§ Where a person employed in any one of the excepted employments mentioned in paragraph (d) in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act ceases such employment and becomes an insured contributor, he shall thereupon be entitled to have thirty contributions placed to his credit, and if at any time within a period of two years of becoming an insured contributor he makes a claim to benefit he shall be regarded as having fulfilled the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must apologise to the Committee that owing to an error, either of typing or of printing, the new Clause as it appears on the Paper relates to paragraph (a) instead of paragraph (d). I hope that will not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. Part II of the First Schedule of the Act of 1920, paragraph (d), deals with employment under public authorities and public utility companies, whereas paragraph (a) is confined to agriculture. The reason why I raise this point is that a large number of workpeople in this country normally fall in certain specified insurable employments, but it depends upon the kind of employer they get whether in fact they are insured persons or not. Thus, an electrician who works for a private employer other than a public utility company and who is not a municipal servant, would be an insured person under the Act. If, however, he were employed by a municipal authority or a railway company or a public utility company he would fall within the category of excepted persons laid down in the First Schedule of the principal Act.
This raises a point of substantial importance to workpeople who are in insurable employment where their employers may be a public utility company or some other body excepted from the operations of the Act and who by a mere accident might subsequently be employed by a pri- 1110 vate employer. One might take the cases of members of a large number of trade unions. I do not know how many trade unions have members who are employed by local or other public authorities or a railway company or public utility companies, but there must be a very considerable number. In most cases the big majority of the members of these trade unions are employed by private employers. I will take the case of a youth who becomes an electrical worker and is employed by a local authority. His father may be employed by a private employer. The father is an insured person, but the son at the age of 16, having reached insurable age, if he is employed by a public electricity authority or by a public utility electricity authority, would not be an insurable person. It might well be that in the course of time such a youth might find it to his economic advantage to leave the service of the public authority or the public utility company and to enter private employment. In doing so, although the whole of his working life has been in an insurable occupation he has no insurance rights and he has to begin to build up his 30 stamps from the beginning.
That raises a question of some importance to a very large number of workers and a considerable number of trade unionists. Our view is, and that is the purpose of the new Clause, that when a person who would normally have been an insured person leaves an excepted employment for employment which is insurable, he should be credited—I regret that the forms of the House do not permit us to say how he should be credited—with 30 stamps, which means that that man henceforward will be able should he come out of work to take advantage of the unemployment insurance scheme. That seems a very reasonable proposal. In the case of health insurance and under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, certain employers may be exempt from their payments for contributions under those schemes, because they are under contract really to provide at least an equivalent benefit. Here by the nature of things the equivalent benefit for the insured person means that he is not going to be out of work. Broadly speaking, in the case of public authorities that is true, and during the whole of that time the public authority has to provide nothing; it has not to put anything into a fund to provide health bene- 1111 fits for its workers, and it has not to put anything into a fund to provide superannuation for its workers. It does nothing. It seems therefore reasonable that in the case of employing authorities of that kind when an employé who is engaged in what is normally insurable employment leaves their employment and enters insurable employment, he should be given by the employing authority 30 stamps, which will bring him within the advantages of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The man may have been employed by them for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years and they may never have had to pay a penny in respect of unemployment insurance. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the worker in these conditions ought to 'be provided by the employing authority when leaving their service with a sufficient number of stamps to enable him, should the occasion arise, to qualify for benefit.
This may not have been in the past a point which would affect a very considerable number of people, but I think that to-day, with the interchangeability that there is, it is reasonable that there should be some provision made for people who leave employment under public authorities and public utility companies and similar authorities for their coming immediately within the benefits of the unemployment insurance scheme. A very large number of the employés of local authorities are appointed as men. It is, on the whole, exceptional in the manual occupation of local authorities to employ boys. They take the men when they have gone through the whole of their training and apprenticeship. They may take them when they are in middle life, and during the whole of their years of insurable employment, those men have been contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and may have been a profit to the Fund; but once they go out of it they cease to be able to take advantage of the benefits of the Fund. As far as their new employers are concerned, those employers are not called upon to pay any contributions. It has been said many times during these Debates that we have to consider the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the money that is available, and use it to the best advantage. I do not imagine that a very large number of cases in any year would profit by this new Clause if it were adopted either in 1112 this or some other form, and when the Fund comes- into normal times, to which the Minister looks forward with great optimism, it will be able to bear the strain that may be put upon it as the result of the operation of this Clause. I suggest to the Minister that we are asking for a simple thing and, on the whole, a just thing. I hope, seeing that we have given the right hon. Gentleman our moral support on the last two new Clauses, that he might be prepared to give us his active support in the new Clause which I now move.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
It is rather remarkable how circumstances alter cases. On the last new Clause which we considered the hon. Member was one of those who agreed that it was a question of principle; the fact that only a small number of exempted persons were affected was not the* question. It was the principle which was at stake and, therefore, he was going to support the Government on principle. I did not ask for his support, he volunteered it, and on those grounds; and now I am told that I am to consider this proposal on the ground that only a small number of persons will profit by it, not on any question of principle; merely because it is a matter of small cost to the Fund.
