all we say is that if the landlord abuses his power, or, if he does not intentionally abuse his power, but, if the house be not used for the purpose which has been specified, then it shall relapse under the principal Act.
I do very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Clause, which will go far to meet some of the objections which have been urged against him. I hope, and I think, we may to-day find him in a more propitious mood than we did in Committee, for he has just returned from his native city with his brow adorned with fraternal laurels. The citizens of Birmingham have been informed of his many virtues. He has been provided with an authentic certificate of first-class brains—a fatal handicap in the Government of which he is a Member. All that I can say in this respect is that I trust that in his case it will not be held to disqualify those more substantial and real political virtues of honesty and simplicity, nor yet will it force him to be regarded askance by those who describe themselves as mugwumps. I have stated my reasons for moving this Clause, and my reason for believing that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a more propitious and yielding mood. It is a great day in his life, and I trust that he will do something to make it a little brighter day for the tenants.
§ Mrs. WINTRINGHAMI beg to second the Motion.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)I take it that the purpose of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) in moving this Clause is to deprive landlords of any incentive to put forward bogus claims. I understand that to be his underlying motive. In the course of his observations, he made one or two statements which were not quite accurate. To begin with, he said that any house of which the landlord came into possession would henceforward be decontrolled; but that is not the case. Those who were present in Committee will remember that I made an extremely important concession to certain criticisms which were put forward there, and also in the House, and it was provided expressly that where a landlord came into possession of a house 959 by reason of the tenant having been in arrears of rent, that would not be a case where the house should be decontrolled. That really cut away the most important criticism which was made upon this ground of bogus claims by the landlord. It was urged in Committee that the incentive to get possession of the house, by reason of the fact that the landlord would be getting his house out of control, was so great that there would be a real temptation to him to exercise much greater stringency, in the case of tenants who were in arrears with their rent, than he had been in the habit of doing. It was because I recognised that there was some force in that contention, that I made the concession to which I have referred and which I think goes as far as I can reasonably be expected to go in meeting the case put forward. What would be the result of carrying out this proposed new Clause? As far as concerns houses becoming vacant in the ordinary course of things, and in perfect good faith, there can be no question of any bogus claim by the landlord. He comes into possession of the house in the ordinary course of things, when it becomes vacant, and does not come into possession by reason of any initiative on his part. What the Mover has in mind seems to be a case under Clause 3 where the landlord comes into possession because he has asked for the house for his own occupation or the occupation of one of his children over the statutory age.
§ Mr. MOSLEYAnd many others.
§ Mr. PRINGLEEmployés as well.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIn the case of employés, it can be no hardship to the tenant, because the landlord has to provide alternative accommodation.
§ Mr. MOSLEYWithin his means.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINHe cannot get the tenant out unless he does so. In that case there can be no hardship to the tenant.
§ Mr. MOSLEYIt may be very expensive to the tenant.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe cost of removal
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIn the case of the landlord wanting the house for himself or one of his children, what would 960 be the result if the house came into control again? Surely the result would be the very thing we want to avoid—to induce the landlord to keep houses empty, which is what he is doing now. We have had many complaints which had some substance in them that houses are being held up empty, and, as I have explained in Committee, the reason why they are being held up empty is because the landlord cannot find a purchaser and will not let them, seeing that if he lets them he will not be able to get the tenant out. If the houses are decontrolled he has no longer any inducement to keep them empty, but he can let them at the best rent he can get. That inducement to letting would be entirely removed by the proposed new Clause, and for that reason I cannot possibly accept it.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment suggests that, because he removed one grievance, there is no reason why he should go on to remove a second. I submit that the fact he has admitted there is a danger in this respect, and that in Committee he had to take certain precautions providing against that danger, shows that there is substance in the proposal. It is possible the danger may now be limited, but, if it is limited, surely that is all the more reason why it should be met. In these matters protection is not sought against the mass of the landlords, but only against those who abuse what are perhaps their rights and their opportunities. All the proposed new Clause does, is to say that if the landlord gets possession through a mistake, then without the tenant having to take action against him, as would be the case under the 1920 Act, the house shall automatically go back into control. If these is no abuse, then the Clause is not operative; if there is abuse, then it is operative, in so far as it is needed. It is not merely a question of the hardship to the tenant, but the question of these houses going out of control.
