HC Deb 30 November 1926 vol 200 cc1105-22
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

In regard to the next Amendment, in the names of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), Mr. Speaker has suggested that there might be a general discussion on this Amendment covering the Clause, but without prejudice to any subsequent Division.


I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out the word "industry" and to insert instead thereof the word "area."

I move this for the obvious reason that the word "industry" limits the application of this portion of the Bill to persons who happen for the moment to be working in the agricultural industry or in certain certified industries. As the funds will be forthcoming from the Exchequer, and presumably from the rates, it seems to me that if this proposal is a good one for certain sections of the workers, it must he good for any other sections who care to take advantage of the facilities. I know the Minister has stated that this is merely an experimental stage. When the Bill was in Committee, an hon. Member sitting behind the Minister suggested that to permit a miner to have a house built under the scheme partly at the expense of the ratepayers would relieve the mineowners of a responsibility they ought to accept. Whether that be so or not, it seems to me that people who are not at the moment inside the agricultural industry should be brought in by some means in order that the extension of practical agricultural education may take place. I know the circumstances of the moment are very exceptional but, if the experiment is to be successful from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, at, least in some counties some formidable obstacle will have to be removed from its path. My experience of county councils, particularly where farmers dominate them, leads me to believe that, if a farmer member of a county council whose workers live in his own houses were to see an application from one of his own employés for a house, I cannot conceive him forwarding it. It is very doubtful if the present wages of the agricultural worker and his hopes for the future would encourage him to undertake new houses that could he provided under the terms of this Clause. Therefore, if the Clause is to become operative at all, there must be some extension. We are providing public funds for a special purpose, whether it be experimental or not, and if the belief of the Minister and those who advise him is that this is going to be a success, and is worth risking so much money upon it, then it is worth the risk of trying to experiment upon much a broader scale. For that reason, I think we ought to remove the limitation. I think that a cottage holding ought to be available for any person resident near an agricultural area or within a rural area, should he feel disposed to make application to the county council for one of the holdings.


I beg to second the Amendment.

In doing so, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the words he used in introducing the Bill, when he said that the Government desired to make the opportunities more widely available. This point was raised in Committee, and the desire was there expressed to extend the somewhat narrow limitations in the direction indicated by the Mover of the Amendment. The answer given by the Minister was two-fold, first, that the extension desired was to a section of the community who were much better remunerated as compared with the agricultural labourer, and, secondly, that it would render invidious the duty of the county council in its selection amongst the applicants who might take advantage of the Act, if the opportunity of application were extended in the way we desire. I suggest that in regard to one section of the community who live in villages, and who may be living side by side with those for whom the Act does cater, namely, the mining section of the community, there will be very little difference in months to come between the wages they receive, and the wages of the agricultural labourers, bearing in mind all the circumstances surrounding their rates of pay.

Apart from that, I suggest that if the Government have a real desire that these opportunities should be more widely available, bearing in mind that the source of the assistance rendered is derivable from public funds, and that the opportunity should be offered to people such as quarrymen, railwaymen and postmen, I can see a development that will be absolutely illogical when a certain stage is reached, in the event of this 13111 becoming operative. Take the ease of the son of a person who takes advantage of the cottage holding arrangement. An agricultural labourer makes his payments for a certain number of years and then dies, and leaves whatever he is entitled to in the holding to his son, who may be employed on the railway. In these circumstances, the position would not be interfered with. Under the Act the son would continue to take advantage of the facilities laid down in the Act, so that 15 years hence, we may find two railwaymen, one taking advantage of this Act, by virtue of succeeding his father, and the other because he happens to be employed upon the railway, being denied facilities, the motive for which is the provision of wider opportunities for the cultivation of land than are offered under present circumstances. That is an illogical position. I think that both the points submitted by the Minister in Committee have been adequately met. He said that the position would be difficult for the county councils. Surely, if the object for which the Bill has been drafted is justifiable in the case of an agricultural labourer, and we desire to increase home produce by means of this Act, so that the home consumer can he better provided for in that respect, the scope of the Act should be widened in the way we suggest in the Amendment.


