HC Deb 20 November 1930 vol 245 cc777-805

"Resolution reported, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the better utilisation of agricultural land in Great Britain and the settlement of unemployed persons thereon, to amend the Law relating to smallholdings and allotments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

  1. (a) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain or the growing produce thereof of—
    1. (i) such sums as may be required for the purpose of financing the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation, to be established under the said Act, not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds;
    2. (ii) such sums as may be required by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister') for the purchase of land acquired by him under the provisions of the said Act relating to the acquisition and holding of land for the use as demonstration farms, and to the acquisition of land for purposes of re-conditioning, and for such other expenses under the said provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, five million pounds;
    3. (iii) such sums as may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as 778 'the Department') for the purchase of land acquired by them under the provisions mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and for such other expenses under those provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, seven hundred thousand pounds;
    4. (iv) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act, and for such other expenses for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure;
    5. (v) such sums as may be required by the Department for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of holdings for unemployed persons under the said Act, and for such other expenses in connection with such provision as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure;
  2. (b) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years, for the purpose of providing money for the sums so authorised to be issued or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund;
  3. (c) to provide for the payment of any such terminable annuities, in so far as payment thereof is not directed by the Treasury to be defrayed out of the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or the Agricultural (Scotland) Fund, as the case may be, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries or for the service of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof;
  4. 779
  5. (d) to authorise the payment, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament—
    1. (1) of any deficiency in the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or in the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund arising by reason of any excess of expenditure directed by the said Act to be defrayed out of that account or fund over the amount of the sums directed by the said Act to be paid into that account or fund; and
    2. (2) of any expenses incurred by the Minister or by the Department, or by the Minister of Labour, in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the said Act not hereinbefore provided for."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


When the House considered this Resolution in Committee, the Debate dealt chiefly with general policy. To-night we welcome the opportunity of dealing with the very large question of finance. Hon. Members opposite who seemed so surprised just now at the number on this side who are anxious to take part in the debate, cannot have appreciated that so far we have had no information whatever as to the speed at which the smallholding policy is to be put into force, or as to the burden upon the taxpayer which will be involved. Interesting as it is to discuss the general policy of the Bill and to point out the great waste of money and unproductive expenditure, I hope that tonight we shall really get down to brass tacks. We know the limits of expenditure for large-scale farming and for reclamation of land. Under the Resolution no more than £6,700,000 can be spent on those objects. We believe that that expenditure is unwise; we think it will do no good; we think it will lead to a great outpouring of public resources. I have already explained my opinions on that subject and I do not now want to deal with it any further.

But there is another part of the Resolution where no limit whatever is imposed, and to that I shall especially direct attention. There is no limit in the Bill or the Resolution, and the Minister of Agriculture can spend money to infinity. When he introduced the Bill perhaps he did not know how far he was going. Perhaps the unexpected support from the Liberal party and the encouragement of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) induced him to aim much higher than he orinigally intended. It was noticeable that he expressed surprise at his own moderation in only asking to waste £1,000,000 on large-scale farming. As he has not told us what smallholdings are to cost, we are bound to try to work out a rough estimate for ourselves. The programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is to place 100,000 families on the land. They are to be financed by borrowing. The money is to be borrowed on terminable annuities of 20 years.

In the memorandum we have been given figures of expenditure for holdings of each type, and the cost will vary, apparently, from £640 to £1,100 per holding. If we take the average, it comes to £870 per holding. Over and above that there is working capital. That working capital has to be advanced, as far as I know, with no limit. I do not know what may be the Minister's intention, but let us take these figures: 100,000 families would need for the actual purchase and equipment of the land £870 each, which brings it up to £87,000,000. Then there is the expenditure for working capital which, on the experience of what was done after the War, will be lost. We do not know how much that is going to cost the Exchequer. Is it going to be another £10,000,000" If so that brings us to the region of £100,000,000 to be borrowed for 20 years and repaid on terms which, I hope, will be explained to us. If interest and sinking fund are spread over the 20 years at a flat rate, on the 5 per cent. table, it costs £8 odd per cent. which means that the cost of borrowing this £100,000,000 for 20 years, would be £8,000,000 odd every year. Of course, it will not all be spent at once but we want to know over what period the Minister expects to spend this money, and at what date we shall reach the peak of the expenditure. Apart from this, which I believe to be the most important financial consideration, what burden would have to be faced in future years for the voted money? It is only fair to say that there will be something to set off against the voted money in the form of rents received, but we have been told that they will only bring in about 2½ per cent. on the money borrowed, and I want to know what the amount will be. It looks as if the gross annual cost borne on the votes will be about £10,000,000 a year. How much of that will come out of the smallholdings account for the 2£ per cent. which the smallholders are expected to pay in rent?

We would like to have that figure worked out, and we would like to know in advance what are the expectations of the Minister as regards the voted money every year. Apart from borrowing, there is also to be provision for training men up to £70 per head. I think that is, more or less, a flat rate estimate, and there is to be a payment of £50 per head for the unemployed as maintenance allowance, and on their farms. If a man draws both this represents £120 per head. I do not suggest that all the men will draw both, but taking it at 100,000 families, that might amount to £12,000,000.

