HC Deb 16 February 1926 vol 191 cc1866-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)

I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain what are the expenses for which this Supplementary Estimate is sought. There are only two items in the Vote—Incidental Expenses, and Food Liquidation Department. The Incidental Expenses relate exclusively to the Census of Production. When the Estimates for the year were laid before the House it was impossible to forecast how far the expenditure voted for the Census in 1924–25 would have materialised. The Estimates have to be put in some months before the close of the financial year. The full amount taken in respect of 1924–25 was not expended, owing to the fact that the forms did not come forward from the Stationery Office as rapidly as had been expected. A number of forms—they run into thousands and thousands—could not be sent out in the last financial year, and all those which it was impossible to send out in the last financial year were sent out in the present financial year. Not only did we overtake the lag but we did something more, which I think the Committee will agree was reasonable.

It is very important to get this Census of Production as quickly as possible. I was very much pressed, rightly so I think, to speed it up as much as possible, and as a consequence we have not only caught up the lag of last year but have also anticipated some expenditure which ordinarily would have been incurred in the next financial year. Not only have we got out all the forms, but we have also sent out reminders to a number of firms. The expenditure is entirely for stationery and postage. It is the overplus of what should have been done a year ago and the anticipation of something which would have been done next year. There is no question of exceeding the recognised cost of the Census of Production. It only means that we have been able to speed it up.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

We would like to know what he is going to do with the Census of Production.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I thought that had already been approved by the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Guillotined.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER

The House, having ordered the Census of Production, I should not be in order in discussing it.

The CHAIRMAN

The policy has already been decided.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Without going into the question of policy at all, although it was guillotined, what is he going to do with this Census?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I do not want to be drawn into a discussion upon the main Vote, but I think the whole House will agree that a Census of Production is absolutely vital.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with a question of policy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I will content myself by saying that the question of policy has already been approved by the House and the country. The other expenditure for which I am asking a Vote amounting to £5,100 is for the Food Liquidation Department. That will mean that last year £16,853 was spent, and this year we propose to spend £11,330. The reason the original estimate is exceeded is, in the first place, that there has been considerable litigation with regard to charges for packers, and a final decision has now been reached in the House of Lords. In 1920 the claims for requisitions of food-stocks ran into about £120,000,000. In this litigation the sum in dispute was about £4,000,000. Our contention was that the amount due was only £1,500,000. There was an arbitration and the result, after being carried to the House of Lords, was substantially that the judgment upheld our contention. It then became the duty of the Food Liquidation Department to readjust the whole of these accounts, which ran into something like £120,000,000, and this readjustment has saved the Government a large sum of money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

What was the total sum involved?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The difference between £4,000,000 and £1,500,000. Our contention was that we ought to pay about £1,500,000, and the judgment of the House of Lords was substantially in favour of the contention of the British Government. This meant a great deal of accounting work and very considerable legal expenses, but the judgment was in our favour.

The other item, which we did not expect would carry on so long or involve us in so much expense, is the accounts of the Wheat Commission. In the Wheat Commission during the War Great Britain acted as purchaser on behalf of the pool, which included, not only this country, but our Allies, and it included transactions which in the case of France went up to £112,000,000 and in the case of Italy, £126,000,000. Ceder the arrangement we were to accept the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor—General. The account was made up and the Comptroller and Auditor-General gave his certificate, but that certificate was challenged—I do not mean in the sense that it was not an accurate accounting statement—but the French and Italian Governments required from our Government an itemised account, and it was clear that these itemised accounts had got to be given. I am glad to say now the Italian Government have accepted the certificate in regard to these accounts, so that we shall have no further work in connection with the Italian accounts.

Mr. LANSBURY

Is it part of a bargain?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It is part of an arrangement that no further question will arise.

Mr. LANSBURY

I mean the debt arrangement.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Member is quite right. In the debt arrangement we took the opportunity to clear up outstanding issues and the Italian Government have accepted our figures, therefore, we need do no further work in that connection.

Mr. THURTLE

Did the outstanding questions include the matter of Iraq?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That is really rather irrelevant. It was not concerned in the Wheat Commission. The French Government required itemised accounts and we are at the present time being supplied with these and are engaged in settling a large number of questions arising out of them. I am sure the Committee will feel that as we have to go through these accounts again it is vital that until they are finally sealed the men who have been working on these accounts all the time should be available in order that all the accounts may be substantiated.

These are the only two items which arise and make this Estimate necessary. In both cases I think the Committee will agree that the extra expense which has been incurred beyond that in the Estimate has in the one case resulted in a very considerable saving to the British taxpayer, and in the other case will, I hope, result in substantiating all the claims which have been approved by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. GILLETT

I understand from the Minister that this money is being spent purely on staff and nothing else, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the legal expenses were obtained from the other side—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No; the legal expenses which we have to pay amount to £4000. The £11,330 is divided into £7,230 for salaries and £4,100 for law charges, and incidentals.

Mr. GILLETT

That partly answers the question I was going to put to the Minister. I noticed that last year, when the total expenditure was about £8,000, there was a staff of 27, and that in the year of which we are now speaking it was intended only to employ 16 in this Department. The Minister said that it, was important to keep the men who had had to deal with these figures. Are we to understand that the staff has not been reduced from 27 to 16, and, therefore, that this expenditure consints largely of the payments to them, plus about £4,000 for legal expenses? I take it that this year we have spent on this Department £8,000—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

We spent £16,000.

Mr. GILLETT

I was referring to the Estimate given to us, on page 78, for the Food Liquidation Department, but I think the Minister is also taking in the Wheat Commission as well.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That was really why I gave the figure of £16,853. I know that the figure of £8,000 was nut in the Estimate, but that figure was greatly exceeded. Actually, the Food Liquidation Department cost £16,853 last year, but a Supplementary Estimate was not necessary in that year because the balance was made up by savings in other directions.

Mr. GILLETT

It seems to me rather an amazing statement. I thought we might always take these figures correct. Do I understand that the figure for 1924–25 in this hook, namely, £8,400 is really incorrect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That was the Estimate, but the Estimate was considerably exceeded.

Mr. GILLETT

Therefore, as far as comparison is concerned, it is quite valueless?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Quite.

Mr. GILLETT

Do we understand that the other figures in this book are equally valueless? Am I correct in thinking that the staff has been retained, and that that is really the explanation, together with legal expenses, of this expenditure? Or are we to understand that the staff has been increased in order to meet the special emergencies of the various Departments? What I want to get at is whether we are having a still larger staff. These figures have been worked at for years, and, surely, the members of the staff must have had them years ago all of them must have been worked out in the years that have gone by.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I gather that the result of the legal adventures of the Board of Trade is that we have saved the difference between £4,000,000 and £1,500,000 in the case of the American bacon packers, and have given Italy £115,000,000 for wheat supplied during the War—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Of course we have not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The right hon. Gentleman skimmed over hundreds of millions, and I want to put one or two questions to elucidate these points. They are points of extreme interest to the country; and I think they should be a little further explored. This staff has been kept on for seven years after the War, in order to settle these matters. I do not complain of that I think the Food Control Department should be kept in nucleus for some time to come—it may be extremely valuable, and I hope the dot, and information in its possession are being very carefully preserved. I think I may not be very wrong in prophesying that it may be required in the near future. Can we he informed as to the facts with regard to the wheat transactions and the arrangements come to with Italy and France? I have, with others, been pressing for some information as to the extraordinary arrangement that was come to the other day by our priceless Chancellor of the Exebequer—

The CHAIRMAN

The staff did not negotiate the recent settlement with Italy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not follow that. We are asked to vote the money for this staff, which had to be kept on so that they could have their hand on the figures for this settlement, and we are entitled to know why it was not settled before, and why the staff was not kept on, and one or two other items. The right hon. Gentleman talked airily about hundreds of millions to France and Italy and some obscure case in the House of Lords which I do not think we can be expected to follow, and we are entitled to further information. This seems to roe another case of a camouflaged Estimate for a very small sum which covers immense transactions that the House is not allowed to discuss, and is given this fragmentary information about. I had to drag from him the information that it was money due from us to the American bacon factories, and he waxed sarcastic and told me America was where the pigs came from. That was not necessary. I wanted to get to the bottom of this transaction. It has saved us £25,000,000, and that is all to the good. The right hon. Gentleman was so glib that it was difficult to take down the figures. I did not catdh the number of hundreds of millions involved in the wheat transactions with France, but they are all part of the same transactions covered by this little token Vote of £5,000, and because it is 11 o'clock we are to pass it through. As to information for the taxpayer who had to find the original hundreds of millions and is paying interest on it, not a bit. We are told this is from America where the pigs come from. It would not do to discuss it further. It is not really good enough, and I hope other hon. Members who have a much closer grasp of these financial questions than I have will follow it up. I do not think in hundreds of millions, but I am trying to help the unfortunate taxpayer who has to find the money. We seem to have saved £25,000,000 on bacon and have forgiven Italy £115,000,000 for wheat that we bought from the Argentine with our money and sold to Italy. It is one more example of the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which the country's finances are handled by this Government, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular.

Mr. STEPHEN

The right hon. Gentleman Las given us a certain amount of information with regard to this Estimate, but I should like a little more. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I suggest that under heading D he might give us some more information about the Census of Production. I do not want at all to consider the question of policy involved in taking this Census of Production. We are all anxious to get as much information as possible. Surely the Minister can tell us when we are going to get some value for this money which is being estimated for. Surely he can give us some indication of the range of enquiries. After all, the original Estimate was for £1,750 and we are now asked to vote a revised Estimate of £9,350, involving an increase of £7,600. I should like a little more explanation as to why there is this big difference between the original Estimate and the present sum. I am sure he will have good reason for it, in view of the fact that the Government are so anxious to carry through a sound policy of economy. Has he any idea when we shall have the fruits of this fresh expenditure and be able to see how things are going in regard to reductions? I was interested in the figures he gave in regard to the packing litigation. He said a sum of £4,000,000 was involved, and the Government's idea was that £1,000,00 should cover the amount involved. I do not think he was as definite as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested, because when he was pressed as to the amount saved, he said that one of the leading principles of the Government case had been supported by the House of Lords. On some of the minor issues of the case the Government was not so successful in the appeal.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to what sum we are likely to be called upon to expend in this direction? I think I am right in saying that £1,500,000, the original estimate of the Government, will be exceeded to some extent. Possibly it may be that the results of the litigation have not yet been fully decided. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us fuller particulars of the stated case that went to the House of Lords, and who were the parties in the case, so that we may look up the case and get full information in regard to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might have issued a White Paper in connection with the matter. He might meet our case if he would promise to issue a White Paper.

There is a further point, in connection with the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies with which I should like to deal. I was interested in this, because I recollect that when his Majesty's present Government were in opposition, the leader of the Opposition said that he was willing to contemplate a bigger purchase of food from the various Dominions, and also arrangements for its distribution in, this country at cost price. I wonder whether there is something in the mind of the Minister in this connection?

The CHAIRMAN

This is for expenses in connection with the past.

Mr. STEPHEN

If you had given me a minute or two longer, Mr. Chairman, I would have made the connection plain. Here the Minister is stating that the Government are anxious to maintain the personnel in connection with this liquidation because of the experience that they have had. Seeing that they are maintaining the personnel, I suggest that I was entitled to ask whether, in connection with the personnel, they have also in contemplation the fact that it might be made the basis of an extended service in future for a new experiment in connection with the supply of—?

The CHAIRMAN

This is a matter of the liquidation of what is past, and not the construction of what is in the future.

Mr. STEPHEN

We are spending motley in maintaining a certain personnel, and is not one entitled to ask whether it is simply for carrying through the liquidation or for future developments as well? Am I not entitled to ask that?

The CHAIRMAN

No, I think not.

Mr. STEPHEN

I bow to that decision, and I am sure that the Minister will be relieved at not having to answer that question, which might involve the fate of his Government at no distant date. I hope that we shall get fuller information with regard to this Estimate. We are anxious to get to our homes, and if the Minister can give us some assurance that the country is going to get value for the money being expended on the Census of Production we will not put any difficulties in his way.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

Under the heading "Incidental Expenses" there are stated the sums that are to be repaid to the particular Departments, the General Post Office and the Stationery Office, which have given services in connection with the Census of Production. In the Food Liquidation Department the right hon. Gentleman is spending money in two specific directions. One is the payment of salaries of the staff and the other is the expense of legal proceedings in connection with some Court case. In that particular Vote the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £5,100, bringing the total Estimate up to £11,500. But he makes no statement as to how much of that sum is to be spent in salaries and how much in legal expenses. As to that the Committee has a right to some information.

With regard to the Census of Production, the payment to the Stationery Office in the original Estimate was something like £800. We are here asked to vote £1,200 to the Stationery Office. Is this to be the final payment required by the Stationery Office or by the Post Office in connection with the compilation of the Census, or is the work to be continued, and, if so, for how long? How many further demands are we likely to have made upon us to meet the cost of this compilation? Are we to build up by successive Estimates a sum much heavier than that represented by the original Estimate, supplemented by the present Estimate? Personally, I am not against the Census of Production if it is carried out in a proper way, and I am not against voting any sum of money which is legitimately required for it, provided that the results of the Census are going to be submitted to the House of Commons and the country. I feel sure that if we can have a proper Census of Production made it will stand very fittingly beside the census of population, and will enable us to know what are the factors of production at our disposal and the actual amount of production which can be derived from those factors, when required by the people of the country. Any sum within reason expended in providing necessary facts and figures will not be grudged by the Committee or by the country. Once we get to know the wealth-producing factors in our country we shall be provided with data of a very useful character, and if the Census is completed within the right hon. Gentleman's term of office it will be of great service to hon. Members on this side when we move across to the benches opposite.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member appears to be arguing in favour of the original policy of the Census of Production, which has already been approved by Parliament. The only point before the Committee is the cost.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am not grumbling at the cost.

The CHAIRMAN

Then the hon. Member's observations appear to be superfluous.

Mr. MACLEAN

I submit they are not, Sir, otherwise you would have called me to order sooner. As I say, I do not grudge the money, but I want information as to how much more is required.

Mr. ROY WILSON

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the information for which I asked a couple of months ago, as to when he expects to have the Census of Production ready for publication?

Captain GARRO-JONES

The Minister stated that one of the considerations which induced us to settle the debts of France and Italy was that those two nations did not continue to press for certain vouchers in connection with our invoices to them for the work we carried out on the Wheat Commission during the War. No actual concession of any sum of money was made; they merely said that they would not press for the vouchers. I want to get at what actual sum was involved, and what, were the sums which France and Italy respectively disputed. I think they are relevant as showing what value there was in the French and Italian concessions to us. There is one other point that I want to make, which may at first glance appear unimportant, but which, I think, the Committee will agree on further consideration is highly important. It refers to trio detailed amounts, one for £6,400 and the other for £1,200, under "Incidental Expenses." It was only yesterday that we were discussing the Stationery Office Vote, and a good many of us urged the right hon. Gentleman, who was endeavouring to get that Vote through, to institute more progressive methods in the administration of the Stationery Office, for we thought that they might be able to show a larger profit on their operations, and so come to this House for less money.

The Stationery Office has made a charge of £1,200 to the right hon. Gentleman for certain services rendered. Is the Stationery Office charging excessive amounts to the other Government Departments for the services which it renders to them? Similarly, is the Past Office charging excessive amounts to the other Government Departments for its services to them? So far as I can see, we are unable to get at these amounts when we are discussing the Estimates, for the Stationery Office and for the Post Office, and I shall, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what were the services rendered by the stationery Office and the Post Office respectively, in order that we may examine whether the terms entered into with those Departments were fair and equitable to the Board of Trade.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I want to put a point in regard to the fact that an amount of money, according to what I understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to say, has been carried over from the previous year and has also in part been anticipated from what might have been the Estimate for the following year. He said it had been anticipated that they would use the services of the Stationery Office and the Post Office in the year ending March, 1925, and that, as that was not dime, the Estimate prepared on that basis was not discovered in time in order to decrease it. I could only understand that explanation if it were a question of sending out circulars, say, in the last few weeks of the year, and if that were so, the explanation seems to me to be adequate.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

indicated assent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Then how can it be anticipating the year 1926–27? I should like a little explanation of that. I understand it is a matter of sending out circulars in order to get information, and I think it must have been a case of sending out reminders, otherwise I do not see how it is to be explained. That is the first point I should like to have a little clearer, because it is a matter of the presentation to the House of suitable Estimates. I should have thought it was possible to have brought the Estimate up-to-date earlier than this, and not to have had to come for a Supplementary Estimate at this time of the year.

The second point I would like to get clear is, how far this acceleration really assists us in getting out the results of the Census earlier, and when, approximately, as a result, we may hope to have the Census before us? I am sure hon Members in all parts of the House—certainly I for my part—will welcome acceleration of the Census of Production, because it is of the utmost necessity that we should have it in order to compare the facts with those which went before.

Mr. W. BAKER

I have endeavoured to be present at the introduction of each of the Supplementary Estimates in the present Session, and I should like, if I may, to compliment the President of the Board of Trade upon having given the Committee a great deal more information than any of his colleagues who have presented Supplementary Estimates up to this point. At the same time, I feel it is still true that the amount of information given in this Supplementary Estimate is not sufficient to enable ordinary Members of the Committee to understand and intelligently discuss the matters which are placed before them. If the endeavour on the part of the British Government was to persuade the Governments of France and Italy to accept a figure on anything like this basis, I can well understand the action of the French and Italian Governments in demanding itemised accounts think it would be very much better for everyone concerned, including the heads of the Government Departments, if future Supplementary Estimates could contain a very great deal more information than we are getting here. So far as. I understand, the President did not vouchsafe us any information with regard to the Census of Production, and it may very well be that I am under a misapprehension in that connection but my impression is that the Census of Production is taken once in 10 years, that, owing to the War, the last Census occurred somewhere about 1907, that the Census was taken during the present year 1925–26, and that a further Census will not occur for a period of 10 years.

If those are the facts, it does appear to me to be surprising that a Supplementary mentary Estimate of this character should have to be brought before the Committee to-night. The Estimate for 1925–26, when compared with the Estimate for 1924–25, claims a reduction of £4,500 under heading D, and yet, despite that supposed reduction of £4,500 under that heading in the original Estimate, it is now necessary for the Department to ask for an additional sum of £7,600. Nothing has been said in my hearing which has been an explanation as to the new circumstances which justify transforming the reduction into the additional sum now asked for, and, I think, we are entitled to ask the President to take us a little bit more into his confidence, not only with regard to the anticipations when announcing the possible reduction of £4,500, but also to explain to us the precise circumstances which prevented the Department from adequately estimating the cost of the Census, having regard to the fact that its very nature makes it extremely easy, I should imagine, to estimate exactly what the cost will be. I would be glad to reinforce the appeal made by the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) in asking for more detailed information with regard to the service rendered by the Post Office and by the Stationery Office. In the case of the Post Office, I imagine that would be a simple statement as to the number of communications transferred from the one Department to the other. But so far as the Stationery Office is concerned, I think the information might be extremely illuminating. There is then the question of the Food Liquidation Department. I did not understand, Mr. Hope, that you objected to reference being made to the liquidation of that former Food Department; and if I am in order, I should like to say that I very much regret that the Food Department is in process of liquidation instead of being carried on in the interests of the whole of the people of the nation. So far as the actual figures are concerned, I would be glad if the President would once more give an analysis of the amount spent on salaries and upon legal expenses, in the hope that the matter may be made clearer to the Committee. I am not altogether certain as to the reasons why legal expenses have been incurred, seeing that the case was settled in the way he described. Possibly when he comes to make reply to the general Debate he will be good enough to deal with that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman two brief questions. The first has reference to the Census of Production. I should like to ask him whether this expenditure for which he asks includes what I understood was promised at the time or after the last Census of Production was taken, namely, that there would be a short brief and concise handbook summarising the result of that Census for sale or distribution to the public generally. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first bulky volumes of the Census of Production are practically of no general use whatever. To begin with, no one can afford to buy the volumes, and only a man with unlimited leisure, can afford to study them. If concise summary at 1s. or 2s. were published, it would have a wide sale in this country. Did any part of this expenditure make allowance for the compilation of a summary of the results of the census' Secondly. I would like to ask the President a, question in view of the very important statement made from the Treasury Bench last night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who declared from his place at that Box that great and important savings had been made and would be made in the future by His Majesty's Government as the result of handing over the larger or all the Government printing works to the State Printing Department which, to his surprise, was turning out the work infinitely cheaper than the private contractor to whom they had previously handed that work. It was a most amazing revelation of what we had hitherto supposed to be an anti-Socialist action on the Treasury Bench. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to give us a similar assurance to that we had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that he will see to it that no private concerns in the printing trade will be allowed to run off with the booty, and, as they have done in the past, on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury's own admission, rob and plunder the people of this country. He can get his work done at cost price, and very mach cheaper by his own State Printing Department.

The CHAIRMAN

The sum under this Vote for the Census of Production is payable to two other Government Departments, and not to any private contractors. Therefore this correlation does not appear to me to be applicable to the Vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I was only seeking a guarantee from the President of the Board of Trade that he will adopt the same economy course that his colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has undertaken to follow in connection with this Census of Production, where admittedly a large volume of printing is involved.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

The statement made at the outset of the discussion of this Estimate does away with the need for me to ask some of the questions I had intended to put, but there are one or two points I would like the President to clear up for me. I have been looking again, to refresh my memory, at the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, and I submit, as has already been said by one hon. Member or this side, that we ought to be able to get to know how soon the expenditure which is charged here will be the final expenditure. On page 7 of the Second Report of the Commission we find it stated that while the voluntary agree mint, that is, the agreement with the millers— undoubtedly had the effect of hastening the presentation of claims, difficulties still remain in connection with the disposal of claims where the basis of Excess Profits linty is still in doubt, and even now your Commissioners feel it possible there may be decisions in the High Court which may react upon settlements yet to be effected. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is expecting any more litigation under that head. On pages and 9 of the Second Report there are statements drawing our attention to the danger—I well remember it—of heavy litigation on the question of demurrage. It was thought advisable at the time, instead of incurring heavy charges for litigation, that a compromise should be arranged, and in many cases that did happen; but in this Second Report the Commissioners also say that— the decisions of the courts were generally adverse to the contentions urged by your Commissioners. It is understood that a number of cases still remain to be fought, and a test case is in the House of Lords. Three cases in which your Commissioners are very much interested are awaiting the result of the case in question. 12 M.

On both the question of the assessment of profits to Excess Profits Duty and the question of demurrage I would like to know from the President whether he is expecting any further litigation of that kind, and if there will be further expenditure under this head. I should be glad, also, if he will tell me whether the staff of the Food Liquidation Department covered by this Estimate are engaged entirely upon food liquidation work. During the last fifteen months since the Food Ministry went out of existence there has been a Department of the Board of Trade dealing with the question. We have had a Royal Commission on Food Prices that went by the board. We now have a Food Council. I should like to know how far the old experienced staff are being or have been retained, and are actually giving whole or part-time service?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On a point of Order. Surely it would not be In order to answer a question of that sort?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that it is out of order to ask whether the staff of the Department are engaged whole or part time.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Moreover, I put this point. It is said that so far as the liquidation work is concerned it is important to keep the people of experience. It may be so, but there are others whose services are also valuable in other directions. Therefore, I shall be glad to have information on these two points. I trust the Census of Production will be speeded up, it may help us very much the better to ascertain, in our basic industries, some of the causes of unemployment.

Mr. THURTLE

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Before I put a question or two, I should like to enter my modest protest against business being taken at this late hour of the night. It is important, even in these days of economy, that we should scrutinise every item of public expenditure very carefully, and should bring fresh, and not jaded, minds to the task. I desire to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman relating to Sub-head 0—Incidental Expenses. It is in connection with the Census of Production. I listened very carefully to the painstaking, courteous and comprehensive speech and explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not make it clear, however, whether this expenditure was due to alterations in the scope of the Census. Is the whole or any part of this difference between the original Estimate and the actual cost of the Census due to any change in its scope? The only question I wish to put is in connection with Subhead N (Food Liquidation Department). This is an item of £5,100 for Additional provision required to pay the salaries of staff and the expenses of legal proceedings in connection with the liquidation of the transactions of the former Food Department and Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies. I gathered from the explanation given by the President of the Board of Trade that in the litigation which had taken place between the Government and the American packers the decision was in favour of the Government's contention. In that case how do all these legal expenses arise? Are we to take it as meaning that although the decision of the Court was in our favour each party had to pay their own costs? These costs have been incurred in connection with two Departments, the former Food Department and the Wheat Supplies Commission, and they are all jumbled together. We do not know how much of this expenditure has been incurred by the Wheat Supplies Commission, or how much is in respect of litigation in connection with the former Food Department. I would like to have some further explanation of this matter, although I am not very hopeful of receiving any reply from the President in view of the reticence he has shown during the later stages of this Debate. As a measure of precaution, however, I have moved a reduction of this Vote by £100 in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of intervening in order to give us the legitimate information we are asking for.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I did not rise before to reply because I thought it would be more convenient for me to reply at the end of the Debate, rather than interrupt the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) found some difficulty in reconciling the figures in this Estimate with the expenditure for the whole year, but in order to understand the matter it is necessary to compare these figures with those in the primary Estimate. Whereas a sum of £8,400 appeared in the original Estimate for 1924–25, the sum which was actually pent on these services in that year was £16,853. Therefore in order to make a proper comparison you have to compare this Supplementary Estimate with that figure. The number in 1924 was 34, and in October, 1925, that number had been reduced to 16. I hope that number will be considerably further reduced. In regard to the Census of Production, we have been speeding up the work and have sent out reminders and correspondence but it will not cost any more money. Speed is absolutely vital and I hope that some preliminary figures will be out in the autumn of this year. I was very much interested in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) which, as I understand it, is that we should produce the figures in a simple and concise form. I do not want to discuss that now, and I do not know whether I would be in order to do so on this vote, but perhaps I might be allowed to say that the suggestion will certainly be gone into. It is not possible to say with certainty how much money we saved in the packers case, but it is reasonable to suppose that it is somewhere about the figure I gave to the Committee. As regards the settlement of the Flour Mills Control accounts and demurrage claims there are still some outstanding cases between the Inland Revenue and some of the millers on the question of excess profits. These fall to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue. I cannot make out the final account until I know whether we are to have a debit or credit on that charge. With regard to the demurrage claims these have new practically all been disposed of by the Courts. The staff I am asking for on this Vote is all required for the liquidation business. I shall of course in the Estimates for the coming year take whatever expenditure is necessary and I shall certainly be prepared to justify whatever expenditure is reasonably necessary. But I do not think it is relevant on this Estimate now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) asked me what were the services rendered by the Stationery Office and General Post Office.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Also what is the amount in dispute.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The amounts are the amounts set out in the Estimate—£6,400 for the Post Office and £1,200 for the Stationery Office.

Captain GARRO-JONES

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I asked him what were the amounts involved in our dispute with the Italian and French Governments.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

With regard to Italy nothing is now in dispute because they have accepted our figure.

Captain GARRO-JONES

What were the amounts in dispute?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It would be impossible to say because the form the negotiations took was an enormous number of queries that were raised on thi accounts certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. With regard to the French I could not possibly say, because we have a very large number of questions raised on these itemised accounts and I do not think it would be conceivably possible, without an expenditure taking in a Supplementary Estimate and more staff, to produce the items in dispute. That obviously is so when an account running into millions is being challenged. Or the other point the service rendered by the Stationery Office is to supply the stationery we require for the Census of Production and the service rendered by the Post Office, is the postage.

Mr. MAXTON

I rise to support the reduction, and I do so with the greater pleasure because the right hon. Gentleman seems to think his asking for an extra £12,000 is a matter for flippancy and jest. Most people would have expected this to be a diminishing Vote as the years went on. It is a clearing up matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in a manner of light jest and comedy, asks for this extra £12,700, and does not indicate one penny saved on any other item of the Vote. He treats my question that is raised either as a joke or a piece of impertinence that anyone should dare to ask him a question at all. In one or other of these directions, Food Liquidation Department, Clearing off enemy debts, Russian claims, payments in respect of restitution coming under the Treaty of Versailles, Reparations, dyes, etc., Air Raids Compensation Committee, the work oughtto be, and, I believe, is diminishing, and yet the right hon. Gentleman, with a laugh and a jest, asks for £12,000 more in a certain section of the Vote. I should be prepared to believe an addition was required in some Department, but I should certainly have expected an economy Government would have made strenuous efforts to show sonic saving under some other sub-heads. The right hon. Gentleman did none of these things and does not give a satisfactory reason even for the £12,700 extra he is asking for. Instead of treating it as a jest he should tome forward with some sense of shame and apologise to the House and the country in the responsible position I, holds for being unable to relieve the country from its crushing burdens. I hope the house will refuse to pass the Vote.

Mr. W. BAKER

I asked the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions with which he has not attempted to deal.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I thought I had dealt with all the points. Will the hon. Member say what points I missed?

Mr. BAKER

I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make any reference to anything I said. I understand the last Census of Production prior to the War took place in 1907, and owing to the War no further census was possible until 1925–6, and no further census will take place for 10 years. In these circumstances it is a perfectly simple matter to estimate the expenses of his Department and to avoid the necessity for presenting a Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate for 1925–6 compared with that for 1924–5 showed a reduction, of £4,500.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That is exactly the question I dealt with. I explained how we underspent in 1924–5 and both overtook and anticipated expenditure in 1925–6.

Mr. BAKER

The explanation was of such an extremely vague and general character that it was comparable to the explanation given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hackney in stating that the expenditure in connect ion with the Post. Office and Stationery Office referred to postage and stationery. That does not appeal to me as being a courteous explanation as to expenditure from the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I paid the compliment I did in opening my remarks.

There are two further questions. What has been done with the members of the staff as their services are disposed of? Are they being transferred to another section of the Board of Trade or transferred

to another Department? Will he tell us how soon he anticipates the figures in relation to the census will become available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 68.

Division No. 25.] AYES. [12.27 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gunston, Captain D. W. Philipson, Mabel
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pielou, D. P.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Harrison, G. J. C. Preston, William
Albery, Irving James Hartington, Marquess of Price, Major C. W. M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Radford, E. A.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Raine, W.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Hawke, John Anthony Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Henn, Sir Sydney H. Salmon, Major I.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Balniel, Lord Hills, Major John Walter Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hilton, Cecil Sandeman, A. Stewart
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Holt, Captain H. P. Sandon, Lord
Bethell, A. Homan, C. W. J. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Betterton, Henry B. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Savery, S. S.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Hopkins, J. W. W. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Blundell, F. N. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shepperson, E. W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Huntingfield, Lord Skelton, A. N.
Briscoe, Richard George Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Brittain, Sir Harry Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Jephcott, A. R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Smithers, Waldron
Bullock, Captain M. King, Captain Henry Douglas Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Burman, J. B. Knox, Sir Alfred Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Lamb, J. Q. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Campbell, E. T. Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Little, Dr. E. Graham Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Chapman, Sir S. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Christie, J. A. Loder, J. de V. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Looker, Herbert William Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cope, Major William Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Couper, J. B. Lumley, L. R. Templeton, W. P.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) MacAndrew, Charles Glen Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Curzon, Captain Viscount MacIntyre, I. Tinne, J. A.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) McLean, Major A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Macmillan, Captain H. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Wallace, Captain D. E.
Dawson, Sir Philip MacRobert, Alexander M. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Eden, Captain Anthony Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wells, S. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Merriman, F. B. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Everard, W. Lindsay Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Moles, Thomas Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fermoy, Lord Moore, Sir Newton J. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fielden, E. B. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Fraser, Captain Ian Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Frece, Sir Walter de Moreing, Captain A. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Wise, Sir Fredric
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank Withers, John James
Ganzoni, Sir John Nuttall, Ellis Womersley, W. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Gee, Captain R. Pennefather, Sir John Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Penny, Frederick George Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Goff, Sir Park Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Grant, J. A. Perkins, Colonel E. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Major Hennessy and Captain
Greene, W. P. Crawford Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Margesson.
NOES.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayday, Arthur Purcell, A. A.
Baker, Walter Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Riley, Ben
Barr, J. Hirst, G. H. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Batey, Joseph Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scrymgeour, E.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Scurr, John
Bromfield, William Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Thurtle, E.
Compton, Joseph Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lansbury, George Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry Lindley, F. W. Varley, Frank B.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maxton James Whiteley, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M. Morris, R. H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Owen, Major G. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Windsor, Walter
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,600, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 189.

Division No. 26.] AYES. [12.35 a.m.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Baker, Walter Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scurr, John
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Thurtle, E.
Dalton, Hugh Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry Lansbury, George Townend, A. E.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lindley, F. W. Varley, Frank B.
Fenby, T. D. Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood J.
Gibbins, Joseph Maxton, James Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Morris, R. H. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grenffell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Windsor, Walter
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur Purcell, A. A. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brittain, Sir Harry Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Ainsworth, Major Charles Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Eden, Captain Anthony
Albery Irving James Bullock, Captain M. Edmondson, Major A. J.
Amery Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Burman, J. B. Everard, W. Lindsay
Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Burton, Colonel H. W. Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Butler, Sir Geoffrey Fermoy, Lord
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Campbell, E. T. Fielden, E. B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chadwick, Sir Robert Barton Fraser, Captain Ian
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chapman, Sir S. Frece, Sir Walter de
Balniel, Lord Christie, J. A. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cope, Major William Ganzoni, Sir John
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Couper, J. B. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Bethell, A. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Gee, Captain R.
Betterton, Henry B. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Goff, Sir Park
Blades, Sir George Rowland Curzon, Captain Viscount Grant, J. A.
Blundell, F. N. Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Briscoe, Richard George Dawson, Sir Philip Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Harrison, G. J. C. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Skelton, A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Margesson, Captain D. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hawke, John Anthony Merriman, F. B. Smithers, Waldron
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Moles, Thomas Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Moore, Sir Newton J. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hills, Major John Walter Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hilton, Cecil Moreing, Captain A. H. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Holt, Captain H. P. Nelson, Sir Frank Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Homan, C. W. J. Nuttall, Ellis Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Templeton, W. P.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Owen, Major G. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hopkins, J. W. W. Pennefather, Sir John Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Penny, Frederick George Tinne, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Huntingfield, Lord Perkins, Colonel E. K. Vaughan-Margan, Col. K. P.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Jephcott, A. R. Philipson, Mabel Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pielou, D. P. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Preston, William Wells, S. R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas Price, Major C. W. M. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Knox, Sir Alfred Radford, E. A. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Lamb, J. Q. Raine, W. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Little, Dr. E. Graham Salmon, Major I. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George
Loder, J. de V. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wise, Sir Fredric
Looker, Herbert William Sandeman, A. Stewart Withers, John James
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sanders, Sir Robert A. Womersley, W. J.
Lumley, L. R. Sandon, Lord Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Savery, S. S. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
MacIntyre, Ian Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
McLean, Major A. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Macmillan, Captain H. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) Mr. Frederick Thomson and Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Shepperson, E. W. Stanley.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER

claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 62.

Division No. 27.] AYES. [12.43 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Couper, J. B. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hawke, John Anthony
Albery, Irving James Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Henderson, Capt, R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Curzon, Captain Viscount Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hills, Major John Walter
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Dawson, Sir Philip Hilton, Cecil
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Balniel, Lord Dixey, A. C. Holt, Captain H. P.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Eden, Captain Anthony Homan, C. W. J.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Edmondson, Major A. J. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Betterton, Henry B. Everard, W. Lindsay Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Bethell, A. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hopkins, J. W. W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fermoy, Lord Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Blades, Sir George Rowland Fielden, E. B. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Blundell, F. N. Fraser, Captain Ian Huntingfield, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Frece, Sir Walter de Iliffe Sir Edward M.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Briscoe, Richard George Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Jephcott, A. R.
Brittain, Sir Harry Ganzoni, Sir John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Gee, Captain R. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bullock, Captain M. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Knox, Sir Alfred
Burman, J. B. Goff, Sir Park Lamb, J. Q.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Grant, J. A. Lane, Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Campbell, E. T. Greene, W. P. Crawford Little, Dr. E. Graham
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Gunston, Captain D. W. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Chapman, Sir S. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Loder, J. de V.
Christie, J. A. Harrison, G. J. C. Looker, Herbert William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hartington, Marquess of Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Lumley, L. R. Preston, William Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
MacAndrew, Charles Glen Price, Major C. W. M. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Radford, E. A. Templeton, W. P.
MacIntyre, Ian Raine, W. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
McLean, Major A. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Macmillan, Captain H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Salmon, Major I. Tinne, J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sandeman, A. Stewart Wallace, Captain D. E.
Margesson, Captain D. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Merriman, F. B. Sandon, Lord Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Moles, Thomas Savery, S. S. Wells, S. R.
Moore, Sir Newton J. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Moore-Brabzon, Lieut.-Cot. J. T. C. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Moreing, Captain A. H. Shepperson, E. W. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Skelton, A. N. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Nelson, Sir Frank Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Nuttall, Ellis Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Owen, Major G. Smithers, Waldron Withers, John James
Pennefather, Sir John Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Womersley, W. J.
Penny, Frederick George Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Steel, Major Samuel Strang TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Philipson, Mabel Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Sir Harry Barnston and Major
Pielou, D. P. Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Cope.
NOES.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter Hirst, G. H. Scurr, John
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Sutton, J. E.
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Taylor, R. A.
Clowes, S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Thurtle, E.
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Kirkwood, D. Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry Lansbury, George Varley, Frank B.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lindley, F. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D. Lunn, William Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Nall (Glasgow, Govan) Whiteley, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Maxton, James Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Morris, R. H. Windsor, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Purcell, A. A. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.
Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before One o'clock.