The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) seems to think that there was something inconsistent in my attitude upstairs, in view of what I said on Second Reading. I said that many men had got an initial start in life by taking advantage of such an opportunity. If he will look at the previous sentence he will see that I was talking of the demand of the agricultural worker. I think hon. Members have forgotten that the object of this Clause is to provide special facilities for agricultural workers and workers in other industries allied thereto. We never set out to provide a new and more generous form of housing subsidy. We cannot entertain the proposal to throw open these new opportunities to anybody in a rural area who has the intention, knowledge, and capital to cultivate satisfactorily the land forming part of the cottage holding. It would mean that there would be practically no restriction at all. It would mean that the agricultural worker would find in competition with him people in a much better position to find the capital necessary for the holdings; men who might be tempting as tenants to the local authority from their other occupation in life, perhaps paid much more highly than agricultural occupations, and thereby being in a better position to pay the rent. We do not propose to deal with that type of applicant at all. There are provisions whereby he can get an allotment or a small holding.


He does not get many small holdings.


And purchase them on these terms?


Yes. The purchase terms are the same in the Bill. Any applicant can get an allotment, or he can get a, bare small holding of one acre and upwards, or a small holding with house, from three acres. The only type of accommodation from which he is shut out in this Bill is the new experimental type of cottage holding. We have had many housing Bills in the last few years, and certainly none has ever had such generous or elastic terms as are provided in this Clause. That is, no doubt, why hon. Members opposite are anxious to extend the provisions to cover many other deserving people besides agriculturists. It is impossible for the Government to transform a provision which was intended to help the agricultural worker into a wide measure of general housing, under which the local authority would find 25 per cent. and we should find 75 per cent, of the cost. The probability is that with this new provision in the Bill local authorities would go slow, and it is important that the people who need these cottage holdings most and in whose interest they are being initiated, the people who are engaged in agriculture and industries ancillary thereto, should get them.

The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) told us that local authorities who may be friendly to the labour point of view would be very unwilling to accept agricultural workers as tenants.

Surely that is a tremendous argument against the Amendment. He has suggested that we should open the door to these other dwellers in agricultural areas; none of them would be shut out under this Amendment. The better-paid workers have many opportunities which are outside the reach of the agricultural worker and therefore this Clause must be limited to the class it is is intended to benefit. The hon. Member for Devizes, in Committee, pointed out that the second subsection is perhaps rather ambiguous because it mentions certain, industries which are ancillary to agriculture, and this might be held by inference to exclude others. That is certainly not our intention, and as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wish to have one general discussion on this Amendment, I might perhaps explain that if the House rejects the Amendment now under consideration I shall move an Amendment in Subsection (2) which will define a rural industry as- an industry carried on in or adjacent to a village being an industry ancillary to the industry of agriculture or horticulture for the time being approved by the Minister. On the whole we think it best to leave out the particular trades mentioned in the Sub-section, and by that means widen and make more elastic the definition so that all those who really depend on an industry ancillary to agriculture shall have an opportunity of getting this new type of accommodation. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it would be quite out of the question to throw open the door to all industries in all rural areas, whether really in the country or more truly as part of a town. I hope the. House will agree to the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (2) when we reach that stage.


To me the mind of the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely beyond understanding. I wish he would remember that he is at the head of an important Department which has to deal with very big problems, problems that in some measure could do something to solve the unemployment and the housing problems. But here we are, a great Department of the State, fiddling about with little niggling things such as we have in regard to these cottage holdings. To-night the Minister says that he cannot open the door and encourage county authorities to build cottage holdings for all kinds of people living in rural areas. That is his attitude to-night. What did he say to the Committee upstairs? On another Amendment dealing with this Clause he put forward another objection. He said: It is difficult to define the exact application of this proposal without letting in people from the towns. One has always understood that the task of everyone who knows anything about our rural and city life is how to stern back the tide from the country to the city and how to do something to open a stream which will flow from the city to the countryside. Here we have a Minister with a powerful majority behind, him and the finest opportunity that has come to a Government during the last 10 years to do something substantial in regard to the rural problem. In the matter of cottage holdings he says we cannot make them available for everyone in a rural area. Upstairs he said that we cannot have people coming in from the towns, but if we are going to restrict these cottage holdings to a section of the people who live in a rural area, if they are going to be provided by money loaned from the State, then why should the man in the town, who is not to have an opportunity of having one of these cottage holdings, be asked to pay towards a privilege which he has no opportunity of enjoying The Minister also seems to boggle at something else; he is hampering the county authority in regard to the people who make application. Surely the great mistake made by Governments during the last 15 years has been this, that the county authority has never been allowed to be the housing authority. We should have had much more progress if the county authority had had an opportunity of being the housing authority, but it was left with the opportunity only of building houses for its own officials, such as School teachers, policemen, its employés, roadmen, and the like, and it was never allowed to enter upon a comprehensive scheme of housing in the rural districts. Here the Minister is putting a further break on county authorities doing something to establish cottage holdings.

The right hon. Gentleman knows what a narrow squeak he had in regard to this Clause in the Committee stage, and how he was only saved by the Chairman of the Committee very generously extending to him the protection of the casting vote. Otherwise this Clause might have gone all together. I hope he will remember that he is at the head of a great Department which has to deal with problems which affect the life of the people both in towns and in the country, and that he has an opportunity of doing something now on a really big scale. I hope he will not neglect the opportunity; that he will not take the narrow view that only a limited number of people are to have an opportunity of enjoying these cottage holdings. Cottage holdings are on the right line, if in the right area and of the right type; and in the areas of Yorkshire he will find any number of people who are ready if the rent is suitable, if the house is suitable and if the land is suitable, to take advantage of any scheme which deals with this problem in a big way and on a generous scale. I hope the Minister will not shelter himself behind little bits of objections here and there, that he will not say, we cannot have the people from the towns coming in. Believe me, that is the very thing which some of us want to encourage—men getting into the country and getting back to nature by cultivating the soil. The hon. and gallant Member for South -Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) pointed out in Committee that the Minister on the Second reading went near to saying that the cottage holding might be a ladder which would acquaint a man with the rules of good husbandry and lead to something greater. I appeal to the Minister to do something generous now.


I agree in theory with what the last speaker has said. I feel, too, that we do want big proposals. But big proposals cost big money, and in these times of financial stringency I can quite understand the Minister not being able to throw open this Clause so widely as he and many of us would wish if the money were available. I, therefore, with other hon. Members, have put on the Paper an Amendment not as broad m the Amendment which I moved in Committee, and I am hoping that it will commend itself to the favourable notice of the Minister. The Minister said that he had to stand by his original proposal. I wish that he would stand by his original proposal, as stated in the excellent explanatory memorandum on the Bill. That memorandum, on page 3, says: One other main feature of the Bill must be referred to. It is proposed to make provision for the creation of holdings of a new class, called cottage holdings, intended to he occupied by and sold to farm workers and persons employed in rural industries, for cultivating in their spare time. How the Minister can say that my innocent Amendment, which lays it down that a rural industry shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character, does not come within that passage from the memorandum, it is rather difficult to see. One cannot fairly limit a rural industry to the agricultural industry. In Derbyshire, Leicestershire and many other counties there are large quarries. Surely quarrying is essentially a rural industry, and surely a quarryman, as a villager in every sense of the word, is the type of man that might legitimately come within the scope of the Bill? I think that a man who makes bricks might also come under it. I am not at all sure that he will not come in. There is the curious word "ancillary." I took the trouble to look up the word in Stroud's Legal Dictionary, and I found there that work is ancillary or incidental to trade or business when it is not necessary thereto or a primary part thereof. That work goes on to state that a builder and painter are ancillary to the trade of a railway company because they happen to repair or paint railway stations. If learned Judges are capable of holding opinions of that sort, I am sure that the Amendments which have been moved are unnecessary, because the Clause becomes so wide as to embrace all industries of every kind, as all industries are based to a certain extent on agriculture. I hope that the Minister is not hiding behind a reed already badly split. Having put that aspect of the case to him, I trust that he will get away from the word "ancillary" and accept my Amendment. If he will do so, I will move it when the time comes.


I think we may congratulate ourselves to the extent that the Minister has receded a good deal from the position he took up in Committee. He has only a little further to go to satisfy us completely. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Standing Committee consisted so largely of Members representing rural constituencies in the south, instead of Members representing constituencies in the north, in which there is a considerable proportion of workers who are in no sense agricultural workers. I can speak for some parts of the South West Riding and Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire more particularly, in which are considerable numbers of persons who cannot be said to be in any sense ancillary to agriculture, but who are carrying on trades which are entirely necessary in that particular area. I am not sure what the particular definition of "ancillary" may be, or how it may be interpreted by the Minister, but we were told in Committee that whilst the driver of a motor lorry who was conveying produce from the village to the town would be considered as ancillary, the man who was mending the road over which the lorry had to travel would not be ancillary. In the same way there are numbers of other trades, such as those of the bricklayer or the joiner or the builder, all of whom construct or repair cottages or possibly actually build the cottages upon the cottage holdings. These people are not ancillary to anyone, yet without them we cannot have a cottage constructed.

Let me put a. case which has not been mentioned before. It is that of a son who is living in a rural area and who goes to work in a town a few miles away. There is living with him his old father, who all his life has been an agricultural labourer and has got beyond the point when anyone will employ him, but who might perfectly well be occupied upon a cottage holding. The alternatives there are that such a man should be chargeable to the Poor Rate or cultivate a cottage holding assisted by his son. It is an illustration which suggests that a very slight removal of the restrictions in the Bill is very desirable. If we really desire to see an extension of cottage holdings we must remove restrictions which are excessively objectionable.


The Minister seems afraid of this business altogether. He seems to want to put into operation a Bill which will provide his party with a good cry among the agricultural labourers, but to hedge the scheme around with so many restrictions, financial and otherwise, that it will be impossible to work it. The Minister has expressed great doubt as to whether, because of the financial conditions attached to the Bill, many of the agricultural labourers would ever get into cottage holdings. I am not sure that he is not right. I am not sure that that is not the intention beneath it all—to say, "We have done this for you," and to hedge the proposal around with restrictions so that it is impossible to work it. There seems to be a difficulty as to who should be allowed to go into these cottage holdings. The Minister said he did not want to encourage other workers who were getting much higher wages than the agricultural labourer, who would be better able to pay the rent and consequently would have a better chance of getting the holdings.

I submit that a better test is to be found in the form of words which has been used in another Bill—the Bill to provide houses for rural workers. The test in that case is that the people shall be agriculturists or others whose incomes are substantially the same. If it is intended that cottage holdings are to be given to the agricultural labourer, because his wages do not guarantee him a decent livelihood—and that is what it amounts to—the same consideration applies to many other people. There are many others whose wages are so low that they cannot keep body and soul together. Indeed there are few industries to which this consideration would not apply, and I am sure that the colliers would come into this provision if we widened it to the extent that has been suggested. The right hon. Gentleman, doubtless, would be appalled if we applied the test I have indicated, but I am sure it would be a good test. I do not see why this benefit should be restricted to agricultural labourers. If there are others, such as colliers, who want to get back on the land, is that not a desirable thing? We are always talking about the drift from the countryside, and the necessity of getting people from the towns on to the land. Yet everything done by this Tory Government in that respect is done in a small, miserable and inadequate way. They are afraid of spending money on this doctrine, and yet they continue to preach it.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get away from all these restrictions, and to tell his Cabinet that he is going to do the thing well or not do it at all. Let him tell his Cabinet that there are tens of thousands of people besides agricultural labourers earning insufficient wages. If it is necessary to provide cottage holdings for agricultural labourers, let them be provided for colliers and for everybody else whose wages are on the same level. Let him face his Cabinet as a man, and demand a good Bill or no Bill at all. In these agricultural Debates, I have heard the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who is a sort of superman among the agriculturists in this House, complain that all the legislation on the Statute Book dealing with small holdings has never succeeded in getting men back to the land. In fact, I believe, in some cases the number is actually going down. Here we are faced with another Bill which, on the Minister's own admission, only provides for a few people, and is limited to agricultural labourers. If the Conservative party are sincere in their desire to put people on the land, they will have to do something bigger and wider than this Bill. I admit that at this stage the Minister cannot bring in a new Bill, but he can give evidence of his good intentions by accepting this Amendment.


I had hoped that the Minister would have said something in response to the appeals made to him on this subject, and, even at this late stage, I look to him for some reasons why there should not be an opportunity for people other than agricultural labourers to secure cottage holdings. The Minister has come part of the way. He has spoken of those people who are engaged in "adjacent" industries. I wonder what he had in his mind when he agreed to that particular term. He must intend that those who work and live in rural areas should have the opportunity of getting cottage holdings. If that be so, I would like to know who are being excluded? We find in Derbyshire and other parts of the country a great many trades and industries situated in rural areas. In Derbyshire some of the processes connected with the great chemical combine are carried on in rural areas; and some of the hest work in the accumulator trades is done rural areas. By this Bill people engaged in such industries are excluded from cottage holdings. If it is a question of the wages received, then I join with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) in stating that there is no industry in this country, the workers in which could be debarred by reason of the wages they receive. In this year of grace 1926, there is no trade in this country paying its industrial workers an adequate wage, and in that statement I include every industrial employé in the service of His Majesty's Government. Yet all these people are to be debarred from cottage holdings. It has been of little avail for us to make appeals to the Government but, even if our appeals fail, I hope that regard for those engaged in the rural areas will prevail with the Minister.