What will they draw? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any figure? It is very possible that, apart from the £6,700,000, we shall have every year £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 as the scheme matures and reaches the maximum expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman avoided this subject on the former occasion, and I cannot help admiring his debating skill. No man, indeed, is better able to sugar the nauseous draught or coat the bitter pill. That capacity, which I am afraid I never possessed, has enabled him to get away with very remarkable proposals in the House of Commons without explanation. I hope he will not get away with it to-night. I hope that to-night he is going to tell us what it will cost, the speed at which he is going to work, and the maximum expenditure we have to provide every year for the borrowed money and for the training and maintenance of the new settlers. It will be a great relief to this side of the House to hear that my estimates are far too high, but I am very much alarmed, in view of what he said as to his moderation on the Committee stage, that he may be more tempted to please hon. Members below the Gangway and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who seems to have been the prime author of these proposals.


I should like to support the arguments which have fallen from my right hon. Friend. The opposition which we, on this side of the House, offer to the proposals contained in this Bill has not been modified but rather intensified by the lack of information which has been vouchsafed to us on these benches. The Minister in charge of the Bill has been strangely secretive, and that fact arouses suspicions, which I fear are not altogether ill-founded. A million pounds is to be devoted to the establishment of an Agricultural Land Corporation. What is the justification for this expenditure in the present hard times through which we are passing? We know that large-scale experiments have been made in other countries and have lamentably failed. What is going to be done with this large-scale experiment? Where is the land for the large-scale experiment to be obtained? What is to be grown on that land? How many farmers who are at present farming it are to be dispossessed? How many workers who are now employed on that land are to be thrown out of a job? Will they obtain any compensation? If so, what compensation? What good, anyway, is the scheme going to do to the nation, and where is the money coming from?

I feel that we ought indeed to have been furnished with further information before we are asked to sanction the expenditure of such a large sum of money. We have vividly in our minds the experience of the co-operative societies. It is generally held, even on this side of the House, that the co-operative societies have a great many good brains conducting the affairs of their organisation, and if they, with all those brains and reserves and with a market lying at their doors, were unable to make a success of the land that they farmed, how can we expect the people who are to be brought in to manage these new large-scale farms to meet with success? We are entitled to some information on that point. I cannot see how the value of the expenditure of this £1,000,000 will come either to the producer or to the consumer, and I hope, at a later stage, to move that this plan shall not come into operation until it has received some affirmative Resolution in this House or in another-place, or, preferably, in both places. In, a scheme of this kind £50,000 or £100,000, is enough to spend on an experiment in hard times like the present; and, until the experiment has justified itself, it is not fair to ask the taxpayer to dig into his pocket to find £1,000,000.

There is also the question of £5,000,000 for reconditioning. I would like to ask a, series of questions about that. What is going to be reconditioned? What does this proposal include? Is it a reclamation scheme, or what is it to be? A claim was made on the Committee stage of the Resolution that, as a large sum of money was spent on the roads of the country, it was only right that the House should be asked for money for the development of the land. If money is to be spent on reconditioning, some of it should be spent on turning the soft roadways in the Fenlands, which are passable only in the summer months, into good metal roads, so that the land could be developed. When there is a funeral or wedding in the winter months, it is impossible to move except by boat. Is any of this money to be utilised for drainage? Engineers had been examining great schemes of carrying the rivers out to the deep water on the East Coast, in order to prevent the land from becoming soured and sodden. The engineers say that the scheme is feasible. I do not know whether that comes within the scope of the proposal, but the spending of money on a project of that kind would give immediate employment to many thousands of men, and, incidentally, the result would be to reclaim many acres of land upon which eventually smallholders and others could be established.

I would like to draw attention to Part II of the Bill. I feel that the county councils are not being properly treated in this matter, and that they have a distinct grievance. They have been charged with the administration of smallholdings ever since the Act of 1908, and no one in the House can truthfully say that they have not properly discharged their duties. Then, however, a new organisation is being set up, the cost of which nobody knows; not even those responsible for the Bill have been able to forecast what the expenditure will be. I feel strongly that the sympathy of the county councils should be enlisted in this matter, and that they should not be estranged. Under this proposal, the whole of any loss will fall on the taxpayer. Under the 1926 Act, 75 per cent. of the loss is met by the taxpayers, and 25 per cent. by the county councils. The county councils should, as far as possible, be appointed agents for the development of smallholdings in their areas, and the funds which we are being asked to vote to-night should primarily, if not wholly, be administered through their agency.

The House yesterday was, perhaps, rather startled, as far as this House ever can be startled by anything said within its walls, by the pronouncement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he declared against dumping. He did not suggest any remedy, but at least it was a significant admission, and there is no doubt that if it is followed up something may be done to make it more possible for a smallholder to get a living in future than it has been in the past. To-night, however, we are being asked to give what is virtually a blank cheque, and I for one object, in these times, at any rate, to give a blank cheque unless and until we are given further information as to how the money is to be spent.


I can promise hon. Members that the agricultural watch dog is going to bark; but for the moment I am surprised at the cheers which greeted me from hon. Members opposite, because during the Committee stage mast of them who rose to speak congratulated the Minister on having introduced the Bill, and I am going to follow in their footsteps and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I would congratulate the Government on the excellent choice they have made of a Minister. The Government started by promising that they would make farming pay, and they have had a difficult and almost an impossible task, and there is no one who can—[interruption.] The Minister himself has said that it is high time that we as a nation made a considered and sustained endeavour to restore prosperity to and increase employment in the countryside. That is an admirable phrase; and he went on to say that no nation could go on from generation to generation draining the best blood of the countryside without having to pay for it. But we are not discussing the geniality of the Minister; we are discussing this Financial Resolution, and I suggest that it does nothing whatever to help agriculture. The Resolution performs two functions: it finances large-scale farming and it finances smallholdings. I have had considerable experience of both large and small-scale farming. My experience of large-scale farming is that it cannot be made to pay. I understand that certain protests have been made against large-scale farms—


I think we must get a little nearer to the Resolution.


I apologise for digressing, and I will now revert back to the Resolution, which proposes to limit the sum of money available to finance large-scale farming. I would like to give my own experience of large-scale farming —


The hon. Member had better keep those reminiscences for another occasion.


I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was very anxious to save the taxpayer from suffering loss as a result of large-scale farming. The second function of this Financial Resolution is to finance the smallholder. I have always been in favour of smallholdings, but my opinion is that the money which it is proposed to apply to financing smallholdings will not produce the results which the Minister of Agriculture desires. Our attitude towards this Resolution would have been difficult if some Measure to improve agriculture had been brought forward before this Financial Resolution to charge the taxpayer for putting on the land people who, in the present state of agriculture, will be hopeless in their efforts to make smallholdings pay.


With regard to the administrators of large-scale farms, I wish to know whether they are included in the Financial Resolution, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to pay the same rate of salary as that which is now being paid to the directors of the farm settlements in existence at Amesbury. I understand that at Amesbury £750 a year is paid as salary for a director in addition to allowances for rent and rates. He further receives a share of the produce that accrues from that large-scale farm. I ask these questions, not with any animus against that director, because I know that he is a very able administrator of that farm settlement, but I want to know the administrative cost of these farm settlements. We have not been told what it is to be. Is it to be £750 a year, with free rent and rates and also a share in any produce that accrues, as is at present the case at the Amesbury Farm Settlement, or is it to be more or less? The right hon. Gentleman, in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, declares that he is uncertain as to the cost of administration, but he admits that it will be large. It is of great importance that the House should know how much is going to be spent on administration.

The present small holdings and land settlement administration is managed at a cost of £76,000, and the present annual loss on these smallholdings is £850,000. The £76,000 includes the salaries of the surveyors, land officers and clerks connected with the Land Division of the Ministry, but does not include the large salaries that have to be paid in all the local areas. I understand from the Financial Resolution that these smallholdings are all to be managed from the Ministry, and if that be so it would appear that the cost of administration will be more than £76,000, with a loss of £850,000 a year. If this be so, I shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us to what extent he intends to enlarge the Land Division of his Ministry, and, in that extension, what salaries he intends to pay for that administrative work. Before we leave this Resolution we must know what the cost of the administration is going to be to the country. A short time ago we had from the Government a demand for increased salaries for officials. I fear, reading through this Bill, that we shall be asked for a great deal more money for officials in these Departments, and this at a time when every other country in Europe is cutting down official salaries.

There is another question which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer. He undertakes, in the Financial Memorandum, that a rent of 3 per cent. will be received on the capital expended on smallholdings. Does he seriously contemplate that these smallholdings of 10 and 20 acres will pay a rent of £33 a year? I should like to know whether he is restricting this estimate to smallholdings including orchards and market gardens, because in the North Riding of Yorkshire the smallholdings, on which it is a struggle to keep a family, cannot pay £20, and certainly not £33, a year in rent.

If that £33 a year is less, the financial return which the right hon. Gentleman is going to set off against these great administrative expenses to which I have referred will be sadly awry, and it will be a larger venture and even more financially disastrous than he ever reckoned. I should be grateful if he would give us some details of the administrative cost, because I do not think the House could leave this Financial Resolution with these words: The Bill will necessitate an increase in the Ministry's administrative and technical staff, but neither the extent of the Ministers' operations nor the extent to which the provision and management of smallholdings will be undertaken by local councils can be definitely foreseen. We are being driven blindly forward, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some estimate of the increased expenditure.


There are some questions which have been addressed to me which are quite easy to answer and some which it is impossible to answer, but I ask the House to notice what is the ground of objection behind them all. It is not that smallholdings have not, as a whole, been as profitable an investment of the nation's money as perhaps it has ever made. The objection is that we ought to spend the money on something else. It has always been something else. I will not peer into the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) that we ought to have spent it in some indefinite way that was going to make farming pay. In other words, it was to be spent in some form of dole. But if it had been spent in making farming pay in any other way, the expenditure would still be here and the burden on the taxpayer would be no less. It would only have been spent in a much less profitable fashion.

I will take the minor questions of the hon. Member who spoke last before I come to the major issues which have been raised. He asks me if we are to pay the kind of salaries which were paid at Amesbury and if our losses will be as great. I hope we shall manage this matter in a very much more businesslike fashion than the last Government. I hope our record in helping unemployed men to get allotments and those who want to get smallholdings will be a much better record. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking their own standard, but I am looking for something of a much more frugal and remunerative kind. Then the hon. Member asked how much we were going to spend on salaries to officials. I do not propose to surmise because it depends on the progress made with the scheme.

Let me come to the criticisms, first of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), and then of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness). The hon. Member for Cambridge asked me a series of questions, where was the land we were going to buy, how much were we going to pay for it, how were we going to get it, and so on. The opposition to this Resolution is on the ground of economy, and I am now asked to advertise where the land is that we expect to buy. I am asked to state on the Floor of the House of Commons where are these patches of ground which we hope to acquire and which will need reclamation, on the ground, I suppose, that the price that is asked will be less. I will tell the hon. Member why I do not say, though I should have thought he would know. In some cases I do not know. In some cases I do know. The reason I do not mention it is quite simple because, if I did, the price would go up at once. The hon. Member gave us an illustration so far as Clause 3 is concerned. He suggested that it would be better to spend the money on some road or other through a morass in order that weddings and funerals should go on it. He said that would have been a better method of spending money and it would improve the land. Whose land? It would, of course, improve the land on either side of the road across the quagmire, but we are proposing to improve land that belongs to the nation, and that is a better method of spending money than making a road across this bog for weddings and funerals, to improve someone else's land.


The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. He does not realise that in the fen districts you have some of the finest land in the country, but it is not fully developed in some cases owing to the lack of access to it. My suggestion was that it could be made available for smallholdings and other purposes if access were given to it by means of hard instead of soft ground.

12 m.


That does not affect the point. In this Bill we may propose to acquire that land and to improve it for ourselves. According to the hon. Gentleman, you would make the road and let somebody else reap the benefit. I suggest also that, if it, would pay to make the road in order to improve land which belonged to a number of different people, it would equally pay to make the road if the land were acquired by the State. In this particular Bill we have therefore limited the expenditure on reclamation to the land acquired, and, in my judgment, if the House of Commons took any other course it would probably create difficulties of a very intricate kind.

The criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) really resolved itself into a series of interrogations, as to how many smallholdings it was proposed to provide, in what time, and so on. The Financial Memorandum gives, as far as possible, a precise estimate of the cost of these holdings, per thousand or per hundred. We state precisely how much it will cost to train men; how much our allowances will cost. This is condemned, I would have the House notice, as a great waste of money in unproductive expenditure. It all depends upon how you view it. How are these men upon whom money is to be spent, otherwise engaged? They are unemployed persons. [Interruption.] The provision is for persons who are unemployed. That is to say, it is for persons who at present, on an average, are costing the State about £70 a year, with nothing in return.


When did you find that out?


Under this proposal we shall, by the expenditure of £70 for those who need it, get men who are trained for agricultural work. The sum of £70 is the estimated cost in respect of those who require training. Of course, a vast number will not require training. There are, in my opinion, tens of thousands waiting for a chance who will probably not require any training. I can imagine no more useful expenditure of public money than to enable one of these men to grow some food for himself and his family and to help him, as far as we possibly can, to become a self-sustained citizen. It is better than spending a similar amount of money month after month in keeping him in idleness. That is really the alternative presented by this Bill. That is what it does. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many men we shall be able to deal with in that way. We shall do as much as we can, subject to a wise and sensible choice of applicants, in putting them upon suitable holdings, and, where it requires market gardening work, in putting them upon suitable land.

We are proposing that they shall get proper equipment and shall not be at the mercy of any speculator who comes along. As far as we can we shall take every means to secure that public money is well spent and that it is spent under good advice and as economically as possible, but how many men of those who are waiting, when we have opened this door, will prove themselves capable of benefiting by these means, I cannot say in advance. I shall do my very best for as many as possible, and nothing would rejoice me more than to find that the number of men who prove suitable for the work and are likely to make a living out of it and become self-supporting citizens and get themselves off the unemployment register, is greater than we expected. It is on that account that I cannot give the number, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither now, nor in the Committee stage, nor at any other stage will he drive me into giving a number. If he were in my place, and the same remark applies to any other responsible leader, he would give the same reply that I have given. If he would not give that reply, then he would be, in advance, limiting the useful ness of a great scheme.

There is one remark that I should like to make in reply to what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I can assure him that we have no desire whatever to stand or work on any other than on friendly and helpful terms with the local authorities. The Bill provides, and it will very often happen, I hope it will, that they will gladly co-operate with us, but when we have said that, it is no use pretending that the progress of the smallholdings movement in this country, as far as we know that it could advantageously be pressed forward, is being pressed forward by the county councils in sufficient measure. It is not. Since 1924 the total additions to smallholdings in the whole of England is 673. That is an absurd number. Except in the case of a few counties, the work is practically stationary. That is a justification for our proposals. I am not blaming the county councils; I think they have been paralysed by the Act of the late Government, as they were paralysed by the Act of 1926. That brought the work practically to a standstill.


Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means? Is he aware that until the Act of 1926 was passed there was no power in a county council to provide a smallholding which involved any loss whatever. Far from paralysing any existing activity, it is only by the Act of 1926 that there is any legal power to provide these smallholdings.


The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the facts of arithmetic by talking about imposing a loss on the county councils. The fact is that the work came practically to a standstill.


The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. It is not a question of imposing a loss on the county councils. There was no power for a county council to create these smallholdings. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act he will see. You cannot paralyse a non-existing movement.


The fact was that there was what was called a clearance, a stocktaking. As a result the county councils were informed that hereinafter they would pay 25 per cent. and the Treasury would pay 75 per cent.


The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to get up in this House—[Interruption].


You are not entitled to get up.


If the Minister gives way the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a statement.


The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make statements in this House which can be shown to be ill-founded by anyone who looks at the Statute. [Interruption.]


Shut up!


Shut up, yourselves!


If the hon. Member does not cease from interrupting I shall have to tell him to leave the House.


The settlement to which the Minister refers was dictated by the Act of 1919. Purchases were to take place for three years. The actual losses were to be paid for seven, years from the date of the passing of the Act, and at the end of the seven years that settlement was to take place. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that under that settlement 75 per cent. would be borne by the State and 20 per cent. by the county councils. That is a complete invention. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he did say that that was what the settlement involved. I arm within the recollection of the House that settlement did not impose any payment on the county councils, and the provision of 75 per cent. loss by the State was for new holdings, which could not take place otherwise. For that reason again the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in saying they were paralysed, seeing that these activities did not exist and were only created by our Act.


I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not listen with as much care as usual to what I said. I said that there was a settlement. I did not say that that settlement meant a loss to the councils. I said that hereinafter the county councils paid 25 per cent. of the loss. That was after the settlement. That is true. When the loss was cleared up it was a State loss, but after that settlement the Act was so framed that any smallholdings provided after that time were provided by the county councils on the basis of the Treasury paying 75 per cent. of the loss and the county councils 25 per cent., and the result of that scheme for the provision of smallholdings was to paralyse the movement. The proof of that statement is in the fact that since that date the additional number of smallholdings provided in the whole of England and Wales is less than 700. [Interruption.] It is not that a great many of them are not getting a living; a great many of them are getting a good living, and taking them on the whole the smallholders have stood the bad times as well as any one. The real reason is first the imposition of the 25 per cent. loss on the county council and the second reason is the Act of 1929. Those are the two main reasons. I am not blaming the late Government. The county councils did not know how they were going to come out with the allowances under the Act of 1929, and have been averse to incurring additional expenditure. I am not blaming them, but if this movement is to be improved and put in good form to take advantage of those who can use and develop smallholdings the State must undertake the responsibility. I believe the county councils will be willing to help and become our agents wherever it can be arranged, and we shall do what we can to work in harmony with them, but it is hopeless to expect this movement to make progress on its present basis. That is the reason why we propose this scheme. We have given the estimated loss on every different type of holding. I believe that is a correct estimate, but I cannot say how many we shall be able to provide. We shall provide for as many as we can, and do it on economic lines.

The objection to this proposal is that the method is wrong, but the only alternative to providing these smallholdings to enable unemployed persons to do a self-respecting job of work, is to go on paying allowances to men for doing nothing. I do not know how many men we shall be able to help in this way, but seeing that the smallholding movement has paid in cash about 3 per cent., for the main part, that is not a bad cash dividend for a land investment these days. It is much better than most landlords are getting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite know that that statement is true. It is not denied that these smallholding enterprises may reasonably be expected, even with inflated post-war costs, to provide a return of 3 per cent.; the balance will be represented in self-respecting citizens who are able to support themselves and produce food for the nation. I believe that is a much wiser investment of public money than paying a greater amount for doing nothing.


We have, indeed, heard an astounding speech from the Minister of Agriculture. If I make a few remarks upon it, before I come to my comments on the Financial Resolution it is first of all, because of his final admission that 2½ per cent. is a great deal more than the average landlord gets to-day as a return. What happens then to the claim made from the benches behind him, by hon. Members who talk about the landlord class as the bloodsuckers of the country? The right hon. Gentleman admits that landowners would be delighted if they could make 2½ per cent. on their invested capital. [HON. MEMBERS "Three per cent."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say 2½ per cent. I will not say that the Minister is an ignorant man or that he does not know the agricultural situation. I will not say that he comes here as an unctuous man, but I will say that he has a great deal to learn about some of these subjects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you teach him?"] I hope that all hon. Members will take the Minister's own advice. I commend to my interruptor what the right hon. Gentleman said during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. If any hon. Member has any suggestion which will help us to improve and make more business-like the administration of the Bill, I shall welcome it gladly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1930; col. 345, Vol. 245.] [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not on the Bill now."] No, but we are on the Financial Resolution, on which the Bill is based.


What a brain wave!


One must first have a brain in order to have a brain wave. If the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) will allow me, I should like to take up some of the points made by the Minister. He said that he had stated precisely in the Financial Memorandum how much the Bill would cost. I look at the Memorandum-which, incidentally, does not bind the House in any way-and the first words to catch my eye are: It is impossible to state how many holdings it may prove necessary…to provide. Elsewhere in the Memorandum one finds such phrases as: the class of holding provided will depend on the qualifications of the suitable applicants, and, later on: On the assumption that, wherever possible, suitable land is acquired in the vicinity of the workers' home. and: The cost per person settled will depend on the time of the year the tenancy commences. The Minister says that he has estimated the cost exactly, but his own Memorandum begins by informing us that it is impossible to state anything exact about it. Really, the Minister must have been taking a liberty with the hour of the night. He says that hon. Members here are trying to get him to state where the land is which it is proposed to acquire; the idea at the back of his mind being that, if anybody knew what land was to come within the scope of the Bill, the price would go up. I assume that that idea was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I suppose that he is a Socialist nowadays and that is the sort of thing which Socialists think. But in Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill we find that when the Minister is going to take over any land compulsorily, he himself has to publish the fact in one or more newspapers, describing the area to be acquired. If that is not for the purpose of publicity, I should like to know what is the purpose. He also talked about improving the land which belongs to the nation but he had not specify what land belonging to the nation he intended to improve. Does that statement indicate a collaboration with the First Commissioner of Works in regard to Hyde Park or elsewhere? Is that the land suggested or is it some secret which we are not to be told? The right hon. Gentleman, in criticising the speech of one of my hon. Friends, said that the ground of objection to the Financial Resolution was not that smallholdings were not profitable—I dare say if we had gone into the question we should have been quickly ruled out of order—but that the objection coming from this side was that the money was not being spent elsewhere. It is a figment of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination. No one here ever said anything of the kind. We realise that this is not the time, having regard to the country's present financial straits, to make any expenditure at all on the lavish lines associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman.

We have had ample evidence in support of our view in the discussions which have already taken place on this Resolution. The right hon. Gentlemen during the Committee stage said "Why in the world did I not ask for more money?" I do not know. He did not answer the question for himself. Personally, I have a suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might supply the answer. "Why did I not ask for more money." What a pathetic thought—the Minister of Agriculture sitting there and worrying himself because he has only asked for £6,000,000 or £8,000,000—"or whatever it is,'' to use the expression of his colleague, the President of the Board of Education—and has not asked for more. Yet the Minister also said that he intended to avoid the errors and extravagances of the past. By doing so he may avoid the stigma of incompetence which was handed to him at one time by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But when all is said and done, that aspiration to avoid errors and extravagances does not seem to tally with the delightful question "Why did I not ask for more?" This Resolution is hopelessly loosely drawn and a great deal of money is involved. I ask the Committee to listen to what was said by the Minister's old friend who thanked him from the Liberal benches. There is a great deal of money which the Treasury will not see again"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1930; col. 306; Vol. 245.] That is "deep calling unto deep"—Carnarvon Boroughs calling unto Swindon. But the taxpayer will never seethe money again. The Bill has already been pretty adequately riddled on the Second Reading and, no doubt, during the Committee stage a great deal of discussion will arise on the various issues involved. As far as finance is concerned, it is exactly the hopeless kind of Measure which one would associate with the right hon. Gentleman. What is most noteworthy is the fact that during the two days and a fraction of a day over which these discussions have extended, we have not had a word from the Treasury. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury smiles and smiles but says nothing. We have no indication whether the policy of the Government regarding the utilisation of agricultural land is in any way linked up to their other schemes for developing the country, including that of subsidising grand opera. If there is any direct connection between the two—and it is hard to see any—one might expect some statement from the Treasury, but none is forthcoming. This is a bad Financial Resolution, and one cannot get away from the fact, even at half-past twelve o'clock in the morning. It is perhaps only fitting that, having spent the evening discussing education, we should now be let out of school for a few minutes to dance about the pastures and the green fields. But I call the attention of the Committee to this idea of the Government, because it is the crux of the situation.

What is the good of the Government coming to the House to ask for money for these large-scale ranches, or 'whatever they may be called, when at the same time they are draining money away from the land, through the enormous Death Duties raised on estates of landowners? Surely the obvious thing, if you want to see money going back to the land would be to remit—[Interruption]. I fail to see anything wildly hilarious in this. It only shows the complete inability of hon. Members opposite to appreciate any kind of economic argument. They are prejudiced in regard to landlords. The Minister of Agriculture stated just now that 2½ per cent. would he a wonderful return on their capital. What is the good of denuding the. land of capital which might be put into it by the existing owners and then using that self-same sum via the Treasury?

The Minister of Agriculture talks about having spent so much money in developing the rubber industry in Malay, and he asks why we cannot find money to develop our own land. But did the Treasury provide £8,000,000 to develop the rubber industry? Not a penny. The private investor did it all. What is the comparison between ordinary people in private enterprise putting money into developing various activities in what part of the country they may want to risk their money and the Government coming along and taxing people here in order to put the taxpayers' money into some other industry which may or may not work? The two cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is going to get his Bill through by that kind of argument, he might as well sit back and think again, It may be that he is going to drop all that part of the Bill and it may be that the present Prime Minister may follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He may say that this is too extravagant. At the same time, other sums of money have to be found for small holdings. It really seems as if the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have lost all sense of logic, of common sense. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of the criticisms made to-day, and will take the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see that he does not become as extravagant during the passage of the Bill as he has been during its inception.


I am sorry that this is the first opportunity I have had of saying a word on this Bill, and I wish to do so now on its finance. I come from Scotland where we are supposed to look after the pounds, shilling and pence, and I do wish the Government would be a little more careful of the pounds, shillings and pence. I rose to ask the Minister a question when he was speaking but he did not give way, and I would like to put the question now. He said that he was not going to tell us where the land was to be purchased for these large-scale holdings. Will he kindly tell us if it is his intention to have any of these large-scale holdings in Scotland?


I can assure the hon. Member that Scotland will see to it that it gets its share.


Does the Minister intend to set up these large-scale farms in Scotland or not? I assume, as he does not reply, that he does not. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said the other day. He said that there was not going to be large-scale farms in Scotland, and, as the Minister refuses to reply, I assume that we are not to have them. Mark what that means. This Bill says that the only way to better utilise the land of this country is by large-scale farms. In Scotland, the farms are not going to be improved. Better utilisation of the land only refers to Part I of the Bill. That has nothing to do with small holdings. Therefore, we in Scotland are not to have the advantage of better utilisation of the land.

I am speaking for both smallholders and large farmers, and I say that we ought not to let the Financial Resolution go through if we can possibly help it, because farm servants and smallholders are going to be taxed to subsidise those whom you are going to put on the land. These unfortunate smallholders are going to have to pay for other smallholders who will produce goods to compete with them. Is that fair? Further, it has been stated that within the last 10 years 100,000 men have gone out of agriculture and into other industries. What is the good, then, of spend-

ing money on training when you have these 100,000 men already trained? We can save on that. We are also told that there are hundreds of men at present who are trying to get smallholdings under the present Smallholdings Acts. We are told that they cannot get them because it is so expensive We have waiting at the present time men who are willing to put capital into the industry by taking a smallholding. Why not create your smallholdings at once and let these men have them, these numberless applicants for smallholdings? If you look at the Report, you will see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a large waiting list. Why go near the unemployed at all? You have men ready and willing to go into these smallholdings if they can only get them. You can thus do St much more cheaply. It is possible, without spending the money which it is here proposed to spend, to achieve the same result. In the present circumstances, it would be madness on our part to spend this money when we can attain exactly the same result without further expense.

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

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

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 78.

Division No.19.] AYES. [12.43 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Compton, Joseph Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvi1)
Addison. Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Dagger, George Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Dallas, George Harbord, A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Dalton, Hugh Hardie, George D.
Alpass, J. H. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Ammon, Charles George Denman, Hon. R, D. Haycock, A. W.
Arnott, John Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hayday. Arthur
Asks, Sir Robert Dukes, C. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Duncan, Charles Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Barr, James Ede, James Chuter Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Batey, Joseph Edmunds, J. E. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Bellamy, Albert Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Herriotts,
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Egan, W. H. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Benson, G. Elmley. Viscount Hoffman, P. C.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Freeman, Peter Hollins, A.
Bevan, Aneurrn (Ebbw Vale) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Hopkin, Daniel
Bowen, J. W. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Horrabin, J. F.
Broad, Francis Alfred George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Brockway, A. Fenner George. Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Brooke, W Gibbins, Joseph Isaacs, George
Brothers, M. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Gill, T. H. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gillett, George M. Jcnes, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Glassey, A. E. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Gossling, A. G. Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Burgess, F. G. Gould, F. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Caine, Derwent Hall- Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Cameron, A. G. Gray, Milner Kelly, W T.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Cofne) Kennedy, Thomas
Charleton, H. C. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Kinley, J.
Church, Major A. G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lang, Gordon
Cluse, W. S. Grundy, Thomas W. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Law, Albert (Bolton) Oldfleld, J. R. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Law, A. (Rossendaie) Oliver. George Harold (Ilkeston) Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Lawrence, Susan Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Smith, Torn (Pontefract)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Palin, John Henry Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lawson, John James Paling, Wilfrid Sorensen, R.
Lowther, W. (Barnard Castle) Palmer, E. T. Stamford, Thomas W.
Leach, W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Peters. Dr. Sidney John Strauss, G. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W, Sullivan, J.
Lees, J. Phillips, Dr. Marion Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Lindley, Fred W. Potts, John S. Thurtie, Ernest
Lloyd, C. Ellis Price, M. P. Tinker, John Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert Pybus, Percy John Toole, Joseph
Longden, F. Qulbell, D. J. K. Tout, W. J.
Lunn. William Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Vaughan, D. J.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Walker, J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Baesetlaw) Ritson, J. Wallace, H. W.
Mc Elwee, A. Romerli, H. G. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
McEntee, V. L. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Wellock, Wilfred
McShane, John James Rothschild, J. de Welsh, James (Paisley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Rowson, Guy Westwood, Joseph
Mansfield, W. Salter, Dr. Alfred Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Marcus, M. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Marley. J. Sanders, W. S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Marsball, Fred Sandham, E. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Matters, L. W. Sawyer, G. F. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Messer, Fred Scurr, John Williams, T. (York, Don valley)
Middleton, G. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)
Milner, Major J. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sherwood, G. H. Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Morley, Ralph Shield, George William Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Morrison, Herbert ( Hackney, South) Shillaker, J. F. Wise, E. F.
Mort, D. L. Simmons, C. J. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Moses, J. J. H. Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Muggeridge, H. T. Sinkinson, George
Murnin, Hugh Sitch, Charles H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Noel Baker, P. J. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut,Colonel Edmondson, Major A. J. Reynolds. Col. Sir James
Albery, Irving James Elliot, Major Walter E. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Ferguson, Sir John Ross, Major Ronald D.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Fison, F. G. Clavering Salmon, Major J.
Bird, Ernest Roy Ford, Sir P. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Ganzoni, Sir John Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Boyce, H. L. Greene, W. P. Crawford Bassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Bracken, B. Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Brass, Captain Sir William Guneton, Captain D. W. Skelton, A. N.
Briscoe, Richard George Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinedine,C.)
Butler, R. A. Hartington, Marquess of Smithehs, Waldron
Campbell, E. T. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Castle Stewart. Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Southby. Commander A. R. J.
Coltox, Major William Philip Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Colville, Major D. J. Lleweilin, Major J. J. Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Thomson, Sir F.
Cranborne, Viscount Margesson, Captain H. D. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Croft, Brigadier.General Sir H. Marjoribanks, Edward Tartan, Robert Hugh
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Mitcheil-Thomson, Rt. lion. Sir W. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Cunliffe-Lister, RI. Hon. Sir Philip Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wells, Sydney R.
Dalrymple-White, Lt: Col. Sir Godfrey Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovi1) Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge) Womersoley, W. J.
Duckworth. G. A. V. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Penny, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Eden, Captain Anthony Remer, John R. Sir George Hennessy and Captain Euan Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 77.

Division No. 20.] AYES [12.52 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Ammon, Charles George Bellamy, Albert
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Arnott, John Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Aske, Sir Robert Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Benson, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Barr, James Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Alpass, J. H. Batey, Joseph Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Bowen, J. W. Horrabin, J. F. Price, M. P.
Broad, Francis Alfred Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Pybus, Percy John
Brockway, A. Fenner Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Qulbell, D. J. K.
Brooke, W. Isaacs, George Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Brothers, M. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) John, William (Rhondda, West) Ritson, J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Romeril, H. G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Rothschild, J. de
Burgess, F. G. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Rowson, Guy
Caine, Derwent Hall- Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cameron, A. G. Kelly, W. T. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Kennedy, Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Charleton, H. C. Kinley, J. Sandham, E.
Church, Major A. G. Lang, Gordon Sawyer, G. F.
Cluse, W, S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Scurr, John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Law, Albert (Bolton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Compton, Joseph Law, A. (Rossendale) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Daggar, George Lawrence, Susan Sherwood, G. H.
Dallas, George Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Shield, George William
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Shillaker, J. F.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Simmons, C. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leach, W. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sinkinson, George
Dukes, C. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sitch, Charles H.
Duncan, Charles Lees, J. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Ede, James Chuter Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Edmunds, J. E. Lindley, Fred W. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Torn (Pontefract)
Egan, W. H. Logan, David Gilbert Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Elmley, Viscount Longden, F. Sorensen, R.
Freeman, Peter Lunn, William Stamford, Thomas W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Strachey, E. J. St. Lo[...]
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Strauss, G. R.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McElwee, A. Sullivan, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) McEntee, V. L. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Gibbins, Joseph McShane, John James Taylor, W. R. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Moseley) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Thurtle, Ernest
Gill, T. H. Mansfield, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Gillett, George M. Marcus, M. Toole, Joseph
Glassey, A. E. Marley, J. Tout, W. J.
Gossling, A. G. Marshall, Fred Vaughan, D. J.
Gould, F. Matters, L. W. Walker, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Messer, Fred Wallace, H. W.
Gray, Milner Middleton, G. Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morley, Ralph Wellock, Wilfred
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Grundy, Thomas W. Mort, D. L. Whiteley, Wilfred (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Moses, J. J. H. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Muggeridge, H. T. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Murnin, Hugh Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Harbord, A. Noel Baker, P. J. Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hardie, George D. Oldfield, J. R. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Haycock, A. W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mayday, Arthur Palin, John Henry Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Paling, Wilfrid Winterton, G. E.(Leicetter,Loughb'gh)
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) Palmer, E. T. Wise, E. F.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Herriotts, J. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Phillips, Dr. Marlon TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hoffman, P. C. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Hollins, A. Potts, John S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel Courtauld, Major J. S. Ganzoni, Sir John
Albery, Irving James Cranbourne, Viscount Greene, W. P. Crawford
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bird, Ernest Roy Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Boyce, H. L. Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Hartington, Marquess of
Bracken, B. Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Brass, Captain Sir William Duckworth, G. A. V. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Briscoe, Richard George Dugdaie, Capt. T. L. Knox. Sir Alfred
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Eden, Captain Anthony Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Butler, R. A. Edmondson, Major A. J. Liewellin, Major J. J.
Campbell, E. T. Elliot, Major Walter E. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Castle Stewart, Earl of Ferguson, Sir John Marjorlbanks, Edward
Colfox, Major William Philip Fison, F. G. Clavering Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Colville, Major D. J. Ford, Sir P. J. Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Todd, Capt. A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Turton, Robert Hugh
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Penny, Sir George Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinedine, C.) Wells, Sydney R.
Remer, John R. Smithers, Waldron Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Reynolds, Col, Sir James Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Womersley, W. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W, (Sur'y, ch'ts'y) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Salmon, Major J. Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Thomson, Sir F.

Bill read a Second time.