I know the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to decontrol as many houses as possible, but this Clause is brought forward to retain them in control for a longer period, until alternative accommodation is provided by the new houses under the other Bill. Until those houses are provided, nothing should be done to relax control which, at any rate, 961 is a protection for those who are trying to find houses, and cannot. Although the application of the Clause might be limited, it is intended to meet abuses and such a Clause is very desirable. It has been shown by the operation of Section 5 of the 1920 Act, that the penalty at present provided is largely inoperative, and that is bound to be the case, because once a tenant has been got out, he is not going to run the risk of bringing an action on the off-chance of getting damages. It should not be left to the individual tenant to say whether the reasons on which the house has been taken out of control, have lapsed. That is a question of public policy, and the house should automatically go back to control. If the landlord has a good reason let him bring it forward, but do not give him for all time the right to the decontrolled possession of the house, if he abuses the pretext on which the tenant has been got out.
§ Sir KINGSLEY WOODI cannot conceive a worse suggestion than that contained in the Amendment. I could understand the hon. Member the Mover seeking to keep houses under control until the lapse of the time specified in the Bill, but I cannot understand his suggestion that a house should first be controlled, then decontrolled, and then put back under control once again. That would do the greatest possible harm to house-building in this country. I cannot see how the hon. Member makes good the case that if the landlord makes a mistake, then the house should go back to control. The suggestion here is that if a dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months the new Clause should become operative, and there is no question of any misstatement by the landlord. Does the Mover think that, when the landlord is enabled freely to let or sell his property, there will be much probability of houses being empty for three months?
§ Mr. MOSLEYThe hon. Member forgets that the landlord can obtain possession for a specific purpose under Part 1. If those conditions are not carried out, will the house not be left unoccupied?
§ Sir K. WOODI do not think my hon. Friend is correct. In any event, even in the case of a landlord taking possession for himself or his son or daughter, he 962 has still to make application to the Court and it is still within the discretion of the Judge whether he gets possession or not. That seems to meet the case which is made in this respect. I have no doubt the Amendment is put forward with the best possible motives, but I hold the view very strongly that we must begin to make a move in the direction of meeting the hard cases of people who have purchased houses years ago but cannot get into them. If we cannot give decontrol in those cases, I do not know when we shall ever begin to have decontrol again. I can understand in many cases it is necessary to retain control, but we should not overlook the cases of people who have bought houses for their own occupation and are now living under conditions much more unfortunate and miserable than the conditions of the people who occupy those houses.
§ Mr. EDEI do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken can have read the proposed new Clause which he is criticising, and he certainly was not present when we were discussing the matter in Committee. This Amendment only deals with cases where the landlord gets possession for a specific purpose and then fails to carry out the purpose for which he obtained possession.
§ Sir K. WOODThe Amendment certainly does not say so.
§ Mr. EDEThe new Clause states that:
Where possession of a dwelling-house … is obtained … and the said dwelling-house is not occupied within a period of three months … or occupation is subsequently given up by the person so obtaining possession or by the person on whose behalf possession is obtained, the principal Act shall thereupon apply.When possession has been obtained, and when it turns out that the pretext on which possession was obtained from the Judge has been departed from, then, the Clause says, the house is to come back under control.
§ Sir K. WOODThere is not a word in the Clause about any misstatement by the landlord.
§ Mr. EDEI am not aware that I myself have used the word "misstatement." It seems to me that this is a perfectly reasonable request, and when the matter was under discussion in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman used arguments far different from those which he has used 963 this afternoon. I moved an Amendment myself on these lines but I fixed the term at one month, instead of three, and I should support this proposal with a great deal more zeal if the term of one month had been retained. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to contemplate what it would mean supposing a landlord's son for whom possession had been obtained, were to break his leg, and have to go to hospital and asked us to think how hard that case would be. He did not argue against the merits of the proposal but proceeded entirely against the point that I had the term of one month in my Amendment. I rather gathered then that the right hon. Gentleman thought there was some substance in the plea we were putting forward. He also took refuge, on that occasion, in the penalties of the original Act, but it subsequently transpired, as far as we could find out, there was no record of any case ever having been brought to recover those penalties. This new Clause would give an additional power to see that these things are properly carried out. It would not be the tenant who is being turned out of the house who would have to bring action, but the tenant going into the house would have to take action if there were any breach of the pretext put forward before the Judge. Thus you would have a person who was still in touch with the landlord endeavouring to secure that the rent should be brought back to its original size. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) astonished me by saying that if a house were first controlled then decontrolled, and then controlled again, it would be bad for building.
