The sub-section which is by section nine of the Act of nineteen hundred and nineteen directed to be substituted for sub-section (10) of section seven of the Act of nineteen hundred and eleven shall be amended by adding the following proviso:—
Provided that, if either the landlord or the landholder is dissatisfied with the rent shown in the scheme, he may within twenty-one days from the date when he
was notified of the confirmation of the scheme appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent.—[Mr. MacRobert.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MacROBERT
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause raises a very important matter, and I must apologise for proposing a Clause like this in form, because it says:The sub-section which is by section nine of the Act of nineteen hundred and nineteen directed to be substituted for sub-section (10) of section seven of the Act of nineteen hundred and eleven shall be amended by adding the following proviso":—All that long introduction is necessary, and is caused by the fact that we are getting completely at sea with regard to landholders law in Scotland. We are getting so many amending Acts, that, really, we shall have the greatest difficulty in finding out where we are, and, in particular, I am quite certain that landholders and statutory small tenants will not be able to know what their position is under all the various Acts which have been passed. I think that the reading of these introductory words shows that the position of landholding law in Scotland is in a very bad way, because no person, so far, has taken the trouble to consolidate those Acts. If the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott), who has great knowledge of these matters, wanted to be a benefactor to all landholders and statutory tenants in Scotland—I do not say it would be altogether a friendly act towards his own fraternity, because those Acts, owing to their unintelligibility, give work to many of his profession—he would have turned his attention to this matter. That, however, is not a particularly good reason for thinking that the law should be in the condition in which it is. Accordingly, it would have been desirable to have had a consolidating Act dealing with the Landholders Acts in Scotland, just as we have had an Agricultural Holdings Act consolidating all the Agricultural Holdings Acts in Scotland.
I am sure that this particular Clause will receive the strong support of hon. Members below the Gangway, because it received the strong support of the Liberal party in the Committee upstairs. They thought that the principle which I tried 745 to enunciate upstairs was sound, namely, that no person should be a judge in his own case. At present in the case, for example, of a scheme which is under the Department, the Department who have taken over the land have to pay compensation. That compensation will be determined in large part by the amount of the rent which will be payable by the landholder who is brought into the holding under the scheme. If the rent to be payable by the landholder is very small, the compensation payable to the landlord will be correspondingly great, and accordingly, it is to the interest of the Department, who have to pay the compensation, that they should increase the rent. That is the temptation, and it is no point to say that they will resist the temptation and that the Department will always act fairly. That does not meet my objection. I submit that it is not right to put a Department in the position of being judge in their own case. It is not fair to the Department to put them in the position of having to fix rent, when the fixing of the amount of the rent will decide the amount of compensation to be paid by them.
This question was raised on another Clause upstairs, and I moved, in that particular Clause, that the amount of rent to be paid by the landholder should not be fixed by the Department, but by the Land Court, an independent body. The reason for that Amendment was that both the landlord and the tenant had objection to the amount of rent being fixed by the Department. It works out in this way. Suppose that a rent is fixed at a very high figure to begin with; the compensation is therefore small. The landholder has to pay that big rent for seven years. At the end of the seven years, he can go to the Land Court, which will probably fix a fair rent which may be 20 per cent., 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. less than the rent which was fixed by the Department. The result will be beneficial to the landholder, but he has been paying for the previous seven years a rent much too large. If the rent is reduced at the end of the seven years, that of course will not act against the landholder for the future, but it is grossly unfair to the landlord, because he has, been paid his compensation upon the footing that the rental was, say £50, whereas the Land Court, seven years afterwards 746 say that it should have been only £25. The result is that the Department have got off by paying far less compensation than they ought to have paid.
