HC Deb 28 July 1927 vol 209 cc1631-48

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 12th July, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled. No one regrets more than I the fact that I have to move this Motion at this late hour, because the House will agree that it is a subject worthy of more time for discussion than can now be given to it. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that before every Debate that has taken place on the question of the extension of the period of office of appointed guardians a report has been presented to this House of the stewardship of these appointed guardians, and hon. Members have been able to form an opinion as to whether an extension should be granted or not. A fortnight ago it was announced in the Northern newspapers, in an interview with the appointed guardians of Chester-le-Street, that this Report was ready, and it hinted darkly at further revelations concerning the old guardians. If that Report is ready I think this House should have had an opportunity of reading it before this Debate took place. In the case of West Ham two Reports were presented before the Debate took place, and I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that this Report is ready, that it will be issued after the House rises—and apparently this is deliberately arranged—I want to ask you whether in view of all these questionable manœuvres you will consider whether it is worth while spending public money on the publication of this Report, the publication of which is deliberately delayed to exclude the House of Commons from discussion of the matter.


I do not think there is any point in it which calls for my intervention. It may be a very good argument for the hon. Member to use in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member has himself chosen the date on which to bring forward this Address.


I deliberately refrained from putting my Motion down because it was stated that this Report was ready. I waited until the last Parliamentary day in order that this Report, which I am informed is ready, could be printed, and I ask you, therefore, whether you could not consider the withholding of public money for the publication of this Report, which is apparently deliberately designed to take place after the House rises.


It is not in my power to do that.


I object to the extension of the period of office of these appointed guardians for two reasons. This is a violation of the principles of democratic government at a time when we can ill afford to interfere with these principles; at a time when they are being challenged in this country and other parts of the world. It is not only an interference with the principle of the election of their own representatives by the people, but it must not be forgotten that these appointed guardians are not responsible to the people in the locality. Apparently they are not responsible to the Ministry of Health any more than other guardians. Elected guardians can be criticised and dealt with by the electors in their area, but appointed guardians cannot be dealt with. When we put questions to the Minister of Health he says, "No, I have no more to do with them than with other guardians." Therefore these persons are apparently in an independent position, free from any control whatever. I would draw attention to this fact: In the Chester-le-Street area these appointed guardians apparently make a principle of giving as relief the magnificent sum of 8s. for a woman and 2s. for each child. In many cases men do not get anything at all. I know it will be said that there are exceptions and that the guardians do not carry out that rule rigidly. Let me give a type of exception.

I was informed quite recently of the very sad case of a man who had served the country well in the War. There were the man, his wife and two children. At first sight I thought I could give a little aid indirectly, apart from the guardians, so I went to see the man, who was said to be in a bad state of health. He was dead. The man had shrapnel wounds, but received no pension, and he died from an internal complaint approximating to cancer. A sadder household I never visited. I was informed that all that was going into that house, including the relief from the guardians, was 27s. a week. There was 6s. 9d. to be paid in rent, so that £1 a week was left for four persons. Surely that was a case where the bowels of compassion might be stirred more than usual and induce the guardians to give extra consideration. I mentioned the case to the Minister a fortnight or three weeks ago and I have never had an answer from him. Is there in the House anyone who, if he were in the position of a guardian and had to deal with an exceptional case of that kind, would think that 27s. a week was anything like enough for a family in such circumstances? If that is the treatment meted out by the appointed guardians in exceptional cases, I leave it to the imagination of the House to conceive what is the regular treatment meted out to people in that particular neighbourhood.

It does not matter whether one approaches it in a friendly way, and whether one wants to be helpful in the general administration; it is a case of "Hands off! We are here to cut down expenditure." If hon. Members could see the obvious condition of the people, the dilapidation in body and clothes such as I have seen there, I am sure they would make an investigation into the area. I think the Minister of Health himself, if he were to go there, would not be satisfied with what is going on, but it is the logical outcome of his own action, and he is seeking an extension of it. There has been a lot of criticism of the 'cutely-manœuvred report which was issued in the early part of this year. Let me tell the House what has happened. During the War, there was a large encampment built at Birtley, where thousands of Belgian refugees were housed. After the War there were ex-soldiers who could not find houses; they came from various parts of the North of England, and they took possession of the houses. The Ministry of Labour afterwards settled 200 men there as trainees.

It may be said that the board of guardians had power to send those men back to their own areas, but who at that time could have sent those ex-service men back to their own areas? Then some of the national factories took over the place and brought in 250 families, and they failed in their effort. Those families were left there. Those people, in many cases, are lying there yet, resting upon the guardians. Take the general position in the area. In Birtley district, for something like 18 months, there were nearly 5,000 unemployed. I need not go into the facts about the collieries there, but anyone who investigates the circumstances will find that if there is anyone to blame for the closing down of the collieries, the men are certainly not to blame. I could give the House most remarkable stories of the readiness of the men to submit to reduction after reduction, in order to keep the collieries going. Only recently, the company gave the men an agreement that no reductions would be asked for during a six months' period. At the end of three months the company said they could not carry on unless there was a 10 per cent. reduction, and, despite the agreement, the men conceded the 10 per cent. reduction. That is the spirit in which the men have dealt with the question.

At the present time many collieries are closed and about four are on the verge of closing, and the state of the area is indeed lamentable. There was a time when the people who were at work could help the unemployed out of their wages. They cannot do so now. I am not exaggerating when I say that less than half the men in Durham are day-wage men, whose earnings are 6s. 8d. a day and in this union, taking the pits which are closed and those which are on short time, the adult man working in and about the mines, has not for months now earned more than 20s. a week. When one considers the long-sustained strain upon the resources of these people and their present condition, when one considers that they are an industrious people who like to dress well and to look after themselves, when one sees how they are being affected even in their areas and appearance, one is forced to the conclusion that this House should think twice before extending this Order and continuing the administration of people who will give a woman 8s. a week and children 2s. a week in such circumstances. I ask the Minister and the House to give serious consideration to the effects of the working of this Order. I know that expenditure has been reduced apparently—so we are told—and in the long run, I agree, there probably is a reduction. But I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a gain commensurate with the loss of manhood and womanhood which is taking place in that union. On another occasion I would have gone into this question in greater detail, but I assure the House that the people feel very strongly on this subject. That feeling is not confined to those who are receiving inadequate relief or those who want relief and cannot get it. The whole population feel very strongly, and if the Minister were to go there he would find that the people not of the political faith of the ex-guardians view the administration of the appointed guardians and the operation of this Order with sentiments far from those of satisfaction.


I beg to second the Motion.


The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) began by expressing some dissatisfaction because no report has been published by the appointed guardians for Chester-le-Street since the last one issued, which carried their story down to the end of December last.


No, but because it has been publicly stated that the report has been issued.


All that I can say is that they have not signed their report, and it is therefore impossible for me to present it to the House, but I might point out that as the term of office of the guardians does not expire until 29th August, it would have been quite open to me not to have made this Order now, but to have waited until after this House had risen. In that case, of course, the report would have been published in time for the hon. Member to see it, but I thought it was more in accordance with the spirit of the Act that I should make the Order now, so as to give the hon. Member his opportunity of making a protest instead of waiting until two months out of the six had passed before he could say anything about it. I am sure he will believe me that I have not deliberately kept anything back nor asked the guardians to do so. At any rate, I shall be able, I think, to give the House some information which will carry the procedings of these guardians down rather further than the report published last December.

What the House has to consider is whether the work of the appointed Guardians has now been carried so far that it can safely be handed over to somebody else, and in order to form a judgment on that question, I think it is desirable, first, to consider the financial position. The financial position at the end of December last, is described on page 6 of the report of the Guardians, for which it will be seen that at the beginning of this year the total liabilities of the Union amounted to £231,000. Of that, they owed the bank £104,600, about £5,000 is represented by unpresented or unreceived cheques, and £121,000 was owing to the Minister of Health. They pointed out that they had, in preparing their estimates for the half year ending 31st March last, precepted for an amount equivalent to a rate of 6s. in the £, which, however, did not provide for any repayment of principal; and they further stated that they had received a supplementary call from the County Clerk, which they had not anticipated, of £19,184, equivalent to an additional rate of ls. l½d. Since then they have been able, owing to the reduction in the expenditure, to meet the call of the County Clerk for £19,184, without making any further demand upon the ratepayers. In the month of March they were able to make arrangements with the bank and with the Ministry of Health about the repayment of their debts, and they arranged to pay, and they have since paid, £25,200 to the bank by 31st March, and £24,000 to the Ministry of Health by 30th June. They also, in making their estimates for the next half year, ending 30th September next, precepted for an amount equivalent to a rate of 4s. 6d. in the £, or 1s. 6d. less than the preceding half year, and in that way they were able to bring relief to a heavily burdened industrial district. The House will see that there still remains to be paid off £82,000 to the bank and £97,000 to the Ministry of Health. It has been arranged that those sums shall be paid off by instalments. They will complete the repayment of the debt to the bank by March 1929, and then they begin the repayment to the Ministry of Health and complete that by March 1931. I think it is important for the future financial stability of the Union that those engagements should be fulfilled, and I feel, and I think the House will feel, that this is not the time to swop horses, but that the Guardians should be allowed to continue along the path which they have begun.


Are these Guardians to continue in office till 1931?


No, I did not say that. I said that was the arrangement they had made. How has this reduction been effected?


At the cost of flesh and blood.


It is only fair to say that to some extent the Guardians have been relieved by the operation of the Contributory Pensions Act. I am informed that owing to that Act some £150 a week of reduction in their expenditure has been effected. No doubt also there is an improvement in the general condition of the district since the date when they took office [Interruption]. The time at which they took office was the 30th August, 1926. Conditions must be better now than they were then.


That is no credit to them.


I was saying that those are circumstances which must not be attributed to anything done by the Guardians, but I think the main factor in bringing about the reduction has been the change of policy on the part of the new Guardians. They had adopted the principles which have been adopted by other Guardians in past times in the careful examination of each case and the endeavour to deal with it according to its merits, and a determination not to subsidise wages but to give relief in cases of real destitution, and on such a scale as will not take away the encouragement to go and find work.

In January, the number of persons in receipt of relief, as shown in the report I have alluded to, was 8,349. By the 30th June it had come down to 3,291 and the weekly expenditure of £1,755 in January had come down to £846. I think it is also interesting to note that whereas the number of unemployed on relief per 10,000 of the population was, in April, 1925, 285, and that in April, 1926, that was just before the General Strike, it had risen to 846, it is now 133, which is below the average of the whole of England and Wales. I frankly admit that economies may be too dearly bought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"]. No doubt Hon. Members believe that is so in this case. But they believe it because they want to believe it. The Hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has spoken of hard cases and mentioned one in particular of which he has sent me particulars. Of course, when you are dealing with thousands of cases per week you would expect to find in any Union that here and there there will be particular individual cases where through oversight perhaps some error occurs. There are a certain number of people who perhaps have been rather hardly used, but I think the House ought to realise that in this particular Union, where, without any offence to the Hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, I must say there are people who are very anxious, the total number of complaints brought to my notice is only 17. In the particular district referred to by the Hon. member there were only 13 cases of complaints. Supposing all those cases are justified, we ought to consider how many cases have been dealt with by the guardians in this one district. No less than 44,487 cases have been dealt with, and only 13 complaints have been made.


I sent the Rt. Hon. Gentleman three or four cases and all he said was that the guardians were dealing with them.


I sent those cases on to the guardians, as I should do in the case of any other union. Of course, the hon. Member may not be satisfied with that, but I would like to point out that the complaints amounted to about one per cent.


Did the right hon. Gentleman say that 44,000 cases had been dealt with?




That includes repetitions. Why not give the actual cases?


I am afraid hon. Members opposite do not realise what the conditions are and how far the present conditions differ from what has happened in the past. I acknowledge the great restraint and moderation shown by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and I want to follow him in that respect. The hon. Member said that there had been in that union a dilapidation in body and clothes of the people such as he had never seen before, and which he declared was unprecedented, but I do not think that statement will bear examination. You cannot compare the state of things in 1927 with what took place in the year 1926. If you go back to 1925, I find that in February of that year the average number of persons receiving out-relief in this union was 3,114, which is almost the same as for the period ending 30th June this year, when the total was 3,191. Up to June, 1927, the weekly expenditure, which in January was £1,755, went down to £846. In February, 1925, the weekly expenditure was £824. In regard to the number of persons receiving out-relief and the weekly amount paid, we have practically got back to the conditions existing in 1925. Of course, I can understand the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street feeling dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, but I think he has exaggerated the amount of departure from what has been the ordinary method of procedure in the past. I think the guardians who are now in office have made considerable reductions of expenditure in the past, and can be expected to make in the future very considerable reductions and economies in a union which was fast drifting into bankruptcy, and I do not think it is advisable to remove them, more especially when no substantial evidence of hardships has been brought forward.


I am more than ever convinced that we ought not to agree to the reappointment of the appointed Guardians in Chester-le-Street; but, before dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, may I put this point to the House? I am going to assert that the right hon. Gentleman under the legislation which he obtained, had no right to force from office the old Guardians, and that, in continuing the new ones in office, he is acting illegally. When the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill was before this House, I tried, and other Members on this side of the House tried, to find out what the words "in default" meant. We were assured that in fact "in default" meant in default financially—in other words, that the board of guardians could not pay its way. As regards two out of the three boards which have been superseded, that was the position; but in this House the right hon. Gentleman himself made it perfectly clear that he was not superseding the Chester-le-Street Guardians because they could not pay their way, but because they had, in his view, acted illegally. I suggest that he had no right to supersede the Guardians on that ground. And, if he had no right to do it then—and I am sorry the matter was not brought to the attention of the House at the proper time—he has no right now to extend the period of life of his nominees by a further six months. If it be true, as we were told in the House, that boards of guardians were to be superseded only because they were in default, then, though it was true that the Chester-le-Street Guardians were not paying their way, he had no right whatever to supersede them on the ground on which he did supersede them, as he declared in this House.

But I would go on to say that the appointed Guardians in Chester-le-Street are utterly unfit to exercise the responsibilities of guardians, and I say that on the basis of the only report that they have published. Their first Report was, I think, the most disgraceful document which ever emanated from His Majesty's Stationery Office. I say nothing about the kind of language in which it was couched. I have always expected to see documents published by the Government expressed in decent and dignified English; but, if the right hon. Gentleman appoints half-educated guardians, I suppose they will issue half-educated reports. That Report, however, was not merely disgraceful because of the manner in which it was compiled; it was a disgrace to the state that it should have been responsible for the publication of this document, because it was obviously an ex parte document, because it was a biased document, because it made charges of the most absurd kind which could not be substantiated, and because, as I should be prepared to prove if this were the occasion, in a very large number of particulars it was grossly inaccurate. If it be true—as I say, and am prepared to prove, it is—that that Report was ex parts, biased, and inaccurate in important particulars, then I say that the three people nominated by the right hon. Gentleman are not fit to hold their office.

The matter, however, goes further than that. I have no high opinion of the appointed guardians in West Ham, but I have an even lower opinion of the appointed guardians in Chester-le-Street. When the matter of the continuation in office of the appointed guardians in West Ham was under consideration, we did at least have the second Report of that body. We are asked to-night to continue in office three people nominated by the right hon. Gentleman of whose work we have had no record in this House. We have had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, but we have not had any statement from that body. I understand that a week or two ago their report was completed. The right hon. Gentleman says it has not been signed. I accept his word for it, though I believe he has a copy with him. But why has it not been signed when these guardians must have known that their term of office expired on 29th August, and when the matter must be raised in the House to-night, if it was to be raised at all? The right hon. Gentleman has treated us unfairly. It was his duty to see that the report was available before the Recess in order that the House might form a judgment on the six months' work of the appointed guardians. Why have we not had it? It may be the right hon. Gentleman himself is ashamed of it. I should not be surprised at that. It may be as bad a document as the first. It may be the Board of Guardians themselves would be ashamed to publish it in time to be discussed in the House. When we are asked, as we are by the Order now on the Table of the House, to prolong the life of these people for six months we are morally entitled to have before us a record of their work. We have had no such record. It was typical of the right hon. Gentleman that his statement began on finance and ended on finance. He spoke about a reduction of 1s. 6d. in the pound which would be a relief to the ratepayers in the area—not a word of sympathy as regards the people who need that sustenance. We have not had in the case of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians any statement from the Minister of Health that showed that he had the slightest sympathy with the mass of people who, do what they will, cannot get work.

What is the position to-day in the Durham coalfield? The right hon. Gentleman has quoted statistics. I took no note of them. I was not interested in them. I know, and many hon. Members know, far better than the Minister, that Durham to-day is a dying county, that you have large numbers of people who can walk their shoe leather off day by day and could not get work. No one dare say that any miner who is out of work could get work in Durham or anywhere else. You have in Durham a large number of people for whom work is not available. Those people are citizens of this country. Many of them served in the Great War. Many of them are the children of men who died in the Great War.

We are in the midst of a very serious situation in the coal industry. The Durham coalfield is one of the most afflicted coalfields in this country, not through the fault of people in Durham, but because of circumstances over which Durham has no control. With that situation you have a problem that calls for real statesmanship. Are Members of this House going to say that these people have got to wither and die? Do they say that? Nobody on the opposite benches dare say that. The last time I addressed this House there was one hon. Member who had the hardihood to say that children in receipt of war pensions should subsidise their step-parents, but nobody in this House is prepared to say that these people in Durham should be left to wither and die. There is a definite moral responsibility resting on the community towards these people. What is the situation? It is about the same as it was in 1925. What have these Guardians done? As far as I can see, very little. They have profited, with no effort on the part of themselves, to the extent of £150 a week from the Widows' Pensions Act. So would have the elected Board of Guardians, if they had still been there. You have, roughly, as many cases as you had two years ago. What is the saving? The saving has been at the expense of those people who are legitimate cases, because if they were not doubly proved legitimate cases the present Board of Guardians would not have admitted them as cases. You have, not-withstanding all the saving and the microscopic analysis of the three Guardians, as many cases as two years ago. And you have saved on the rates. What does it mean? It means that you have saved on the rates at the expense of those people who are down and out.

As far as I know, there has never been a serious difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the elected Board of Guardians about rates of relief. There may have been minor differences, but there has been no substantial difference. The point on which they finally quarrelled was the question of the giving of relief to single miners last year. It was not a question of extravagance. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, either by implication or explicitly, is responsible for the rates of relief which were given by the elected Board of Guardians. Now we are told that there has been a saving of eighteenpence in the pound which means that the rate of relief that has been given in these cases under the existing Board of Guardians is grossly below the rate of relief that was given by the elected Board of Guardians, with whom, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied. If that be so, I submit that the present non-elected, nominated Board of Guardians are not doing their duty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the relief to the ratepayers. The function of a Board of Guardians is not the relief of the ratepayers. The legal duty of a Board of Guardians is the relief of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman's emphasis has been on the relief that has been given to the ratepayers in the area. It is a relief which has been given at the expense of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman rather questioned the statement made by my hon. Friend, the member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), as to the general appearance, the clothing, the standard of life of the people of Durham. We have always known that the poor help the poor. That is chiefly how the poor have been helped, but the situation to-day is that, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's own action, as a result of his nominating three Conservatives to act as guardians in that area, the rate of relief has been reduced and the people who would have helped those who went for relief are so poor that they cannot maintain themselves. What does that mean? It means that, while with one hand the right hon. Gentleman is patting the Chester-le-Street Guardians on the back, with the other he is undoing all the work which the public health service for which he is responsible is trying to do. It means that the community is going to pay a heavy bill for this enforcement of niggardly, mean, miserable rates of relief for the poor in this area.

If it were within my power, I would bring the three appointed guardians to the Bar of the House rather than give them an extension of life for six months. I think, from what I have been able to find out from such reports as I have been able to see, that they are unfit to exercise the important office of guardians of the poor. Yet we are asked to-night to continue them as guardians for six months. The right hon. Gentleman claims a certain credit that he has not allowed it to slip by until the House was up. I never thought he would have dreamed of such a thing. What he is doing is to ask the House to take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend to take a decision without the evidence on which to make it. I say that is unfair. I am against the publication by the State of the documents of his particular nominees on Boards of Guardians, but, if we are to continue them in office by the act of this House, we are entitled to know what they are doing. We do not even know from the right hon. Gentleman whether they have carried out the ordinary duties of guardians under the Poor Law. All we know is that they have saved the rates to the extend of 18d. in the pound. They have done that, not by carrying out their legitimate duties, but by evading their legitimate duties. They have done it the expense of the poor.

While I am sorry that this should be the occasion, I am glad to make this protest against the policy of these guardians to make the poor keep the poor or, if they cannot, to make the poor plunge deeper into poverty. That is the whole policy of this Government in Measure after Measure in this House. Now to-night some thousands of people in this single union will have their future determined by the decision of this House. I make no appeal to hon. Members opposite, because it is useless, but I do wish very sincerely and earnestly to enter, on behalf of my friends and myself, my emphatic protest against the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to keep these people in office, because it is my firm conviction that they have not carried out their statutory duties. It is the duty of

the right hon. Gentleman to give again to the people of Chester-le-Street the chance as free citizens to elect their own guardians. I protest also because the right hon. Gentleman is a member of a Government that is a party to this deliberate degradation of helpless people who, whatever they may do, cannot find work to maintain themselves. I am all for work. I would rather have work than maintenance a thousand times. But I say, if work is not available, and no body can say it is available in County Durham, it is the duty, and it ought to be the proud privilege of the country, to see that people willing to work and who have given good service should be honourably maintained. The effect of the maintenance of this Order can only be that the poor in Chester-le-Street will become more miserably poor than ever before. The rising generation in Chester-le-Street is being deprived of a fair opportunity of a decent life. The right hon. Gentleman's own efforts to develop the public health Service and care for the health of the people are being defeated by this act of his to-night, to continue these irresponsible guardians who, unfortunately are mere political partisans in office for a further six months, to the detriment of the poor amongst our people.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 12th July, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under The Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 143.

Division No. 313.] AYES. [11.58 p.m.
Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ritson, J.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Ammon, Charles George Hirst, G. H. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sitch, Charles H.
Barnes, A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stephen, Campbell
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sutton, J. E.
Bromfield, William Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, T. Wellock, Wilfred
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Whiteley, W.
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Day, Colonel Harry Lee, F. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Dennison, R. Lindley, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Duncan, C. Lunn, William Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Dunnico, H. MacLaren, Andrew Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gardner, J. P. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Windsor, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph Palin, John Henry Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Paling, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Riley, Ben
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Apsley, Lord Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Pilcher, G.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Gunston, Captain D. W. Price, Major C. W. M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Radford, E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hammersley, S. S. Remer, J. R.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Harrison, G. J. C. Rice, Sir Frederick
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Hartington, Marquess of Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bethel, A. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Betterton, Henry B. Haslam, Henry C. Rye, F. G.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Salmon, Major I.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Briscoe, Richard George Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hopkins, J. W. W. Savery, S. S.
Burman, J. B. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shepperson, E. W.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hurd, Percy A. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Campbell, E. T. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Smithers, Waldron
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Knox, Sir Alfred Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Lamb, J. Q. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip Storry-Deans, R.
Christie, J. A. Little, Dr. E. Graham Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Clayton, G. C. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lumley, L. R. Templeton, W. P.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George MacIntyre, Ian Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Colfox, Major William Phillips McLean, Major A Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colman, N. C. D. Macmillan, Captain H. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Macquisten, F. A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacRobert, Alexander M. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Makins, Brigadier-General E. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J. Margesson, Captain D. Watts, Dr. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wells, S. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Merriman, F. B. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fielden, E. B. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ford, Sir P. J. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Forrest, W. Morden, Col. W. Grant Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Wise, Sir Fredric
Fraser, Captain Ian Murchison, Sir Kenneth Wolmer, Viscount
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Womersley, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)
Gates, Percy O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gower, Sir Robert O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Grant, Sir J. A. Pennefather, Sir John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Penny, Frederick George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Perkins, Colonel E. K.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.