My appeal was not primarily on the ground of cost. That was merely to reassure the right hon. Gentleman. My appeal was on the ground of moral principle.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
That makes the case even more extraordinary. Let me put the principle involved quite briefly. The principle is that a man should not pay premiums while he is employed in one of these occupations or trades, but is to be able to get benefit when he is unemployed.
The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. He is in an insurable occupation, but by the accident of having an employer who is able to claim exemption he may be deprived of benefits if he changes his employment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Let us look at it again; my point still holds perfectly good. The man is in what is in all human probability a permanent job. If it is not a permanent job it 1113 would not be excepted employment. Let me warn hon. Members opposite. If they say that these are not permanent employments, I expect them to move that railways, and the other employments to which the Amendment refers, should no longer be excepted from the operation of the Bill. If these are not permanent employments, then the reason for the exception of railways and local authorities from the operation of the Acts falls to the ground, and it is their duty to move that they should no longer remain in the excepted category. The reason why they are now in the excepted category is that it is agreed they are occupations in which there can be permanent employment. The man who is in what I hope is now agreed to be permanent employment is in quite a different position from the man in the Army, who is credited with 30 contributions when he leaves the Army. The man who goes into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, goes in on what is admittedly a temporary basis. He goes in for a limited number of years, after which he will leave it for another occupation. The person who goes into one of the employments we are now considering goes into it as being a permanent employment. Everyone who has any practical knowledge of the matter knows that that is one of the inducements for him to enter, consequently, it is a wholly different state of affairs from the case of the Army, Navy or Air Force, in which 30 contributions are given when a person leaves the force.
Moreover, if a man leaves this kind of employment and is to be credited with 30 contributions he gets the best of both worlds. He does not pay contributions when he is in, and when he comes out again he is to have these contributions credited! to him—and he comes out of his own free will. It puts a premium on entering an uninsured trade as compared with an insured trade; it gives the persons in then in middle age an undue advantage as regards members who have been in insured trades all their lives. They have contributed more in proportion when they were young in order to be able in later years to have benefits which their adult contributions alone would not secure. And, lastly, I ask who is to pay these 30 contributions? The hon. Member has not inserted it in his new Clause. Perhaps he is afraid that if his real intention was manifest— 1114 namely, that they should be paid by the Exchequer—that the Clause would he out of order.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Then I wonder why it is not inserted in the new-Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member has taken advice on the subject. At any rate, whoever pays it, it is quite unfair that the Exchequer should pay it, or that the employer should pay it, and ex hypothesi these are permanent employments and the conditions are such that they are most favourable to the men engaged in them, and to provide that the person who is in employment should pay a lump sum to the person who leaves it is putting the burden on the wrong shoulders. This is one of the simple cases where, if a person has a permanent job and chooses to leave it for his own reasons, which may be ample and sufficient, he must contemplate the perfect and natural consequence that if he goes into an insured trade he must acquire the same qualifications by contributions which every other person in an insured trade has acquired.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
The new Clause, I think, exposes a difficulty in our insurance provisions. The hon. Member who moved it is quite justified in his fears as to the number of people who are gradually finding their way into the general field of insured labour. Sooner or later we shall have to deal with the difficulty of allowing any contracting-out at all. This scheme would have been much sounder, more valuable and more generous, if none of these industries had been permitted to remain outside its scope. The call on the Fund is in the aggregate, and I suppose, much less than 3 per cent. of the total numbers employed in these trades covered by special schemes are unemployed. But the tendency recently, with the call for economy in local administration and the large amalgamations which have been taking place in industry, to reduce the number of persons employed by these amalgamations and by local authorities, and when these men and women find themselves on the general labour market they do find a difficulty, unless they go direct into employment, to fulfil the stamp qualification in the event of their job being only a temporary one.