That is an argument we are perpetually hearing. Really the hon. Member is sufficiently in touch with the persons who build houses to know that they have at least an average of the intelligence of the country and that they will realise that this Clause cannot apply to any houses they are now building, or to any houses that have been built since the War, because none of them are under control. It will do nothing with regard to restricting building, unless we are to be told that private enterprise is not going to build any more houses until all the existing pre-War houses have been taken out of control. If that be the case 964 for private enterprise, it might very well be stated frankly, but nothing in this Clause has anything to do with any house that is now being built. It was not argued against in Committee on the lines taken this afternoon, but solely on the question of time and the efficiency of the penalty Clauses. The hon. Member for Harrow has endeavoured to meet the Minister with regard to the point of time, and what we subsequently heard in Committee, I think, disposed of the question of the efficacy of penalty Clauses for dealing with this matter. I hope the House will insist on this very reasonable safeguard being put in to protect the tenants from that class of landlord—it may be a small class—who are undoubtedly trying to use the additional powers under this Bill to obtain possession of houses, and then use them for other purposes than those for which they have obtained possession.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI think hon. Members in all quarters of the House can conceive of a house having been decontrolled and a house being empty for a considerable period, and I take it that hon. Members in all quarters of the House are anxious to utilise all available property in the country. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on this point. It is not so much a question of hard cases, or even of stimulating the building of new houses; it is rather a question of utilising all the houses in existence. Let us assume the case of a house which passes from a tenant to the owner of the property under any of the Clauses of Part I of the Bill. There are a variety of ways in which such a transfer can take place. It may be because of misconduct of the tenant, or because the owner desires possession for himself or his child or someone in his employment. At all events, the transfer takes place, and for a short period, say a month or six weeks, the owner or the person under his control occupies the premises, but immediately after he vacates the premises. For what purpose? It may be to obtain a higher price for letting or on sale.
What is the remedy which hon. Members opposite propose for such a state of affairs? They have no remedy. The house may remain untenanted for six or 12 months, or even two years, as indeed 965 there are many houses at present untenanted, being held up simply because the owners wish to obtain very high prices. That is the whole point at issue, and unless you bring some pressure to bear on the owners of property, either to utilise their property or to subject it to the same control as other buildings are, then obviously the owners of property can do as they like. What we are anxious to prevent is the juggling with house property that is bound to arise immediately partial decontrol takes place, and if we wish to avoid that—and I think hon. Members opposite, and certainly the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who has a great knowledge of this question, will admit that juggling is likely to take place—we should accept this Clause.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has been inadequately met by the other side of the House, both by the Minister of Health and by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I think it is agreed that in all cases where you have legislation of this kind, where an attempt is made to deal with an abuse, those who are to be restrained by it will endeavour to get round the legislation which Parliament passes. That has been the experience of Parliament in relation to all legislation of this kind, and it is well, therefore, that an attempt should be made to defeat any devices to which those affected by the legislation may resort. The hon. Member for West Woolwich has put it that the effort which my hon. Friend is making will in some way or other prejudice those whom he describes as hard cases, the people who, as owners, have been kept out of their houses for a long time and who, he would lead the House to believe, would be still kept out of their houses if this Clause were passed. I think he is under a total misapprehension. Any person who could answer his description of a hard case, who is the owner of a house and who desires to occupy that house, can, under the Bill as it stands, obtain possession of the house, and, having obtained it, if he actually entered into occupation he could not be affected by this Clause at all. I think the hon. Member will agree that in all cases where they are being kept out of possession they will be anxious to obtain occupation at the earliest possible moment, and would be ready to go in as 966 soon as the house was empty. Under these conditions, none of the people whom he has in mind could in the slightest degree be prejudiced if this Clause were passed. This Clause could affect only those who were using the provisions of the Bill for the purpose of getting the houses decontrolled and not for the purpose of occupying the houses themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow puts a fair test—the Clause itself contains a fair test—as to whether the Bill in its original form is to be used in a bona fide way. He says that if the house is not occupied within three months, or if, after a short occupation, it has become unoccupied, then there will be grounds for believing that the provisions of the Bill are being abused and that, consequently, the decontrol thus obtained should not be made effective for the benefit of the landlord. That is all that is proposed in the Clause, and because there is no reference in the Clause to any misstatement on the part of anybody, that does not at all affect the matter or make it less effective for the purpose in view. The real test is not whether a man has made a false statement to the Court, but whether in fact he has carried out the representations he has made to the Court. Could there be any better test for that purpose than that laid down in the Clause? It is true that in Committee a shorter period was mentioned, namely, one month, and I understand that then the Minister made that the main ground of his opposition to the proposal. That is why the period has been extended to three months, so that those desiring to occupy may have a reasonable time in which their bona fides can be tested. That point has not been met.
The right hon. Gentleman has not sought to deal with the argument which was put forward on behalf of the Clause. He says that after all it will affect a very few cases, and that the number of cases which may be affected has been reduced by the Amendment which he himself has accepted. That may be so, but still there are a large number of cases which may come within the purview of the Clause. Not only the owner and his family, but employés may come within the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's only reply on the last case was that there the tenant who was evicted would have alternative accommodation, but nevertheless he would 967 still have a grievance, in that he would have been compelled to remove and would have had cast upon him the costs of removal in order that a landlord might obtain possession on false grounds. In these circumstances, I think Parliament is bound to take such action as it can to obtain a safeguard that the real intentions of the Legislature are carried out. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would mean that the house would be kept empty if it were to come under control again, and he cited the cases where, at present, houses are kept empty in order that the owner may obtain a large price for them. It seems to me to be a false argument that, because this abuse is going on at the present moment, it would therefore occur under this Clause, or that it should be allowed to occur under this Clause. If such an abuse were likely to occur, I think it is not beyond the ingenuity of this House to provide a means for dealing with it, and if the right hon. Gentleman now admits that there is at the present time this abuse, why should—
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI did not say it was an abuse.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThen I will use a neutral term, and say that the right hon. Gentleman admits that this state of things does at present exist. The Minister apparently defends it. He thinks it is an admirable process that a landlord should not let his property, but that he should hold out for the highest price. Although he is against profiteering in letting, he is not against profiteering in selling. He goes on to say that this would occur if this Clause were passed without amendment. I am prepared to admit that it might, but, even so, I think it possible to devise an Amendment to deal with such a situation, and if the right hon. Gentleman regards that as the only ground for the rejection of the Amendment, I should say that he ought, on his own showing, rather to accept the Amendment and suggest supplementary measures for dealing with the situation. As to the contention of the hon. Member for West Woolwich that this Clause would have some prejudicial effect on building, I confess I was unable to follow it.
§ Sir K. WOODWill the hon. Member allow me to explain? The great difficulty 968 in building to-day is to get the money with which to do it. I can speak from my own personal experience of people who, in days gone by, would invest money in helping the builder to build a house, but who now say, "As long as restrictions of this kind continue, as long as we are always being subjected to interference by Parliament, we would sooner put our money into stocks and shares or any other investment."
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot make a second speech on the Report stage.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI was anxious to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of getting out of his dialectical difficulty, but it seems that the explanation he has just given to the House actually plunges him further into it. I understand that if his contentions are out of order, you, Mr. Speaker, would regard as equally out of order any attempt on my part to traverse those contentions. I would merely observe that the hon. Member's argument is an argument against the whole Bill, and not against this Clause, for it is an argument that so long as there is any control at all, nobody will put money into houses. If that be the case, the hon. Member should have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. This Clause, which is entirely in agreement with the spirit of the Measure, so far as we understand it, and is intended to prevent any abuses arising under the operation of the Bill as it stands, cannot in the slightest degree have the adverse effect which the hon. Gentleman suggests. It can apply only to houses at present in existence. It cannot apply to any houses that in future may be built, and consequently the conditions for building new houses are not in the slightest degree affected by this Clause. I submit, therefore, that both the arguments of the Minister and the arguments of the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who is now so ardently supporting him—and, I hope, supporting him in the right spirit and with the hope of just reward—are quite inadequate to lead the House to accept the position taken up by the Government. I hope my hon. Friend will divide in favour of the Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 222.
935| Division No. 272. | AYES. | [3.50 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hewett, Sir J. P. |
| Apsley, Lord | Cope, Major William | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Hood, Sir Joseph |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Dawson, Sir Philip | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) | Doyle, N. Grattan | Hughes, Collingwood |
| Becker, Harry | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) |
| Berry, Sir George | Ellis, R. G. | Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Blundell, F. N. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Flanagan, W. H. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Brass, Captain W. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Foreman, Sir Henry | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Frece, Sir Walter de | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Bruford, R. | Furness, G. J. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Gardiner, James | Lorden, John William |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Garland, C. S. | Lorimer, H. D. |
| Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lougher, L. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Goff, Sir R. Park | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Halstead, Major D. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Harrison, F. C. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harvey, Major S. E. | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. |
| Molloy, Major L. G. S. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) | Remnant, Sir James | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton) | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Murchison, C. K. | Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Tubbs, S. W. |
| Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Russell, William (Bolton) | Wells, S. R. |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Paget, T. G. | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Pease, William Edwin | Sandon, Lord | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Winterton, Earl |
| Penny, Frederick George | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Wise, Frederick |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Shipwright, Captain D. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Skelton, A. N. | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Perring, William George | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Philipson, Mabel | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) | Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Pielou, D. P. | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Pilditch, Sir Philip | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Stanley, Lord | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Privett, F. J. | Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) | |
| Raeburn, Sir William H. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Paling, W. |
| Attlee, C. R. | Harney, E. A. | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Barnes, A. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Potts, John S. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Price, E. G. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) | Richards, R. |
| Berkeley, Captain Reginald | Hillary, A. E. | Riley, Ben |
| Bonwick, A. | Hinds, John | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, G. H. | Salter, Dr. A. |
| Briant, Frank | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Broad, F. A. | Hogge, James Myles | Shakespeare, G. H. |
| Bretherton, J. | Hutchinson, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Irving, Dan | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Burgess, S. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buxton, Charles (Accrington) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Chapple, W. A. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kenyon, Barnet | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Clarke, Sir E. C. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Snell, Harry |
| Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Lansbury, George | Snowden, Philip |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Leach, W. | Spoor, B. G. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Linfield, F. C. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Lowth, T. | Thornton, M. |
| Duncan, C. | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Tillett, Benjamin |
| Dunnico, H. | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Ede, James Chuter | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Turner, Ben |
| Edmonds, G. | M'Entee, V. L. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | McLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Webb, Sidney |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Falconer, J. | March, S. | Weir, L. M. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Foot, Isaac | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Westwood, J. |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Millar, J. D. | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Gosling, Harry | Morel, E. D. | Whiteley, W. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Mosley, Oswald | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Muir, John W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Groves, T. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Newbold, J. T. W. | Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | O'Connor, Thomas P. | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Grady, Captain James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn. |
| Division No. 273.] | AYES. | [4.45 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Attlee, C. R. | Harney, E. A. | Potts, John S. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Price, E. G. |
| Barnes, A. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Richards, R. |
| Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) | Riley, Ben |
| Bonwick, A. | Hillary, A. E. | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Bawdler, W. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Briant, Frank | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Broad, F. A. | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) | Salter, Dr. A. |
| Brotherton, J. | Irving, Dan | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Burgess, S. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buxton, Charles (Accrington) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) | Sinclair, Sir A. |
| Chapple, W. A. | Kenyon, Barnet | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Clarke, Sir E. C. | Leach, W. | Snell, Harry |
| Collison, Levi | Lee, F. | Snowden, Philip |
| Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell | Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) | Spoor, B. G. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Linfield, F. C. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lowth, T. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Thornton, M. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Tillett, Benjamin |
| Duncan, C. | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Dunnico, H. | M'Entee, V. L. | Turner, Ben |
| Edmonds, G. | McLaren, Andrew | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) | March, S. | Weir, L. M. |
| Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Welsh, J. C. |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Westwood, J. |
| Falconer, J. | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Foot, Isaac | Millar, J. D. | Whiteley, W. |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Morel, E. D. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Gosling, Harry | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Muir, John W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Newbold, J. T. W. | |
| Groves, T. | O'Grady, Captain James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Oliver, George Harold | Mr. Mosley and Mr. Ede. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Paling, W. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Bruford, R. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) | Buckingham, Sir H. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Apsley, Lord | Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin | Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Butcher, Sir John George | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) | Ellis, R. G. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cadogan, Major Edward | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Cautley, Henry Strother | Eyres-Monsell. Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M. |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. |
| Becker, Harry | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Flanagan, W. H. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Ford, Patrick Johnston |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Clarry, Reginald George | Foreman, Sir Henry |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Clayton, G. C. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Berry, Sir George | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Furness, G. J. |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips | Garland, C. S. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cope, Major William | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Gwynne, Rupert S. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Halstead, Major D. |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Mercer, Colonel H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. |
| Harrison, F. C. | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sandon, Lord |
| Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) | Molloy, Major L. G. S. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Murchison, C. K. | Shipwright, Captain D. |
| Herbert, S. (Scarborough) | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hewett, Sir J. P. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Stanley, Lord |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) |
| Houfton, John Plowright | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. | Paget, T. G. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. | Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hume, G. H. | Pease, William Edwin | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Penny, Frederick George | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Tubbs, S. W. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perring, William George | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul | Philipson, Mabel | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A. | Pielou, D. P. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| King, Capt. Henry Douglas | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Waring, Major Walter |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Privett, F. J. | Wells, S. R. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. | Rawson Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Remnant, Sir James | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Rentoul, G. S. | Winterton, Earl |
| Lorimer, H. D. | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Wise, Frederick |
| Lougher, L. | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Rodgerson, Captain J. E. | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | |
| Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Manville, Edward | Russell, William (Bolton) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs. |
| Margesson, H. D. R. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. |