It is not right to put the Department in that difficult position, and I proposed in Committee, with regard to the particular Clause that was being discussed, that the fixing of the rents should be taken out of the hands of the Department, who are interested parties, and should be placed in the hands of the Land Court. Members of the Liberal party who spoke supported the view which I pressed, but they said, with regard to that particular Clause, that they were not prepared to vote with me, because it would leave the anomaly that, with regard to the schemes which are being brought in by the Department, the amount of rent would be fixed by the Department. Towards the end of the sitting upstairs, I moved a new Clause similar to the one which I am now proposing that we should reform the whole law on the subject. I did that in order that the party below the Gangway could not say, "We agree with you in principle, but we cannot vote with you because you have not gone far enough." So, to make the matter completely right, I have an Amendment later on to alter the particular Clause which deals with the fixing of rent, so that the amount of rent shall not be fixed by the Department, but by the Land Court.
We have in this proposed new Clause introduced a provision which will enact that the Land Court shall fix the amount of rent in all the schemes promoted by the Department. When this matter first came up, the Under-Secretary said that the Government did not regard it as of very serious moment, and he pointed out that there was no evidence that the rents had been fixed unduly high. Then he made what was quite a good point that the Nairne Report found that there was no evidence that the Department had been acting wrongly in the matter, and that they had not been acting unfairly. That is not the point at all, however; it is a question of principle. Is it right to allow the Department to decide the amount of rent, when they are an interested Department? I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and others supported strongly the principle 747 for which I now contend, namely, that an interested party should not be the judge in this matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke in favour of the principle, and I am sure, if he were here to-day, that he would again support it.
In Sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act of 1919 it is provided that in every scheme proposed by the Board they must set forth the rent of each new holding. I have no objection to that. Then certain rights are given to parties who object to the particular scheme, especially to the rents, but the appeal with respect to rent is to the Department. In this new Clause I seek to allow the parties interested who are aggrieved by the decision of the Department with regard to rent to appeal to the Land Court whether the person aggrieved be the landholder or the landlord. Although in one sense the landlord will not object to receiving a bigger rent, yet he will object to receive a bigger rent which is not the true rent, because he will get less compensation, and when the Land Court deals with it hereafter it will be put back to what is the true economic rent.
In Committee the Lord Advocate criticised the phraseology of the Clause I then proposed and there was some justification for that, because that clause provided that if either the landlord or the landholder were dissatisfied with the rent shown in the scheme, he might, within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme, appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent. The Lord Advocate said there was no duty to notify the landholder of the confirmation of the scheme. That is partly true. Unless the landholder happened to be one of the tenants he would not have notification in the sense of the proposal here. But the landlord will have the notification, so that the Clause is absolutely correct with regard to him, and if there is a landholder who in fact does receive a notice, it will apply to him too. In this particular case, although I do not say it is always the case, the interest of the landlord is exactly in line with the interest of the tenant; both have the same interest in fixing a rent which is not too high, because a rent which was too high would hit the landlord with regard to compensation. The landlord and the landholder have an identical interest to 748 trying to secure a fair rent, and, accordingly, even though the landholder were not in the position to appeal to the Land Court the landlord would be in a position to appeal against the rent being so high, and naturally the landholder would not object to that.
There need be no difficulty about the wording once we are agreed about the principle. I am not standing upon the particular words of this Clause. It may be that instead of saying the appeal shall be made within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme it would be better to say "within 21 days after the entry of the landholder into the holding." In Committee, however, the Lord Advocate said this suggestion was really more absurd than the first. He said the suggestion was that we should allow the scheme to be altered after the entry of the landholder. Why not? If the rent fixed is not a fair rent, why should it not be altered? Landholders Acts have provided for the same thing; after a certain period of years a landholder can have his rent revised. If it can be revised at the end of seven years, why should he not be allowed to ask for it to be revised within 14 or 21 days of his entry into the holding? It may be that the particular principle may require to be expressed in better words than I have used, but if the Government agree to the principle, as hon. Members below the Gangway agree to it, why should not the skilled draftsman of the Government draft a Clause which would give effect to the principle of leaving it to the Land Court to decide? The point will be made that in past times, at least under the Act of 1911, the Land Court did decide these matters, but that by the Act of 1919 the duty was transferred from the Land Court to the Department. We now have had experience of both methods, and it is my submission that the change made under the 1919 Act was no improvement. I do not know what Government was in power in 1919, but I think it was the Coalition Government. However, that does not matter. If we now know what is the correct procedure to adopt let us follow it, and I have no hesitation in submitting that the proper course is to allow the rent to be fixed by this independent body, the Land Court.