1115 I know what the hon. Member means and what I desire, but I see the difficulties in it. It is all very well for these people to say that 90 per cent. or so of the employés are guaranteed permanent employment, subject to obedience to rules and other things. I remember sitting as a member of a Departmental Committee in 1920, when we went into the whole question. I remember the actuary saying, "If you allow contracting out up to 5 per cent., you will have all your best lives going out and the residue will give you a higher percentage which must mean a higher contribution." That was stopped. The Government of the day saw the danger of it. I do not know how the difficulties can be met. It might best be met by some per capita charge. If these people have given an undertaking to the Department that there is permanent employment and dismissal only for disobedience to rules—
§ Mr. HAYDAY
My personal view is that all employment, agriculture, domestic service, and all contracted out trades, should be within the one scheme of general unemployment insurance, and the railwaymen as well. Bring in all the best lives to make your fund more generous. I can see how these things are operating. What would have been the position of the miners now, with 200,000 thrown out of work? Suppose the railways amalgamate, and the same thing comes about, that 100,000 of them are put out. The men will feel that, because they are an excepted section of industry. They will find themselves somewhat handicapped unless any compensation can be got from the scheme to which they are parties within that industry. But frankly I say that I believe that every industrialist in every kind of industry should come within a truly national insurance scheme, and then you would not have these anomalies.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. GARDNER
I am supporting the New Clause because I have practical experience of the difficulty of the men concerned. It is all very good of the Minister to say that all these people enter into these occupations on the assumption that they are permanent jobs. Of 1116 course, he must be aware that matters of high policy are subjects beyond their control. If he has any doubt about it, there are many factors in public affairs to which I might draw his attention so as to bring him back to earth. He must be aware that his own Government will soon have to consider a Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and that if that Report be adopted, it may mean that a huge municipal service, the London County Council trams, may be handed over to the control of another body and the men employed on the trams may have their employment relations transferred. These men have reasonable ground to believe that by good conduct, keeping good time, and getting the trams along fast enough, which is a difficulty in these days, they would ordinarily reach the superannuation stage. The Minister assumes that that employment is permanent. What is the position of these men? Suppose that the new authority takes them outside the control of the municipal authority. There are other factors. A constituent wrote to me a letter, to which I replied only this morning. My advice to him was to go to the Employment Exchange, and get an appeal form, and throw the responsibility upon the right hon. Gentleman of saying whether he was in an excepted employment or not. He is a bath attendant at the outdoor baths, and in the winter on one occasion he was employed in painting street signs, and on another occasion employed in the electricity department. But the Ministry of Labour, in their wisdom, suddenly swooped down on the council and informed them that this man was a domestic servant, and that therefore he was in an excepted employment. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts my statement I will show him his own correspondence.
The result is that this man, who works six months as a domestic servant Watching people swimming in the open air is in a difficulty, and when he goes to the Employment Exchange he is in the unhappy position of not being able to claim unemployment benefit. The whole question raises a big difficulty. When this man paints street signs he is in an insurable employment, and when he goes to the electricity department he is in an insurable employment. One half of the year he is an insured workman, and the 1117 other half of the year, while working for the same authority, is an uninsured workman. Is that good business or good insurance? If it is, for the life of me I cannot see it. Let me give another instance. The week before last my council decided to transfer the collection of dust from public control to private contract. The result is that 50 men, who in the ordinary course of events had the right to believe that they were likely to continue in public employment, as much as are the officials of this House, were suddenly, without reference to the electorate, and without being consulted in any way, informed that they had to go to the Employment Exchange. If they are transferred to a private contractor even the superannuation scheme is taken away, and they become ordinary insured persons. The Minister may say that it would be unfair to the Insurance Fund to bring in these men, but it would be still more unfair to throw them on the local authorities. One is tempted to get outside the Rules of Order, in discussing the effects of the Measure in this respect, but I hope the Minister will change his view. After all, when these people undertake this employment they have no voice as to what the result will be if they are discharged or transferred, and the least the Government can do is to make adequate provision in this respect.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I am glad to gather from the Minister that the difficulties in the way of applying the proposed New Clause are not insuperable and that the cost would not be particularly heavy. Like the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), I would argue in favour of making this scheme all-embracing. If it were so, obviously there would be an all-round reduction of contributions, as a larger number of persons would be included in the scheme whose contributions would be available, but whose risk of unemployment would be relatively small. There is this to be said regarding the case of the railway men. I imagine that as time goes on and, possibly, as agitation develops, some attack may be made upon men in what are called sheltered industries like the railways. The railways might be compelled by economic pressure to begin a course of eliminating from their employment a certain number of their employés. Various forms of competition in transport may arise and a number of railway men may 1118 be thrown out of employment or transferred from the service of the railways to other employments. There is no guarantee that they will be absorbed by the new form of transport which has compelled their discharge. They would probably find themselves in a very difficult situation and not well equipped for employment in other trades or occupations. Here is a case in which this Clause if accepted would be of great value.