I join in protesting against the limitation of this Clause, and I would draw attention to the fact that in the mining industry it is not unusual at certain times for men to be engaged only two and a-half or three days of the week in the pits. They spend the rest of the time on holdings. These cottage holdings would be very useful to men who are working short time is the industry. I am reminded that they are to have an eight-hours day—which means that instead of working three days of the week at certain periods of the year, they may only work two days. Therefore, there is the more necessity for these cottage holdings to be open to them, and I want to join with my hon. Friends in asking for this limitation to be removed. If it is only for the purpose of keeping these people employed during that period of the year when they could be growing food both for themselves and for other people, it is right that this limitation should be withdrawn.


I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider the position he has taken up in relation to this Amendment. It may well be said that the only part of this Bill which is really likely to make any considerable contribution to the well-being of our rural population is this Clause, which will make it possible to begin, at any rate, with the building of cottage homes upon the countryside. I suppose that in the days after the War, when we were expecting a very great social progress as a result of the sacrifices which the people had made, many of us had visions of rural England beautified with large numbers of cottage holdings, and a considerable number of ex-service men and of the town population getting a livelihood under better conditions than those which they had formerly endured. I happen to represent a constituency which draws from the countryside a very considerable proportion of the labour for its industries, particularly the so-called unskilled labour, although in these days the lines of demarcation between a skilled and an unskilled occupation get thinner and thinner. Perhaps that is not quite the right term. What I mean is that a considerable number of country-bred young men constantly flow in from the villages to the industries in town. That may be all very well during a period of rising wages, but at the present time we are living in a state of society where a prolonged and permanent trade depression seems to be the normal feature of life, and as a consequence of that we have been living, during the last four or five very unfortunate years, under a system in which the Employment Exchange authorities, instead of being anxious to attract the rural population into the industrial towns, have been busily engaged in trying to force men who had become permanently employed in an industry and members of an urban population, so long as normal trade existed, out into the rural areas to work for the wages commonly paid to agricultural workers. Indeed.

there have been quite a number of cases where men have lost their benefit at the Employment Exchanges because they have found it impossible to go out, of the town and work as rural labourers on a very low wage, and at the same time properly maintain their homes.

9.0 p.m.

I want the Minister to justify the proposition which he puts before us by considering for a moment the position of some of these men who are the victims of this period of trade depression. Hundreds of them in the constituency that I represent were brought up on our countryside. They are quite capable of doing the work of an agricultural worker, and they are not in a position at the present time to resist the pressure that is put upon them to go into the countryside. Those are exactly the type of men whom the Government ought to be doing its best to attract back to the countryside. We are over-populated in our industrial centres to-day, and these men, who are of country origin, ought to be encouraged to go back into our rural areas, and I can imagine no greater attraction for the man who has been thrifty enough to get a few pounds together than the possibility of getting his own little home, with a little bit of land, to give him a sense of independence, and to acquire that upon reasonable terms. I hope the Minister will realise that not only the quarrymen and other people engaged in the villages are entitled to consideration in this matter, hut that those thousands of people whom we have in all our great cities, who amount perhaps to hundreds of thousands if you take the whole of our country, but at any rate the tens of thousands who are country bred men, although now in the towns, should be got back into our villages. Such an achievement would be of great advantage from a national point of view. I hope the Minister will realise that the provision of homes in this Bill is perhaps the most important part of it, and that he will give us an opportunity of encouraging these men to go back into the rural areas by making the advantages of the Bill open to them on equal terms with other agricultural workers.


I should like to associate myself with the high ideals which have been moderately put by several hon. Members opposite. I know that we all desire, perhaps more than anything else, that the town population should get back to the country, and that we should ease the pressure on the towns by having a more populated countryside, and I am sure that what they suggest would be of very great help to us in England in general. But I gather from the Minister's speech that the whole difficulty is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. We are now in very straitened circumstances, owing to various recent causes, and we cannot afford to coo what we would like to do. Men with small holdings must know something about working them, and if you are to work a small holding, and you come straight

from the town, you must be trained for the purpose. That means an extra expense, and every small holding that you hand over to smallholder is an expense to the country. Therefore, although I associate myself with the high ideals that have been voiced by hon. Members opposite, at the present moment I think it is not practical politics to carry them into effect, and I consider Personally that what the Minister is proposing to do will be of very great help to the agricultural industry in this country.

Question put, "That the word industry 'stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 104.

Division No. 514.] AYES. [9.2 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Forrest, W. Merriman, F. B.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Meyer, Sir Frank
Albery, Irving James Frece, Sir Walter de Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Ganzoni, Sir John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Atholl, Duchess of Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Moore, Sir Newton J.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Goff, Sir Park Moreing, Captain A. H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Murchison, C. K.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Greene, W. P. Crawford Neville, R. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Grotrian, H. Brent Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. Exeter)
Bennett, A. J. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Gunston, Captain D. W. Nuttall, Ellis
Boothby, R. J. G. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hammersley, S. S. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hanbury, C. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Harvey, G (Lambeth, Kennington) Perring, Sir William George
Braithwaite, A. N. Haslam, Henry C. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Brass, Captain W. Hawke, John Anthony Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Briscoe, Richard George Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Preston. William
Brittain, Sir Harry Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Price, Major C. W. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Raine, W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rice. Sir Frederick
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hills, Major John Walter Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Cassels, J. D. Hilton, Cecil Rye, F. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Christie, J. A. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Clayton, G. C. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n) Savery, S. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Huntingfield, Lord Sheppersan, E. W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Hurd, Percy A. Skelton, A. N.
Cope, Major William Hurst, Gerald B. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hutchison, G. A. Clark (M Idl'n & P'bl's) Smith, R W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) King, Captain Henry Douglas Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Knox, Sir Alfred Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Little, Dr. E. Graham Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Curzon, Captain Viscount Locker, Herbert William Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lougher, L. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Lowe, Sir Francis William Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Dean, Arthur Wellesley MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Drewe, C. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.) Waddington, R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. MacIntyre, Ian Wallace, Captain D. E.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) McLean, Major A. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Elliot, Captain Walter E. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Elveden, Viscount Macquisten, F. A. Warrender, Sir Victor
England, Colonel A. MacRobert, Alexander M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wells, S. R.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fielden, E. B. Malone, Major P. B. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Finburgh, S. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Ford, Sir P. J. Margesson, Captain D. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wise, Sir Fredric Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Withers, John James Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Womersley, W. J. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. Lord Stanley.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayes, John Henry Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Baker, Walter Hirst, G. H. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batcy, Joseph Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Bromfield, William Hudson, J. H. (Kuddersfield) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stamford, T. W.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Henry Heydn (Merioneth) Stephen, Campbell
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Charleton, H. C. Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Clowes, S. Kelly, W. T. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood, D Thurtle, Ernest
Compton, Joseph Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Townend, A. E.
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lowth, T. Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry Lunn, William Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Abcravon) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Duckworth John MacLaren, Andrew Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Duncan, C. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Dunnico, H. March, S. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) Maxton, James Whiteley, W.
Fenny, T. D. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wiggins, William Martin
Gardner, J. P. Montague, Frederick Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Murnin, H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T. Naylor, T. E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colns) Oliver, George Harold Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Wright, W.
Grundy, T. W. Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Purcell, A. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardie, George D. Ritson, J. Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Allen
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Parkinson.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words (e) nothing in this Section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purpose of providing cottage holdings of any parcel of land of three acres or less in extent on which there is in existence a dwelling-house occupied by a bona fide agricultural labour or a person employed in a rural industry on any part of such land"— is out of place. It should come upon the Schedule. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), to leave out Subsection (2), appears to me to cover the ground of the last Amendment discussed, and the Debate has been general upon that; hut, of course, if any hon. Member would like a Division on it, it would not be out of Older to put it. The same applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse)—in page 9, line 32, to leave out from the word "industry," to the word "as," in line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character carried on in or adjacent to a village. Amendments made: In page 9, line 33, leave out from the word "village" to the word "industry" in line 31, and insert instead thereof the words "being an."

In line 36, leave out the weds "as may from time to time be," and insert instead thereof the words "for the time heing."—[Mr. Guinness.]


The next Amendment—to leave out Clause 19—has been covered by a previous discussion.