749 The Land Court has been in existence in Scotland for a considerable time, at least since 1886, although in its earlier years it was known under a different name. It is a Court which has given every satisfaction to the agricultural community. Judging from what an hon. Member below the Gangway said, the Department of Agriculture has not always been so successful. However, I am not familiar with the grievances the agricultural community may have against either the Board of Agriculture, as it was in the past, or the present Department of Agriculture, and I do not base my argument on the view that the Department have not done their duty in the past or will not do it in the future. I am sure they will do their duty. My point is this: though a judge who is interested in a matter may give quite a good decision and a fair decision—indeed, may go to the opposite extremes in order to avoid any suspicion that it is not a fair decision—it is not a fair thing to ask any man to be a judge in a matter in which he is interested; and that is the position of the Department in regard to the fixing of these rents. Therefore, I submit that the Clause I am proposing is necessary, and will improve the Bill, and I hope the hon. Members below the gangway will support the principle as they supported it in Committee. If they do that I am sure the Government will not stand out against what is considered to be sound in principle by the two Oppositions and the majority, I am sure, of those on the other side of the House.
§ Sir F. THOMSON
Under the original procedure, when a smallholding scheme was brought forward under the Act of 1911, it was provided that the Board should apply to the Land Court to make an order, and that procedure gave the parties the right to appear before the Land Court. That was the old procedure, and the Land Court thereafter determined what was considered to be a fair rent under the Act of 1911. In 1919, it was thought necessary that that procedure should be short-circuited and the 1911 Act was amended. This question is dealt with on page 40 of the Nairne Report in which they point out thatthe main effect of this Amendment was to give the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, acting with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, the power of constituting compulsory 750 schemes for small holdings on privately-owned estates, without the necessity of applying to the Land Court for an order giving effect to the scheme.It is quite true that one of the Amendments made by the Act of 1919 gave power to the Board of Agriculture to act on their own, and that was regarded as a measure which would expedite land settlement schemes. The procedure has gone on those lines ever since that date, the result being that it has put the Department of Agriculture in the position of being judge in its own cause. The Department of Agriculture fixes the compensation, and also fixes the rent, and, if they fix a high rent, it is obvious that the compensation will be lower. I do not suggest that the procedure is not fair and accurate, but it is the principle which we are contesting, and it is not right that they should have power to fix the rent without the landlord having a, right of appeal to the Land Court. No doubt the Under-Secretary will refer to the passage on page 41 of the Nairne Report which says:In connection with this matter the alternative suggestion was made that the 1911 Act procedure should be restored to the extent of reimposing on the Land Court the duty of fixing the first fair rent of each new holding constituted by the Board of Agriculture under a compulsory scheme. In support of this proposal it was suggested that, under the present system by which these rents are fixed by the Board, there is a natural temptation to that Department to fix the fair rents as high as possible with the object of keeping as low as possible the amount which might be claimed by a landlord under the head of compensation for loss sustained by him in consequence of the constitution of the new holdings on his land. The possibility was suggested of these rents being reduced by the Land Court and application being made to them by the holders for revision of the rents at the end of seven years from the date of settlement of the holders. If this were to happen the landlord would suffer a further loss for, which he would not be entitled to claim compensation. No evidence was given before us which would indicate that the Board were, in actual fact, fixing the fair rents in such cases at too high a figure.It is not right that the Board should have that power without a right of appeal being given to the landlords to go before an impartial tribunal like the Land Court. For this reason, it is proposed in the new Clause that we are discussing that the landlord or the landholder, if he is dissatisfied with the rent which has been fixed, 751May, within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme, appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent.That seems to us to be a provision which is fair and right, because the Land Court is a highly skilled body consisting of lawyers and others fully qualified to decide these matters. The procedure under the Act of 1911 gave the parties the right to come before the Land Court with regard to questions of rent. I do not think it is any answer to this argument to say that up to now no dissatisfaction has been expressed with the rents which have been fixed. We do not think it is right that a body like the Board of Agriculture, which fixes the amount of compensation, should be the party to fix the rent without any appeal to some impartial authority. I think the new Clause is one which is founded on equity and ought to be supported.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
The Government have considered the New Clause which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed and they have come to the conclusion that it should be resisted upon two grounds. The first ground is that in the view of the Government, it is a retrograde step, because it would go back to the procedure under the Act of 1911 which was altered by the Act of 1919. The second ground upon which the Government think that this Amendment ought not to be accepted is that it is utterly unintelligible, for a reason which I will state in a moment. Under the Act of 1911, when an order for the constitution of a holding was made the procedure under Section 7, Sub-section (10) was that before making such an order the Land Court should give all the parties having an interest in the land an opportunity of being heard.
The substance of the Clause, to put it shortly, is to go back to that procedure, but, when you come to the Land Settlement Act of 1919, you find that, after eight years' experience of working under the Act of 1911, it was deemed advisable to alter the procedure, and the alteration was embodied in Section 9 of the Act of 1919. That explains the rather curious way in which the proposed new Clause runs, referring to the Sub-section which is by Section 9 of the Act of 1919 directed to be substituted for Sub-section 752 10 of Section 7 of the Act of 1911. It is quite plain that, under the 1911 Act, it was the Land Court. Then, in the Act of 1919, that Section was blotted out by Section 9. The matter dealt with is the same, namely, the constitution of new holdings, and Section 9 of the Act of 1919, provides that:When the Board have prepared a scheme under this Section, they shall intimate the prepared scheme to the landlord, tenant and occupier of any land comprised therein, and shall give to such landlord, tenant and occupier an opportunity of considering the scheme and of making representations concerning the same to the Board, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard, may with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland make an order confirming the scheme in whole or in part and with or without modification, or may abandon the scheme.The policy embodied in Section 9 of the Act of 1919 was not the policy of the present Government, at all. In 1919 there was a Coalition Government in power—[Interruption]—and that provision was substituted for the provision in the Act of 1911, because it was found that, if these things were left to the working of the Land Court, the machinery for the constitution of small holdings was clogged, and there were almost interminable appeals; and the view of Parliament in 1919 was undoubtedly that it was very much better that that matter should be left to the Board, as it then was, or to the Department, as it is now, which would exercise its functions as a department in a judicial spirit. It is no doubt true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that theoretically the Department may have an interest in fixing a rent high, so as to keep compensation low; but the important thing is that the Nairne Committee, after very full inquiry, cannot point to a single instance in which the Board or the Department has abused the statutory powers entrusted to it under the Act. Therefore, I do not think that the House should concern itself at all with mere theoretical and academic objections which have no relation to the practical realities of the situation as these have been ascertained during so many years of the working of the Act. This proposal is really a reversion to a discarded procedure, and I hope that the House will not consent to that for a moment.
Then the Clause as proposed is really unintelligible. The proviso reads as follows: 753Provided that, if either the landlord or the landholder is dissatisfied with the rent shown in the scheme, he may within twenty-one days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent.That is unintelligible for this reason, that, at the date when the scheme is framed, and at the date when the confirmation is made by the Department, the landholder is not there; he is not in existence. How, then, can the landholder make representations when there is no landholder there? The position is that the landholder receives no notification of the confirmation of the scheme, because he does not exist. It is only after the scheme is framed and the procedure carried through and the confirmation made that you get a landholder at all, when negotiations take place and he agrees to come into the holding at a specific rent before he is accepted as a landholder. I submit, therefore, that the Clause would never do as it stands, because it assumes the existence of a person who does not exist at the time. Apart from that, I ask the House to reject the Clause upon the broad ground that to go back to the Act of 1911 would be to clog the whole machinery applicable to the constitution of new holdings, by setting up opportunities for appeal to the Land Court and so on, which would inevitably involve delay, and delay is the one thing that the Government are anxious to avoid in this vitally important matter.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I observe that in Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) took the line very strongly that the Land Court is the right authority to fix the rent in the case of new holdings, as well as in the case which was under consideration. The Lord Advocate has spoken about the practical working of this method of dealing with the problem. May I say, in regard to that, that I have had during the last four and a-half years the responsibility of dealing to some extent with the practical side of these problems? I am quite aware that, obviously, the Department of Agriculture would desire, in the great majority of cases, to have a free hand to settle these problems, and that there is a certain dislike on the part of any Department administering a problem of this kind to see itself subjected to another body, even though it be a 754 body of such high repute and standing as the Land Court. But if I have to descend to the problem of dealing practically with this matter, all that I can say to the House is that I found evidence that there would be considerable anxiety, to put it no higher, on the part not only of the landlords but of the holders who were going to have adjudication upon these matters, if it were left entirely to the Department of Agriculture, and if there were no appeal whatever to another tribunal—if the only appeal were to the original Department which had fixed the rent.
This is not a question of such small importance as it might seem to be. After all, the Department of Agriculture is, in the main, occupied with administrative duties. It is quite true that there are attached to the Department certain individuals in charge of districts, and that the Department must rely upon their advice or call into consultation with them certain gentlemen appointed as assessors upon whose judgment it would rely. Upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State lies the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the decision the Department has made. It is absurd to suppose that he can, except in the abstract, make any decision that is worth anything on a problem of this kind. On the contrary, the Land Court is the body that has been entrusted by Parliament with the specific duties. It has attached to it those who are knowledgeable in this matter and it is their daily task to decide them. When I had such a case of great difficulty in a portion of the Highlands where a new scheme was being settled, where it was brought to my attention that there was this anxiety, I overruled the then Board and submitted the problem to the Land Court. The result was eminently satisfactory.
In our efforts to deal with this problem, we are not taking away from the Department the initial right to fix what in their judgment is a fair and a proper rent. All of us who have been entrusted from time to time with carrying out the dictation of this House in making land settlements have been faced with the obvious reluctance of certain people to see schemes carried out because of their fear that they are not going to be fairly treated. My view is that that can be obviated and overcome 755 by making use of machinery which through the course of years, whatever suspicion may have been entertained of it in the first instance, has gained the confidence of everyone as to its impartiality and its ability to carry out these duties. On the broad principle there can be no doubt that there ought to be an appeal, and on the practical side I can conceive of nobody that is more likely to be correct and proper in its decisions than the Land Court, and I do not believe that whoever holds the office of Secretary of State, or whoever is head of the Department of Agriculture, could question for a moment the proper method of dealing with this problem. I hope that, if the Government cannot even now accept this suggestion, they will be prepared to do so at a later stage.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I attach the very greatest importance to this Clause, and I should like to add this consideration to my right hon. Friend's arguments. I do not pretend that I am a friend of the system of starting schemes for small holdings on land owned by private landowners rather than upon land bought and owned by the Department, but we have to assume that schemes will be started in the future, as in the past, on land of which private owners remain the proprietors. That being so, it appears to me to be of very great importance that the final fixing of the rent and the final settlement as between the owner of the land and the smallholders who are going to be settled on it by the Board of Agriculture, should be done by some outside body and not by the Department, so that it should not be the judge in its own cause. So long as this method of land settlement continues, I attach very great importance to the relations betwen private landowners and the Department being as good as possible. Unquestionably you finally get rid of what has been an element of suspicion on the part of private landowners when they know that the rents will be fixed by an outside body, and that a judicial tribunal.
I have done my best to support, as I think it deserves support, the policy of the old Board, now the Department of Agriculture. It is notorious that there has been a certain amount of suspicion, 756 and I think in many cases a, certain amount of quite unjustifiable criticism, of both the Board and the Department, but I feel most strongly that the statesmanlike course is to remove these grounds of suspicion and, if this method of land settlement is going to continue, it is our duty to see that we get rid of whatever impediments, hindrances and grounds of suspicion there are, and this is by far the greatest. Further, it cannot as a general principle be regarded as sound that one of the parties to the matter should be the final fixer of the rents.
I think the adoption of this Amendment would reduce the suspicion between private landowners and the Department, but there is another ground of suspicion with regard to the Department of Agriculture in its capacity as the administrative party that carries out land settlement. Land settlement in Scotland is not done by the county councils, as here, but by the Department of Agriculture alone. It is also of great importance that the Department should have the confidence of the smallholders themselves. There has been a great deal of suspicion, in most cases unjustifiable, between smallholders and the Department. You will remove that suspicion, or reduce it to a, minimum, if the final rent which the smallholder has to pay is not fixed by the Department which settles it but by an outside body altogether. The present system gives the smallholder quite a justifiable excuse for feeling suspicion, and it is of great importance that that suspicion should be reduced to a minimum.
The third ground of suspicion at present existing between smallholders and the Department is the question of the rent, and financial questions generally. I am satisfied that, if the final rent is fixed by an outside body, that suspicion will be brought to an end. This is one of those vital practical matters which you must keep in view if land settlement is going to be a success. If you have suspicion between the holders and the Department, it is going to be interfered with at every stage. I should regret extremely if the Secretary of State were to persist in his present view of not accepting the Amendment. Surely on these facts, support should come from the promoters of the Bill, for it was the Liberal party which created Land Courts. [Interruption.] And a lot of other things.
§ Mr. SKELTON
Among those good things are Land Courts. It is a curious paradox, having brought Land Courts into existence and having supported the principle in the days of unpopularity, that now the Land Court has at last gained general approval and confidence in Scotland as the appropriate legal tribunal for carrying out this independent legal work, they turn their backs upon it and disown the child which, in the face of much opposition, they brought into legislative existence. I urge the promoter of the Bill to think twice before he casts, by implication, this aspersion upon Land Courts. The Department of Agriculture, in the matter of land, should not be the final judge, and for that reason, above all others, I support the Amendment.
§ Major ELLIOT
Surely the promoter of the Bill will make some reply on this Debate, in view of the eloquent speeches which were made on the question upstairs. The discussion upstairs was led by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who not only supported this general view, but who, I remember well, fell into an acute controversy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who observed in the dialect which he knows so well, "If ye dinna' want tae be shot, dinna' gang amang the craws." The promoter of the Bill ought certainly to indicate whether he is going to support the attitude of the hon. Baronet, who was leading his party on that occasion, or whether he is going to abandon his party? If he is going to abandon them, what is his reason for so doing? I understand that there are other points later on in the Bill in regard to which he is willing to abandon the position he took up on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Let us have an explanation of this change of heart now? Is the party below the Gangway abandoning the proposal which the hon. Member then supported, that the Land Court should be brought into operation, and that the Department should not be judge in its own Court? Those of us who supported that view then brought forward certain arguments, and 758 the Lord Advocate said that if the new Clause were accepted, the compensation to the landlord could not be settled until after the scheme was in operation, and that would mean that the Department could not exercise its existing right to abandon a scheme where the compensation awarded makes it undesirable to proceed. That seems to bring up certain points as to why the Department desires to be judge in its own court. It rather strengthens our argument than otherwise. A judge who can withdraw from an action or decide it in his own favour, if there is any danger of the jury giving a verdict in the other direction, is a very awkward judge with whom to deal. Surely the justice of the case commended itself to hon. Members below the Gangway on the Committee stage. The arguments for it have been traversed on the Report stage, and we are entitled to ask why they have changed their view and whether it is not possible to ask for some support from the promoters of the Bill. At an earlier stage, I fell out of order for trying to lead on my own Bill, and I Should be sorry if the example which I set should lead the promoter of the Bill into complete silence.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I think the House is entitled to have an answer from the promoter of the Bill as to his position. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that there was a defect in the Clause. He stated that the landlord did not exist apparently. He was indulging in a wide stretch of imagination almost verging on inaccuracy on that occasion. We desire to try and get this Bill through at the earliest possible moment, but I think we are entitled to an explanation why the promoters are against this Clause which seeks to remove some of the gravest injustices and to clarify the Bill and, which will, on the whole, be of great advantage.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes. 49.759
|Division No. 302.]||AYES.||[2.45 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Potts, John S.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Herriotts, J.||Pybus, Percy John|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Alpass, J. H.||Horrabin, J. F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Arnott, John||Isaacs, George||Ritson, J.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Johnston, Thomas||Romeril, H. G.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rowson, Guy|
|Barr, James||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Batey, Joseph||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Sandham, E.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Kennedy, Thomas||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Benson, G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Scott, James|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Knight, Holford||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Lathan, G.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Lawson, John James||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Brooke, W.||Leach, W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brawn, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Lindley, Fred W.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Lowth, Thomas||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Church, Major A. G.||McElwee, A.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||McEntee, V. L.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||MacLaren, Andrew||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Daggar, George||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Dukes, C.||March, S.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Duncan, Charles||Markham, S. F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Ede, James Chuter||Marley, J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Matters, L. W.||Toole, Joseph|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maxton, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Egan, W. H.||Melville, Sir James||Walker, J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Messer, Fred||Wallace, H. W.|
|Freeman, Peter||Middleton, G.||Watkins, F. C.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Millar, J. D.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Mills, J. E.||West, F. R.|
|Glassey, A. E.||Montague, Frederick||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Gould, F.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gray, Milner||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Moses, J. J. H.||Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Naylor, T. E.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Hardie, George D.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Palmer, E. T.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Dr. Hunter and Viscount Elmley.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Albery, Irving James||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Berry, Sir George||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Savery, S. S.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lymington, Viscount||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Meller, R. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Muirhead, A. J.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Gaibraith, J. F. W.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col- Rt. Hon. Sir John||Remer, John R.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Mr. Macquisten and Mr. Skelton.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."760
§ The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 162.761
|Division No. 303.]||AYES.||[2.53 p.m.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Albery, Irving James||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Berry, Sir George||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lymington, Viscount||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Meller, R. J.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Muirhead, A. J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Fermoy, Lord||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Remer, John R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Mr. Skelton and Mr. Macquisten.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Herriotts, J.||Potts, John S.|
|Arnott, John||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hoffman, P. C.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Horrabin, J. F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Isaacs, George||Ritson, J.|
|Barr, James||Johnston, Thomas||Romeril, H. G.|
|Batey, Joseph||Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rowson, Guy|
|Benson, G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Sandham, E.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Kennedy, Thomas||Scott, James|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Knight, Holford||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Brooke, W.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lathan, G.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Shinwell, E.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Lawson, John James||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Burton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Leach, W.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lindley, Fred W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lowth, Thomas||Smith, Rennie (Penistont)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Snell, Harry|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||McElwee, A.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Daggar, George||McEntee, V. L.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||MacLaren, Andrew||Strauss, G. R.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Dukes, C.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Duncan, Charles||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Thorne, W. (west Ham, Plaistow)|
|Ede, James chuter||March, S.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Markham, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Marley, J.||Toole, Joseph|
|Egan, W. H.||Mathers, George||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Matters, L. W.||Walker, J.|
|Freeman, Peter||Maxton, James||Wallace, H. W.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Melville, Sir James||Watkins, F. C.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Messer, Fred||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Middleton, G.||West, F. R.|
|Glassey, A. E.||Millar, J. D.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mills, J. E.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Gould, F.||Montague, Frederick||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gray, Milner||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Moses, J. J. H.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Hardie, George D.||Nathan, Major H. L.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Naylor, T. E.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hayes, John Henry||Palmer, E. T.||Dr. Hunter and Viscount Elmley.|