It is because of cases of that description that the proposal has been put for ward. It is not assumed by the Mover or by any Member on these benches that the number is considerable. The number is not particularly large, but there ought to be no hardship inflicted upon persons who are in this type of employment, and they ought not to be subject to the difficulties which may arise though a change in occupation or a differentiation in their economic functions. It is reasonable to say that the employer should be called upon to put upon the man's card the necessary stamps. I would go as far as to say —
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
No; the Clause does not say that the employers should do it, but it has been hinted that it is the employer who will be called upon to do it. At least, it has been denied that the Exchequer should be called upon to do it. I would go as far as to say that the workman himself should be given the option of saying whether he would be prepared to put on the stamps in order to bring himself within the Act. I am sure in that way it would be possible to obviate certain hardships which every reasonable man must be desirous of avoiding.
§ Mr. MARCH
I was surprised to hear the Minister refuse this new Clause, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands the position of the workmen concerned. Those local authorities where exception has been made have had to prove, to some extent, that the men would be permanently employed and that there was no likelihood of their being thrown out of employment. Owing to the amalgamation of various concerns such as electric light undertakings and others, we find there is a probability of a 1119 number of municipal electric stations being thrown out of commission, and there is no prospect of numbers of these men, who have hitherto worked in electric light stations, being employed by the board or corporation which is taking over the station. Many of these men will have to be transferred to other employments. They have, up to now, regarded their positions as secure so long as they gave good service and obeyed the regulations under which they were employed. It is no fault of theirs that these amalgamations have taken place, and some consideration should be given to this aspect of the case as well as to the others which have been mentioned. Then there are cases in which local authorities change their own system of work, such as the case of Hammersmith, which has, just been mentioned. We find, for instance, local authorities changing from
|Division No. 436.]||AYES.||[10.15 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hardie, George D.||Scurr, John|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Harris, Percy A.||Sexton, James|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayday, Arthur||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hayes, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Baker, Walter||Hirst, G. H.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snell, Harry|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clowes, S.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Compton, Joseph||Kirkwood, D.||Sullivan, J.|
|Connolly, M.||Lansbury, George||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Lawrence, Susan||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lawson, John James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lindley, F. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Dennison, R.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Duncan, C.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Dunnico, H.||Mackinder, W.||Vlant, S. P.|
|Edge, Sir William||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|England, Colonel A.||March, S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Montague, Frederick||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Forrest, W.||Murnin, H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gardner. J. P.||Oliver, George Harold||Westwood, J.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Owen, Major G.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gillett, George M||Paling, W.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gosling, Harry||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Greenall, T.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Riley, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ritson, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)||Wright, W.|
|Groves, T.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Rose, Frank H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.|
§ horse power to mechanical power. They do not require the same number of men, and some men have to go to other employment. They are given a month's wages in lieu of notice, but that does not get them jobs or bring them into the Insurance Fund. You cannot expect a man to continue going to the Employment Exchange when he sees there is no hope-of getting employment and no hope of getting unemployment benefit. We think this is a reasonable proposal and, if the Minister is unable to accept the new-Clause, he may be able to devise some-other words which will meet the situation at a further stage in connection with this Bill.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noels, 258.1123
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ford, Sir P. J.||Meller, R. J.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Albery, Irving James||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Frece, Sir Walter de||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Morden, Col. W. Grant|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Apsley, Lord||Ganzoni, Sir John.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gates, Percy||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Goff, Sir Park||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gower, Sir Robert||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Balniel, Lord||Grace, John||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Oakley, T.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Grant, Sir J. A.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Perring, Sir William George|
|Berry, Sir George||Grotrian, H. Brent||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Pilcher, G.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Preston, William|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hammersley, S. S.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hanbury, C.||Radford, E. A.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Harland, A.||Ramsden, E.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Brown, Col D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hartington, Marquess of||Remer, J. R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Buchan, John||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Haslam, Henry C.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hawke, John Anthony||Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hills, Major John Waller||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Holt, Captain H. P.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sandon, Lord|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Christie, J. A.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hurd, Percy A.||Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Iveagh, Countess of||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Cohen. Major J. Brunel||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, cen'l)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Jephcott, A R||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lamb, J. Q.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Davidson, J (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Loder, J. de V.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Long, Major Eric||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Looker, Herbert William||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Dixey, A. C.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Drewe, C.||MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Tinne, J. A.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Ellis, R. G.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Waddington, R.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Macquisten, F. A.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Malone, Major P. B.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Margesson, Captain D.||Wells, S. R.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Withers, John James||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.||Major Cope and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.|
§ The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut. Colonel HENEAGE: